Terrific Taxis Ellesmere Port Limited v The Pensions Regulator

1. By this reference Terrific Taxis Ellesmere Port Ltd (“the Employer”), challenges a fixed penalty notice of £400 (”FPN”) issued by the Regulator on 24 th April 2025.

2. The FPN was issued under s. 40 of the Pensions Act 2008 . It required the Employer to pay a penalty of £400 for failing to comply with the requirements of a compliance notice (CN) issued on 24 th February 2025. The Compliance Notice was issued under s. 35 of the Pensions Act 2008 . It directed the Employer to file a redeclaration of compliance.

3. The Appellant sought a Review of the Notice, indicating that it did not know it had to redeclare and that it did not receive any correspondence, including Notices, about redeclaration until it received the “fine” letter. The Appellant asserts this was a genuine error and seeks the penalty be rescinded. The Appellant says, “Surely fines should be reserved for those genuine trying to hide from the Regulator?”

4. The Regulator considered the application for a review and decided to confirm the Notice as the Appellant had failed to comply with the requirements by the date set.

5. The Employer referred the matter to the Tribunal, by undated GRC1.

6. The parties and the Tribunal agreed that this matter was suitable for determination on the papers in accordance with rule 32 of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, as amended. The Tribunal determined that a fair and just decision could be reached on the materials provided.

7. The Tribunal considered a bundle of 147 pages. The Appeal

8. Under s. 44 of the 2008 Act , a person who has been issued with a FPN and or EPN may make a reference to the Tribunal provided an application for review has first been made to the Regulator. The role of the Tribunal is to make its own decision on the appropriate action for the Regulator to take, taking into account the evidence before it. The Tribunal may confirm, vary or revoke a FPN and when it reaches a decision must remit the matter to the Regulator with such directions (if any) required to give effect to its decision.

9. The Employer’s Notice of Appeal seeks to challenge the FPN. The Appellant asserts that the CN was never received. The first the Appellant knew about the penalty was when it received the “fine” letter, which the Tribunal takes to be the FPN.

10. The Regulator maintains that the CN and FPN were all sent to the same registered office of the Appellant in accordance with s303 of the Pensions Act 2004 , and therefore served.

11. The Appellant seeks to rescind the FPN arguing service is not proved. Nothing more than a bare assertion of the same is however advanced.

12. They also argue that they acted promptly to rectify things as soon as they were aware, obtaining compliance within 20 minutes they say. Conclusion

13. The Tribunal looked at and considered the papers before it with care.

14. The first issue was whether the Notices, or any of them, had been served upon the Appellant. As Judge O’Connor said in Kamau that is a matter for the Respondent to prove. Here there is clear evidence the notices were produced and sent to the registered address of the Appellant company and accordingly it seems to the Tribunal to be clear that the Respondent has met its burden. JM Kamau Ltd v The Pensions Regulator [2025] UKFTT 484 (GRC)

15. The Appellant makes a bare assertion that the Notices were not received. It is just an assertion. There is nothing to corroborate or confirm the position advanced. As was made clear in London Borough of Southwark v Akhtar [2017] UKUT 150 a mere assertion is not enough to displace the presumption of service.

16. As a result I find that the notices were sent to the correct address by the Regulator. I find that no evidence has been advanced that displaces the presumption. Accordingly, applying section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 , the notices were received by the Appellant.

17. Having proved service as a result, the penalties become payable.

18. The Appellant asserts that as soon as it became aware that it actioned the problem and complied promptly. It argues that it wasn’t trying to hide or break the rules and accordingly the penalty is unfair.

19. Firstly, having accepted that the Notices were properly served, it seems a little unusual that the CN and reminders that pre-date the CN were not received. Secondly, the fact that the FPN was received, but nothing else seems a bit of a coincidence. Thirdly, the rules about declarations and more are set out in detail at the outset of the schemes and the suggestion that it was not known that a declaration was required the Tribunal finds difficult to accept. In summary the Tribunal struggles to accept that the CN was not given the attention it deserved.

20. Whatever the position it is the Appellant’s responsibility to comply with the law. It failed, and accordingly a penalty was appropriate. The penalty is fixed by Parliament at a level deemed fair and appropriate. There is no discretion over the amount to pay. Whilst, there is always discretion to say in appropriate cases that a breach is technical or de minimis such that a penalty may be inappropriate, this is not one of those cases. The breach is made out and the penalty here is entirely appropriate.

21. Accordingly the reference is remitted with the penalty being upheld.