Max KR Ltd v The Pensions Regulator [2026] UKFTT 751 (GRC)
Background:
[1]This appeal concerns a Fixed Penalty Notice (“FPN”) issued under section 40 of the Pensions Act 2008 on 14 October 2025 in the sum of £400.[2]The FPN was issued following alleged non-compliance with an Unpaid Contributions Notice (“UCN”) dated 19 August 2025.[3]The UCN required the Appellant to pay outstanding pension contributions for the period 1 February 2025 to 30 June 2025 and provide evidence of compliance by 29 September 2025.[4]The Appellant did not comply with those requirements by the specified deadline.Findings of fact:
[5]On 4 August 2025 the Respondent received a report from NEST indicating that pension contributions remained outstanding for the relevant period.[6]The Respondent issued the UCN on 19 August 2025, requiring full compliance by 29 September 2025.[7]A reminder email was sent on 8 September 2025 emphasising the impending deadline.[8]The Appellant did not comply by 29 September 2025.[9]The Respondent issued the FPN on 14 October 2025.[10]Contributions for February–May 2025 were only received between 7 and 10 November 2025.[11]The Tribunal find that the Appellant failed to comply with the UCN by the statutory deadline.Reasonable excuse:
[12]The Appellant relies on alleged difficulties with a direct debit mandate and the pension provider.[13]The Tribunal reject that explanation as constituting a reasonable excuse.[14]The Appellant has produced no documentary evidence of any direct debit failure or bank engagement.[15]There is no evidence of contemporaneous contact with either the bank or the pension provider to resolve the issue.[16]Repeated warnings from NEST were issued over several months without effective action being taken.[17]The Appellant’s accountant accepted that no records were retained of attempts to resolve the issue.[18]The Tribunal find that the Appellant’s case is unsupported by evidence and amounts to a bare assertion.[19]In Keith’s Rubbish Clearance Ltd v The Pensions Regulator (PEN/2020/0203), it was emphasised that a bare assertion of difficulty is insufficient to establish a reasonable excuse.[20]The Tribunal adopt that reasoning.Service:
[21]The Appellant asserts that it did not receive the UCN until a later date.[22]The Respondent issued the UCN to the Appellant’s registered office address as recorded at Companies House.[23]Statutory presumptions of service apply where notices are properly addressed and sent.[24]The Appellant has provided no corroborative evidence of non-receipt, no evidence of postal disruption, and no evidence of misdirection.[25]The submission amounts to a bare denial.[26]The Tribunal find that the Appellant has failed to rebut the statutory presumption of service.[27]The reasoning in London Borough of Southwark v Akhter [2017] UKUT 150 and Keith’s Rubbish Clearance confirms that a bare assertion is insufficient to displace the presumption.Late compliance:
[28]The Appellant relies upon the fact that contributions were eventually paid.[29]That submission does not avail the Appellant.[30]The statutory question is whether the Appellant complied with the UCN by 29 September 2025.[31]It did not.[32]The payments in November 2025 occurred only after the FPN was issued.[33]Subsequent compliance does not negate liability for an FPN lawfully issued following earlier non-compliance.Other grounds:
[34]The Appellant submits that it is a small business and that the penalty is harsh.[35]The penalty amount is fixed by statute at £400 and cannot be varied by the Tribunal.[36]That submission is therefore legally irrelevant to liability.Conclusion:
[37]The evidential position is clear: a). the Appellant failed to comply with the UCN by the prescribed date;b) no reasonable excuse has been established;c) the statutory presumptions of service have not been rebutted;d) later compliance is legally irrelevant to liability.[38]There is no material factual dispute capable of affecting the outcome.[39]The Respondent acted within its statutory powers in issuing the FPN.Decision:
[40]The Burden is on the Appellant to establish a reasonable excuse and where relevant, to rebut statutory presumptions. The Tribunal is not satisfied that burden has been discharged.[41]In the circumstances the appeal is dismissed.[42]The Fixed Penalty Notice is confirmed. Judge Brian Kennedy KC 19 May 2026.