Understanding Why Your Auto-Enrolment Penalty Appeal Might Be Dismissed for Lacking Jurisdiction

NCN: [2026] UKFTT 00915 (GRC) Case Reference: FT/PEN/2025/0177 First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Pensions Decided without a hearing Decision given on: 22 nd June 2026 Before JUDGE TAFT Between [APPELLANT] T/A P.R. TEXTILES Appellant (by Reference) and THE PENSIONS REGULATOR Respondent Decision: The appeal by reference is Dismissed. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal. REASONS Definitions CN Compliance Notice Re-DOC Re-Declaration of Compliance EPN Escalating Penalty Notice FPN Fixed Penalty Notice TPR The Pensions Regulator Introduction 1. [APPELLANT] appeals by reference decisions of TPR on 31 August 2023 to issue an FPN numbered 112924562146, imposing a penalty of £400 in response to an alleged failure to file a DOC, and on 4 September 2023 to issue an EPN numbered 276520696549 imposing an escalating penalty of £500 per day that there was a continued failure to comply.

2. The parties have agreed to a paper determination of the appeal. I am satisfied that I can properly determine the issues without a hearing within rule 32(1)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 (as amended). Legal Framework 3. Section 1 of the Pensions Act 2004 established TPR. Its function is to maximise compliance with employers’ duties in respect of auto-enrolment under the Pensions Act 2008 .

4. Those duties include those under The Employers’ Duties (Registration and Compliance) Regulations 2010 (“the 2010 Regulations”), which were implemented under Section 11 of the Pensions Act 2008 . They prescribe information that employers must provide to TPR and when that information must be provided – within five months of the employer’s “staging date”. This is known as a Declaration of Compliance.

5. Section 35 of the Pensions Act 2008 confirms that: (1) The Regulator may issue a compliance notice to a person if the Regulator is of the opinion that the person has contravened one or more of the employer duty provisions. (2) A compliance notice is a notice directing the person to whom it is issued to take, or refrain from taking, the steps specified in the notice in order to remedy the contravention. (3) A compliance notice may, in particular— (a) state the period within which any step must be taken or must cease to be taken; (b) require the person to whom it is issued to provide within a specified period specified information relating to the contravention; (c) require the person to inform the Regulator, within a specified period, how the person has complied or is complying with the notice; (d) state that, if the person fails to comply with the requirements of the notice, the Regulator may issue a FPN under section 40.

6. Section 40 confirms that TPR may issue an FPN if in its opinion an employer has failed to comply with, among other things, a CN issued under Section 35 . The prescribed penalty is £400.

7. Section 41 confirms that TPR may issue an EPN if in its opinion an employer has failed to comply with, among other things, a CN issued under Section 35 , unless the recipient has applied for review or exercised the right of referral to this Tribunal in respect of the CN. The EPN is calculated by reference to a prescribed daily rate. That daily rate is set out in Regulation 13(2) of the 2010 Regulations and varies according to the number of employees. For between 5 and 49 employees, it is £500.

8. Section 303(2) (c) Pensions Act 2004 confirms that TPR may send CNs, FPNs and EPNs by post to an employer’s “proper address”. Section 303(6) confirms that the “proper address” is the address of the principal office of a firm or the last known address of a person. Regulation 15(4) of the 2010 Regulations creates a presumption that a CN, FPN or EPN was posted on the date indicated on its face and was received by the person to whom it is addressed. That presumption is however rebuttable [ Philip Freeman Mobile Welders Ltd v Pensions Regulator [2022] UKUT 62 (AAC) ].

9. Section 43 confirms that TPR may review a CN, FPN or EPN on written application or where TPR otherwise considers it is appropriate. Regulation 15 of the 2010 Regulations confirms a 28-day time limit to apply for a review and 18-month time limit for TPR to review of its own initiative.

10. Section 44 gives the right to make a reference to this Tribunal if (a) TPR has completed a review of the notice under section 43; or (b) the person to whom the notice was issued has made an application for the review of the notice and the Regulator has determined not to carry out such a review.

11. In Mosaic Community Care Limited v The Pensions Regulator PEN/2015/0004, Judge Lane found that TPR cannot determine not to carry out an out of time application for review so in that case the Tribunal had no jurisdiction. Whilst not bound by that decision, I agree with the analysis. Mosaic was criticised in Philip Freeman Mobile Welders Ltd v Pensions Regulator [2022] UKUT 62 (AAC) but in respect of a different point – whether or not the presumption of service is rebuttable.

12. In J.M. Kamau Limited v The Pensions Regulator PEN/2023/0160, the Chamber President addressed the issue of the presumption of service in the context of jurisdiction. Judge O’Connor held that the notices in that case were received because they were sent to the proper address, so the appellant had not applied for a review within the 28-day time limit. Therefore, the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction because no valid application was made for a review and because TPR had not completed a review. At paragraph 22, Judge O’Connor confirmed that in considering whether or not it has jurisdiction to hear an appeal, a Tribunal must ask two questions: (A) As a matter of fact, was the FPN and/or EPN issued to the appellant in a manner prescribed by section 303 of the Pensions Act 2004 , and, if so, when? (B) As a matter of law, was the FPN and/or the EPN received by the appellant and, if so, when? The Decisions 13. On 3 August 2023, TPR issued an FPN of £400 to [APPELLANT]. On 4 September 2023, TPR issued an EPN imposing an escalating penalty of £500 per day that there was a continued failure to comply.

14. On 26 June 2025, [APPELLANT] requested a review of the decisions. TPR replied on 30 June 2025 to explain that they could not accept the request for review because he was outside the 28-day deadline and that they could not carry out a review at their own initiative because this was outside the 18-month time limit. The Appeal 15. [APPELLANT]’s Notice of Appeal dated 15 July 2025 partially copies his request for a review. I consider that the main thrust of the appeal is that he claims not to have received any correspondence from TPR until receipt of an Order for Recovery from Birmingham County Court on 23 June 2025. He claims that until then he had no knowledge of any compliance issue or investigation. The GRC1 Notice of Appeal also states that he believes that TPR had an incomplete address for him.

16. TPR applied to strike out the Appeal on 27 October 2025. The application to strike out was dismissed. TPR then filed a Response dated 28 January 2026. TPR states that: (a) TPR sent two reminder letters on 20 September 2022 and 28 February 2023 to remind [APPELLANT] that he needed to complete his second Re-DOC by 30 May 2023; (b) TPR then sent a CN on 8 June 2023 extending the deadline to 19 July 2023; (c) TPR then issued the FPN on 3 August 2023, which provided additional time to 31 August 2023; (d) The EPN provided additional time to 1 October 2023; (e) A reminder was sent re the FPN on 4 September 2023; (f) A reminder was sent re the EPN on 2 October 2023; (g) A reminder was sent re both FPN and EPN on 13 October 2023; (h) TPR contacted [APPELLANT] by telephone on 24 October 2023 during which he requested an email, providing an email address; (i) TPR then sent an email to that address with the CN, FPN and EPN attached; (j) [APPELLANT] has confirmed that email address in three separate telephone calls; (k) TPR sent a letter before action on 27 October 2023 claiming non-payment of the penalties; (l) [APPELLANT] telephoned TPR on 25 June 2025 after he received the Order from the County Court during which he was advised he had not completed his DOC, first Re-DOC or second Re-DOC, following which he made all three declarations; (m) The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction because no review was requested nor carried out by TPR; (n) There is a presumption of service; (o) Service was on the correct address being that provided by HMRC real time information – [REDACTED]; (p) Whilst TPR omitted the number 32, this is de minimis; (q) In any event, [REDACTED] is shown as the address on [APPELLANT]’s business website; (r) Googlemaps shows a single door entry to the premises for the business, with the number above the door being 31; (s) Whilst [APPELLANT] claimed on telephone calls that post goes missing if “Aston” is not included, “Aston” does not appear on the address on the business website or the address notified to HMRC; (t) [APPELLANT]’s Notice of Appeal is a bare denial of receipt so does not rebut the presumption of service; (u) In the alternative, [APPELLANT] was sent and given the notices by email on two occasions following which [APPELLANT] did not request a review; (v) TPR did not acknowledge that the address held was incorrect but simply updated the address to include “Aston” as requested; and (w) TPR does not hold incorrect information regarding the business start date: the information held relates to the date the business became subject to auto-enrolment duties. The Evidence 17. I considered a bundle of evidence containing 137 pages together with recordings of four telephone communications. Findings of Fact 18. I make these findings of fact on the balance of probabilities. 19. [APPELLANT] runs a business trading as PR Textiles. The business has a website with a “contact” page. The postal address given on that page is [REDACTED]. The email address given is [REDACTED].

20. HMRC have held two addresses for [APPELLANT]. Until 17 January 2012, the address held was [REDACTED]. From 18 January 2012, it is [REDACTED].

21. A googlemaps search of [REDACTED] shows a commercial building. Signage is incomplete but the google image, when zoomed in, appears to show that there used to be a “3” before the “1” that is shown. The rest of the signage includes a logo incorporating the letters “RAM” and “P.A. Fashions” as well as letters that may have at one stage spelled “textiles”.

22. TPR sent letters to [APPELLANT], Proprietor, [APPELLANT] T/A P R Textiles at [REDACTED] in September 2022 and February 2023 confirming that a Re-DOC was due on 30 May 2023. The second letter said in bold that non-compliance could result in fines. The declaration deadline is marked in bold. 23. [APPELLANT] did not file a Re-DOC by the deadline.

24. On 8 June 2023, TPR issued a CN to [APPELLANT] at the same address, requiring him to submit a Re-DOC with an extended deadline of 19 July 2023. The CN confirmed in bold at the top that a £400 penalty may be imposed if he failed to comply by the deadline. The letter goes on to explain what he needs to do and how to do it. It then states that if he does not comply he could be issued a £400 penalty and if he continues not to comply, he could be issued an escalating penalty that accrues at a daily rate varying from £50 to £10,000. It concludes by informing him of his right to seek a review of the notice.

25. I find as a fact that this CN was sent to [APPELLANT] at his last known address. This is the same address as is published on his website and very similar to that recorded by HMRC, neither of which contain “Aston”. I find that a letter addressed to [REDACTED] would have reached [APPELLANT]’s premises in the same way as one addressed to [REDACTED]. In doing so, I have taken account of the google images of the building at [REDACTED], which appears to be that of [APPELLANT]’s business. 26. [APPELLANT] did not seek a review of the CN and did not file a Re-DOC by the extended deadline.

27. On 3 August 2023, TPR issued an FPN of £400. This was also sent to [REDACTED]. I find as a fact that this letter was sent to [APPELLANT] at his last known address for the same reasons as I found that the CN was sent to [APPELLANT] at his last known address.

28. On 4 September 2023, TPR issued an EPN confirming that if [APPELLANT] did not comply by 1 October 2023, the penalty would accrue at a daily rate of £500 from 2 October. This was also sent to [REDACTED]. The letter sets out the right to apply for a review within 28 days. I find as a fact that this letter was sent to [APPELLANT] at his last known address for the same reasons as I found that the CN and FPN were sent to [APPELLANT] at his last known address.

29. TPR also issued a reminder notice about the unpaid FPN on 4 September 2023, to the same address. It is headed in bold and capitals “ DO NOT IGNORE THIS COMMUNICATION ”. In a red banner, it says that it is a penalty reminder about unpaid penalties. It goes on to detail the £400 penalty that is unpaid and how to pay.

30. TPR then issued a reminder notice about the unpaid EPN on 2 October 2023, to the same address. It is headed in bold and capitals “ DO NOT IGNORE THIS COMMUNICATION ”. In a red banner, it says that it is a penalty reminder about unpaid penalties. It goes on to detail that the penalty is accruing at £500 per day, that is unpaid and how to pay.

31. TPR then issued a reminder notice about both unpaid penalties on 13 October 2023, to the same address. It is headed in bold and capitals “ DO NOT IGNORE THIS COMMUNICATION ”. In a red banner, it says that it is a penalty reminder about unpaid penalties. It goes on to detail the £5400 penalty that is unpaid and how to pay.

32. On 24 October 2023, TPR called and spoke with [APPELLANT]. [APPELLANT] said that he was too busy to speak and asked for an email. He gave his email address as [REDACTED].

33. TPR sent an email the same day to [REDACTED]. The email begins “DO NOT IGNORE THIS REMINDER – UNPAID PENALTIES” and goes on to explain that there are outstanding penalties of £5400 in respect of the FPN and EPN issued after failing to comply with the CN. It attached copies of the CN, FPN and EPN 34. On 27 October 2023, TPR sent a letter of claim to [APPELLANT] at [REDACTED].

35. On 25 June 2025, [APPELLANT] called the TPR twice, explaining that he had received a letter from the County Court regarding TPR. He claimed not to have received anything from TPR regarding auto-enrolment. He gave his address as [REDACTED]. He said that he didn’t think that TPR had his full address. He confirmed his email address as [REDACTED]. The TPR representative said that she had the same address on file. [APPELLANT] claimed that letters without “Aston” go missing and that he believed that was why he hadn’t received any letters. He also complained that TPR’s records were incorrect in respect of the start date of his account – 2016 whereas the business started in 1982. [APPELLANT] was advised that his staging date was 2016, as auto-enrolment only started in 2012, and that his accountant should know about DOCs and re-registration. [APPELLANT] was advised that there was an initial DOC and two re-DOCs outstanding.

36. As requested by [APPELLANT], TPR sent an email the same day to [REDACTED] attaching copies of the FPN and EPN. On the same day, [APPELLANT] completed the Re-DOC. Conclusions 37. I have found as a fact that the CN, FPN and EPN were sent to [APPELLANT]’s last known address. 38. [APPELLANT] has not rebutted the statutory presumption that the FPN and EPN were received. The only evidence he relies upon is his assertion that letters that do not contain “Aston” go missing and are not received. I find this highly unlikely. I take judicial notice of the fact that Royal Mail uses postal codes to direct letters. A letter containing the correct business premises number, street address, city and postal code is likely to be delivered correctly whether or not it includes the area of the city in which the business is located.

39. Further, TPR emailed [APPELLANT] at the same email address he provided in telephone calls as long ago as 24 October 2023. That email attached the CN, FPN and EPN. This is inconsistent with [APPELLANT]’s assertion that he never received any letters from TPR.

40. Therefore, to answer the questions in Kamau : As a matter of fact, was the FPN and/or EPN issued to the appellant in a manner prescribed by section 303 of the Pensions Act 2004 , and, if so, when? The FPN was issued to [APPELLANT] at his last known address on 3 August 2023. The EPN was issued to [APPELLANT] at his last known address on 4 September 2023. (B) As a matter of law, was the FPN and/or the EPN received by the appellant and, if so, when? The FPN and EPN were both received by [APPELLANT] within a couple of days of 3 August 2023 and 4 September 2023 respectively. 41. [APPELLANT] did not ask for a review within 28 days of receipt. TPR declined to review because [APPELLANT]’s request was outside the 18-month time limit.

42. Section 44(2)(a) is not therefore engaged because TPR did not complete a review. Section 44(2)(b) is not engaged because [APPELLANT] did not request a review within 28 days of receiving the FPN and EPN. The Tribunal does not therefore have jurisdiction.

43. I therefore dismiss this appeal. Signed Date: 17 June 2026 Judge Taft