IMI Frank's Carwash Limited v The Pensions Regulator [2026] UKFTT 1130 (GRC)
Introduction
[1]The parties have both consented to this matter being determined on the papers pursuant to rule 32 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 and, having considered the material before me, I am satisfied that the appeal can properly be determined without a hearing.[2]By this reference, IMI Frank’s Carwash Limited (“the Appellant”) challenges a fixed penalty notice issued by the Pensions Regulator on 20 November 2025 in the sum of £400. The notice was issued pursuant to section 40 of the Pensions Act 2008 (“the 2008 Act”) on the basis that the Appellant had failed to comply with the requirements of a Compliance Notice dated 25 September 2025.[3]The Appellant requested a review of that decision on 9 December 2025. By email dated 12 December 2025, the Pensions Regulator confirmed that the notice would stand. The Appellant thereafter referred the matter to the Tribunal.[4]I have before me a bundle of documents running to 87 electronic pages, which inter alia, includes the notice of appeal, the Respondent’s response, and the underlying enforcement correspondence. I have taken all material into account, whether or not it is specifically referred to below.The Law
[5]The 2008 Act imposes legal obligations on employers in relation to workplace pension schemes, including the requirement to provide prescribed information to the Pensions Regulator within a specified period, commonly known as the declaration of compliance.[6]Where an employer fails to comply with its duties, the Pensions Regulator may issue a Compliance Notice under section 35 of the 2008 Act requiring specified steps to be taken (or not be taken) within a defined period.[7]If the employer fails to comply with a Compliance Notice, the Pensions Regulator may issue a fixed penalty notice under section 40 of the 2008 Act. The amount of such a penalty is fixed by regulations at £400.[8]Notices may be given by post to a company at its registered office address, being its proper address within the meaning of section 303 of the Pensions Act 2004. Regulation 15(4) of the Employers’ Duties (Registration and Compliance) Regulations 2010 provides a series of rebuttable presumptions as to the sending, issuing and receipt of notices, including that a notice was sent to a person’s proper address is to be treated as received.[9]In accordance with approach explained in Freeman and applied in J.M. Kamau Ltd v The Pensions Regulator, the Tribunal must distinguish between whether a notice was issued as a matter of fact and whether it is to be treated as received as a matter of law. Where a notice is sent to the proper address, the statutory presumptions as to service and receipt apply, and it may be treated as received even if it does not in fact come to the attention of the individual concerned.[10]By section 44 of the 2008 Act, a person may refer a penalty notice to the Tribunal following a review. The Tribunal’s task is to determine what (if any) is the appropriate action for the Pensions Regulator to take pursuant to section 103(4) of the Pensions Act 2004, considering all the evidence before it.The Facts
[11]The relevant facts are not materially in dispute. The Appellant’s duties start date was 1 April 2025, and the deadline for submitting its declaration of compliance was 1 September 2025.[12]The Appellant did not submit its declaration by that date. A Compliance Notice was issued on 25 September 2025 requiring compliance by 5 November 2025.[13]The Appellant did not comply with the Compliance Notice by that date. A fixed penalty notice was issued on 20 November 2025.[14]The Appellant subsequently submitted its declaration of compliance on 4 December 2025.[15]In its notice of appeal, the Appellant states, in summary, that:• it had enrolled with a pension provider and paid contributions from the outset;• there was no intention to avoid compliance and no harm caused;• it complied as soon as it became aware of the issue; and• the penalty represents a burden on a new business.Discussion
[16]The timely provision of information to the Pensions Regulator is central to the operation of the statutory scheme. The declaration of compliance enables the Regulator to assess whether employer duties have been met and is therefore a mandatory requirement.[17]I am satisfied that the Compliance Notice and the penalty notice were sent to the Appellant’s registered office address. It is not in dispute that the Appellant received the Compliance Notice. There is no evidence capable of rebutting the presumption of receipt. Applying Kamau, I find that the notices were received as a matter of law.[18]It is not in dispute that the Appellant failed to comply with the Compliance Notice by 5 November 2025. The statutory conditions for the issue of the penalty were therefore met.[19]The question for the Tribunal is what action is appropriate in all the circumstances.[20]I accept that the Appellant had enrolled with a pension provider and was making contributions, that there was no intention to avoid compliance, and that no specific harm has been identified. I also accept that the Appellant complied with its obligations once the failure was identified.[21]However, the obligation in issue is the requirement to submit a declaration of compliance within the prescribed period. That obligation is distinct from the obligation to make pension contributions. The fact that contributions were being paid does not excuse the failure to provide the required information to the Pensions Regulator.[22]The absence of intention or harm does not, of itself, render the penalty inappropriate. The statutory scheme is directed to securing timely compliance with mandatory obligations and operates by reference to whether those obligations were met within the prescribed timeframe.[23]The explanation advanced is one of oversight. In assessing that explanation, I take into account that the Pensions Regulator issued multiple reminder communications to the Appellant between May and August 2025, drawing attention to its duties and the deadline for compliance (Annex A, pages 27–30). A further warning letter was sent on 10 September 2025, identifying that the deadline had already been missed and providing an additional opportunity to comply within 14 days (Annex B, page 31). The Compliance Notice issued on 25 September 2025 then afforded a further extended period for compliance until 5 November 2025 (Annex C, pages 32–34). Notwithstanding those opportunities, the Appellant did not comply within the extended period and there is no evidence of any engagement with the Respondent prior to the expiry of the Compliance Notice deadline, as also reflected in the Respondent’s review decision (Annex G, page 21).[24]In those circumstances, I do not consider that the explanation advanced, whether taken alone or together with the fact of subsequent compliance, amounts to a reasonable excuse or renders the penalty inappropriate.[25]I accept that the penalty may represent a financial burden for a new business. However, the amount is fixed by legislation and reflects the importance of compliance. It is not open to the Tribunal to reduce that amount.[26]In determining the appropriate outcome, I have considered the matter in the round. On the one hand, I take into account the Appellant’s explanation, the absence of any deliberate non-compliance, and the fact that the required declaration was ultimately submitted. On the other hand, I attach significant weight to the importance of compliance within the statutory timeframe, the opportunities afforded to the Appellant to remedy the breach, and the failure to do so within the extended period provided. Weighing those matters together, I am satisfied that the imposition of the fixed penalty represents a proportionate and appropriate response to the Appellant’s failure to comply with the Compliance Notice within the time allowed.[27]Drawing these matters together, I am satisfied that the imposition of the penalty was proportionate and appropriate.Conclusion
[28]For the reasons given above:• the penalty notice was validly issued and received;• the Appellant failed to comply with the Compliance Notice; and• it is appropriate for the penalty to stand.[29]I therefore dismiss the reference and remit the matter to the Pensions Regulator. No directions are necessary. Signed Date: Judge Kiai 22 June 2026