Sussex HR Ltd v The Pensions Regulator [2025] UKFTT 394 (GRC)

[2025] UKFTT 00394 (GRC)Case Reference: FT/PEN/2025/0015
First-tier Tribunal
General Regulatory Chamber
Hearing Heard on: 2 April 2025Date 4 April 2025
Pensions
Heard: on the papers in Chambers
Before
TRIBUNAL JUDGE HAZEL OLIVER
Between
Sussex HR ltdAppellantTHE PENSIONS REGULATORRespondentDecision:1.The proceedings are struck out under Rule 8(2)(a) because the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in relation to the proceedings.REASONS
[1]This is an appeal against a penalty notice issued by the Pensions Regulator for failure to submit a redeclaration of compliance on time.[2]Under Rule 8(2)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, the Tribunal must strike out the whole or a part of the proceedings if the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in relation to the proceedings or that part of them.[3]There is a right to appeal against a penalty notice issued by the Pensions Regulator if(a) a review of the notice had been conducted by the Pensions Regulator, or(b) the appellant had made an application to the Pensions Regulator for the penalty notice to be reviewed within 28 days from when it was issued.[4]On 20 March 2025 the Appellant was warned that it was not clear they had a right of appeal, and was asked to complete the “Pensions – right to appeal” form. This form gives notice that the appeal might be struck out under Rule 8(2) for lack of jurisdiction.[5]The Appellant completed this form. They say that they received an email from the previous payroll provider on 18 October 2024 asking them to submit a redeclaration, and did so on 29 October 2024. They say that on 5 November 2024 they received a penalty notice dated 30 October, and have been attempting to query it with “debtrecovery:tpr.gov.uk”.[6]I have not seen the original penalty notice. I have seen an email from DebtRecovery@tpr.gov.uk dated 16 December 2024. This gives the employer name “Thomas Wright”. It states:
“We refer to your most recent request for a review of the above penalties dated 19/09/2024 and have determined that it would not be appropriate to carry out a review for the following reason (s): You are outside of the 28-day review deadline set by law which means we cannot accept your request for a review.”
[7]I find that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal for two reasons.[8]Firstly, neither of the essential preconditions for an appeal were met. The Pensions Regulator has not reviewed the penalty notice, and no application for a review was submitted within 28 days of the penalty notice. The email from the Pensions Regulator indicates that the penalty notice was dated 19 September 2024, and makes it clear that no request for a review was received within the 28 day time limit. The Appellant says that the first they heard about the penalty, it was too late. However, it appears that this is because they took over the matter from a previous payroll provider. The penalty notice was issued in September 2024. It may be that the previous payroll provider failed to ask for a review within time and/or pass on necessary information to the Appellant. However, that is not grounds for an appeal. The Tribunal has no discretion to accept an appeal if there has been no review and no request for a review within 28 days.[9]Secondly, it is unclear that Sussex HR Ltd is the correct appellant in this appeal. They are a payroll provider. It seems from the email I have referred to that the penalty notice was sent to their client, Thomas Wright. The penalty was issued to this person/business as an employer who had failed to comply with their obligations. If so, they would need to appeal the penalty notice – not their payroll provider.[10]I therefore find that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with this appeal. The proceedings are struck out.