B2B Workforce Ltd v The Pensions Regulator

1. In these reasons I refer to the reference to the tribunal by B2B Workforce Limited as ‘the appeal’ and I refer to B2B Workforce Limited as ‘the employer’.

2. This appeal was struck out by a decision of the Registrar dated 27 November 2025. The employer applied to reinstate the appeal in a GRC5 dated 11 December 2025. Under rule 4(3) of the Rules, within 14 days of a decision by a Registrar, a party may apply for the decision to be considered afresh by a Judge. I have treated the application to reinstate the appeal as an application for the decision to strike out to be considered afresh.

3. The appeal relates to a fixed penalty notice dated 28 December 2023 and an escalating penalty notice dated 29 January 2024 (the penalty notices) issued under section 40 and 41 of the Pensions Act 2008 as a result of the employer’s failure to comply with an unpaid contributions notice issued on 30 October 2023 by the deadline of 11 December 2023.

4. The Regulator applied to strike out the appeal under rule 8(2)(a) of the Rules in a GRC5 dated 12 June 2024 (‘the application'). The reasons for the application to strike out are that the Regulator has not completed a review of the relevant penalty notice(s), whether on written application of the appellant or of its own motion. The Regulator submits that the First-tier Tribunal does not, therefore, have jurisdiction to consider the appeal.

5. The Regulator notes that the employer does not dispute that the notices were served and received at the registered office address. In those circumstances the tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider an appeal where no review was undertaken. The Regulator submits that the tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider the employer’s arguments about a reasonable excuse for failure to comply.

6. The employer’s response to the application for strike out is contained in an email dated 23 May 2025: “1. Notice Reference No. 129651970789 was issued on 23 December 2023. In our grounds of appeal, we have repeatedly contacted the pension regulator via telephone to ascertain the reason for the penalty stated in our duly submitted letter dated 04 April 2024.

2. Despite our diligent efforts to seek clarity, the responses from the pension regulator remained vague and unhelpful, leaving us increasingly frustrated. Over time, their lack of transparency regarding the penalty further complicated the matter, and we were left grappling with uncertainty about the exact overdue amount or the reason behind the escalating fees.”

7. In the GRC5 dated 11 December 2025 the employer said: “Please note that we contacted The Pensions Regulator within the required 28-day period to address this matter and repeatedly explained our situation. Despite this, and despite the Regulator being aware that we were actively working to resolve the issue, the penalties continued to escalate. Unfortunately, our account with NEST was locked, and we have been making every effort to recover access. This technical problem has prevented us from completing the necessary compliance steps within the original timeframe, even though we have acted in good faith and maintained communication.” Discussion and conclusions

8. The employer has provided a number of reasons why it did not make an application for a review within 28 days. The employer misunderstood the fixed penalty notice and thought it related to failing to make a declaration of compliance. The employer had contacted the Regulator by telephone a number of times for clarity. The responses by the Regulator were vague and unhelpful. The employer had changed accountant in 2023 and lost its Nest log in. Once the employer had spoken to the Regulator, it took over a month to register and clear the outstanding contributions.

9. The tribunal has not been given the power to extend the time for an employer to make an application for a review to the Regulator. The tribunal has not been given the power to consider the reasonableness of the Regulator’s decision not to undertake a review of its own motion. Accordingly when determining whether the tribunal has jurisdiction, the fact that the employer might have a reasonable excuse for not submitting an application for a review within 28 days is not a factor that I can take into account.

10. There is no dispute that the Regulator issued and served the penalty notices and that they were received by the employer. It is also not in dispute that no application for a review was made to the Regulator within 28 days of the receipt of either notice: the letter requesting that the Regulator reconsider the decision is dated 4 April 2024.

11. The Regulator has not completed a review of the relevant penalty notice(s), whether on written application of the appellant ( section 43(1) (a) of the 2008 Act ) or of its own motion ( section 43(21) (b) of the 2008 Act ). In those circumstances the First-tier Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider the appeal pursuant to section 44(2) (a) of the 2008 Act . The appeal must therefore be struck out. Signed Date: Sophie Buckley 30 December 2025