Dee Haulage Limited v The Pensions Regulator [2026] UKFTT 407 (GRC)

[2026] UKFTT 00407 (GRC)

Case Reference: FT/PEN/2025/0181

First-tier Tribunal

(General Regulatory Chamber)

Date 16 March 2026

Pensions

Decided without a hearing

Before

JUDGE FINDLAY

Between

DEE HAULAGE LIMITEDAppellant

THE PENSIONS REGULATORRespondent

Decision: The appeal is dismissed.

REASONS

Mode of hearing

[1]Both parties consented to a determination without a hearing and I am satisfied that I can properly determine this appeal without a hearing pursuant to rule 32(1)(b) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, as amended (the Rules). I have considered the bundle comprising 148 pages. Background

[2]The Pensions Regulator, the Respondent, is responsible for the regulations of work-based pension schemes. Established by the Pensions Act 2004 (PA 2004), its objectives are set out in s.5 of the PA 2004. These include maximising compliance with Automatic Enrolment duties under Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Pensions Act 2008 (PA 2008).

[3]The Appellant, Dee Haulage Limited, is the employer for all purposes of the ‘Employer Duties’ under the PA 2008. Mr Jake Awoyemi has made representations on behalf of the Appellant in this appeal. He is an appropriate person to make representation being recorded as being a person with significant control on 1 April 2025 by Companies House (Annex I page 81)

[4]This appeal relates to the Appellant’s failure to make its Re-Declaration of Compliance (Re-DoC) by the required deadline of 31 January 2025.

[5]The Respondent issued a Compliance Notice (CN) on 24 February 2025 (Annex B pages 67 to 69). The CN extended the deadline to complete the Re-DoC to 7 April 2025.

[6]The Respondent issued a £400 Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) on 24 April 2025 (Annex C pages 70 and 71) when the Appellant failed to comply with extended deadline in the CN. The FPN provided additional time to complete the Re-DoC to 22 May 2025 and payment of the penalty was required by 22 May 2025.

[7]When the deadline of 22 May 2025 passed the Respondent issued an Escalating Penalty Notice (EPN) on 27 May 2025 (Annex A pages 65 and 66). The EPN set a deadline of 23 June 2025 to comply and it stated that from 24 June 2025 the penalty would start to accrue from 24 June 2025 at a daily rate of £500 until the date on which the Appellant complied with the CN or such earlier date that the Respondent determined.

[8]Mr Awoyemi, on behalf of the Appellant, telephoned the Respondent on 18 June 2025 (Annex D page 72) to enquire about the EPN and he was told when the EPN would begin to accrue and reminded that the Re-DoC needed to be submitted. The Appellant paid the FPN of £400 on 18 June 2025, the day of the telephone call.

[9]The CN was not complied with and accordingly the EPN accrued for six days from 23 June 2025 to 29 June 2025 to a total of £3,000.

[10]Mr Awoyemi, on behalf of the Appellant, rang the Respondent on 30 June 2025 to state that the Appellant could not afford the EPN. The Appellant submitted the Re-DoC on the same date (Annex F pages 74 to 77).

[11]Mr Awoyemi emailed the Respondent on 2 July 2025 (Annex G page 78) and the email was treated as a requested for review of the EPN which was outside the 28-day time limit. The Respondent, on 10 July 2025 , declined to conduct a review on the grounds that the application was received after the 28-day deadline (Annex H page 79).

[12]Mr Awoyemi, on behalf of the Appellant, stated in the email of 2 July 2025 that the Appellant had relocated offices in March 2025 and he was unaware that correspondence from the Respondent had been sent until a batch of post was forwarded by the former landlord.

[13]The Respondent invited the Tribunal to strike out the appeal under rule 8(2)(a) of the Rules on the grounds that the conditions of s.44(2) of the PA 2008 were not met and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction. The application to strike out the appeal was refused on 10 October 2024 (pages 22 and 23). This matter is not, therefore, before me for determination.

[14]Mr Awoyemi, on behalf of the Appellant, signed the Notice of Appeal in Form GRC1 on 21 July 2025.

[15]On 4 August 2025 the Respondent was informed of the Appellant’s reference to the Tribunal.

Conclusions

[16]Mr Awoyemi, on behalf of the Appellant, in the GRC1 Form dated 21 July 2025 (page 12) stated:

“At the time these notices were issued, Dee Haulage Limited had moved premises and did not receive any correspondence from the pensions Regulator. We were therefore unaware of any action required until it as too late to respond within your 28-day window. It is unreasonable to expect compliance with a process we were never made aware of due to a failure in communication beyond our control.”

[17]An email dated 2 July 2025 (page 19), sent on behalf of the Appellant, stated that the Appellant relocated offices in March 2025 and that the Appellant responded when correspondence from the Respondent was passed over by the Appellant’s former landlord. This email is sent from the same email address used by Mr Awoyemi but purports to come from ‘Jake Barnes.’ I do not consider this to be significant as was sent on behalf of the Appellant and the email address is the email address used by Mr Awoyemi throughout.

[18]I find that the CN was issued by the Respondent on 24 February 2025 (Annex B pages 67 to 69) and addressed to the Unit 1 address and this was sent before the Appellant relocated in March 2025.

[19]I find that the Appellant telephoned the Respondent to make enquiries about the EPN on 18 June 2025. I find that on 18 June 2025 the Appellant was aware of the terms of the EPN dated 27 May 2025. The telephone call of 18 June 2025 was 6 days before the escalating penalty started to accrue. The EPN made clear that if the Appellant failed to comply with the CN by 23 June 2025 the penalty would accrue at a daily rate of £500 from 24 June 2025. Notwithstanding that the Appellant was aware of the time limit and the need to comply, the Appellant failed to do so. I find that the Appellant was fully aware of the need to submit the Re-DoC in time to avoid the escalating penalty. The Appellant submitted the Re-DoC on 30 June 2025. The EPN accrued for the six days from 23 June 2025 to 29 June 2025.

[20]Regarding service and receipt of the statutory notices, I find that there was valid service and receipt of the statutory notices of the CN, the FPN and the EPN. The Notices were issued to the Appellant’s registered office of Unit 1. I find that on the evidence there is no basis for displacing the statutory presumption of due service.

[21]S.7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 provides that where a document is properly addressed, prepaid, and posted, it is deemed served at the time it would ordinarily be delivered, unless the contrary is proved. In this case, the CN, the FPN, the penalty reminder and EPN were sent by post to the Appellant’s registered office as recorded at Companies House. There is no evidence of returned mail or postal failure. The address used was the correct address. The Companies House filing history confirmed that the registered office address has remained the same throughout the relevant period when the statutory notice were issued.

[22]Regulation 15(4) of the Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Automatic Enrolment) Regulations 2010 provides that a notice served under the Pensions Act is deemed properly served if it is sent to the employer’s “proper address,” which ordinarily means the registered office recorded at Companies House. The onus is on the Appellant to provide the appropriate address for service. There is no material evidence of any error in addressing or any returned correspondence at any material time in this case. Service can therefore be deemed effective under Regulation 15(4), reinforcing the statutory presumption that the notices were received.

[23]The combined effect of s.7 and Regulation 15(4) is to create a rebuttable presumption of service and receipt. Once the Respondent demonstrates that notices were properly addressed, prepaid, and posted to the registered office, the burden shifts to the Appellant to prove the contrary on the balance of probabilities. Mere assertions of non-receipt or reliance on circumstantial factors, such having relocated, are insufficient. Cogent evidence—such as Royal Mail documentation of delivery failure or returned mail at any material time is required to displace the presumption. No such evidence has been provided.

[24]I find that the Appellant’s registered office address with Companies House was Unit 1 at all the relevant dates of this appeal and was the address used by the Appellant in the appeal GRC1 form (page 5).

[25]I find that the CN was served before the Appellant allegedly relocated.

[26]I find that Mr Awoyemi in the telephone call of 18 June 2025 made clear that he was aware of the terms of the EPN dated 27 May 2025 that if the Appellant failed to comply with the CN by 23 June 2025 the penalty would accrue at a daily rate of £500 from 24 June 2025. I find that notwithstanding this the Appellant did not submit the Re-DoC until 30 June 2025. The EPN accrued for the days from 23 June 2025 to 29 June 2025.

[27]I find that a responsible employer should have appropriate processes in place for handling statutory communications and complying with legal deadlines. The Appellant acted on and responded to statutory notices which were sent to their registered office address. The process the Appellant had in place for dealing with post correctly mailed to the registered office address was not appropriate and inadequate. I find that the grounds put forward by the Appellant do not amount to reasonable grounds and cannot amount to a reasonable excuse for the Appellant’s failure to comply with its legislative duties.

[28]I find there is a duty on the Appellant as an employer with workers as defined in the PA 2008 to be aware of its legal duties and to ensure full compliance and on-time compliance. I find that there is no record of the Appellant attempting to or completing the Re-DoC at any time before the CN extended deadline of 22 May 2025.

[29]I find that there were statutory grounds and it was fair, reasonable and appropriate for the Respondent to issue the CN, the FPN and the EPN.

[30]The amounts of the FPN and the EPN are prescribed in Regulations 12 and 13 of the Employers’ Duties (Registration and Compliance) Regulations 2010. There is no discretion as to the amounts of the penalty.

[31]Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Signed Date: 16 March 2026 J Findlay Judge of First-tier Tribunal