TPM Cleaning & Facilities Ltd v The Pensions Regulator

Relevant Chronology 31 May 2024 Date for Appellant to submit Re-Declaration of Compliance 24 June 2024 CN issued 21 August 2024 FPN issued – number 170275771104 20 September 2024 EPN issued 20 September 2024 Unpaid Penalty Reminder issued 01 October 2024 Application made for review of the FPN 01 October 2024 Re-Declaration of Compliance was submitted, acknowledged to TPR on 02 October 2024 09 October 2024 TPR responded to request for review by stating no review had been carried out 17 October 2024 Notice of Appeal lodged ?? April 2025 GRC acknowledge receipt of reference 02 June 2025 TPR applies for strike out of the reference 10 October 2025 Tribunal Judge Harris refuses to strike out the appeal 17 November 2025 Certificate of Compliance from TPR Type of hearing

1. Both parties consented to consideration without a hearing; pursuant to rule 32(1)(b) of the GRC Rules, I am satisfied that I can properly determine the issues without a hearing. I have considered the Bundle comprising of 252 PDF pages and the Certificate of Compliance as set out above. Relevant Law

2. Section 1 of the Act establishes TPR as a body corporate. The objectives of TPR are, broadly speaking, to protect the benefits under occupational and personal pensions schemes, to maximise compliance with duties under the Act and to promote and improve the understanding of the good administration of “work-based pension schemes”. An employer’s duties include the automatic enrolment of employees by employers in a work-placed pension scheme, per section 3 of the 2008 Act. Employers are also required, every three years, to deliver written notification to TPR of how the AE duties have been met.

3. Section 11 of the Act enables the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring employers to provide TPR with information about action they have taken, or intend to take, for the purpose of (amongst other things), the setting up or maintenance of a work-place pension scheme. A necessary first stage of this can be the employer providing its name and address to TPR.

4. TPR may issue three types of notice under the Act. The first is a CN which can be issued under section 35 of the Act. Section 40 of the Act provides for an FPN to be issued if an employer fails to comply with a CN; the amount of the FPN being £400. TPR may then issue an EPN under section 41 of the Act if the employer has, amongst other things, failed to comply with a CN; an EPN sets a daily amount for whilst non-compliance persists, the amount is fixed by Parliament and depends on the number of PAYE employees.

5. TPR may review an FPN / EPN and, whilst any review is on-going, enforcement of that Notice is suspended.

6. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is derived from Section 44 of the Act, which provides: (1) A person to whom a notice is issued under section 40 or 41 may, if one of the conditions in subsection (2) is satisfied, make a reference to the Tribunal in respect of – (a) the issue of the notice. (b) the amount of the penalty payable under the notice. (2) The conditions are – (a) that the Regulator has completed a review of the notice under section 43. (b) that the person to whom the notice was issued has made an application for the review of the notice under section 43(1)(a) and the Regulator has determined not to carry out such a review…”

7. Review of notices is dealt with in Section 43 of the Act, which provides: (1) The Regulator may review a notice to which this section applies— (a) on the written application of the person to whom the notice was issued, or (b) if the Regulator otherwise considers it appropriate. (2) This section applies to— (a) a compliance notice issued under section 35; (b) a third party compliance notice issued under section 36; (c) an unpaid contributions notice issued under section n37; (d) a fixed penalty notice issued under section 40; (e) an escalating penalty notice issued under section 41. (3) Regulations may prescribe the period within which— (a) an application to review a notice may be made under subsection (1)(a); (b) a notice may be reviewed under subsection (1)(b). (4) On a review of a notice, the effect of the notice is suspended for the period beginning when the Regulator determines to carry out the review and ending when the review is completed. (5) In carrying out a review, the Regulator must consider any representations made by the person to whom the notice was issued. (6) The Regulator’s powers on a review include power to— (a) confirm, vary or revoke the notice; (b) substitute a different notice.

8. Regulation 15 of the Regulations provides: (1) The period within which an application to review a notice may be made under section 43(1)(a) the Act (written application of a person) is 28 days, starting from the day a notice is issued to a person. (2) The period within which a notice may be reviewed under section 43(1)(b) of the Act (review by the Regulator) is 18 months, starting from the day a notice is issued to a person. (3) The presumptions in paragraph (4) apply where notices to which section 43 applies are issued (including compliance notices issued under section 51 of the Act and penalty notices issued under section 52 of the Act). (4) For the purposes of this regulation, it is presumed that— (a) where a notice is given a date by the Regulator, it was posted or otherwise sent on that day; (b) if a notice is posted or otherwise sent to a person’s last known or notified address, it was issued on the day on which that notice was posted or otherwise sent; and (c) a notice was received by the person to whom it was addressed.

9. This Tribunal only has jurisdiction if the FPN/EPN was issued (a factual issue), received (a legal question) and reviewed (a factual issue).

10. I apply the decision of Chamber President O’Connor in JM Kamau Limited v The Pensions Regulator [2025] UKFTT 484 (GRC) Found here: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukftt/grc/2025/484?query=kamau (“the Kamau Appeal”), including the acceptance of the evidence in that appeal on TPR’s process meaning that no witness statement from TPR is needed in this appeal. TPR did not, in this appeal, disclose any examples of the system going wrong; TPR did confirm in their strike out application that they relied on the evidence of Ms Doherty (as required by paragraph 82 of the Kamau Appeal) and provided screenshots (as required by paragraph 84 of the Kamau Appeal).

11. Therefore, the Tribunal when determining if it has jurisdiction to consider an appeal against this FPN must ask and answer two questions: a. As a matter of fact, was the FPN 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 received by the Appellant and, if so, when?

12. The Tribunal’s powers are wide, the Act provides, at section 103 : (3) On a reference, the tribunal concerned must determine what (if any) is the appropriate action for the Regulator to take in relation to the matter referred to it.

13. This Tribunal makes its own decision based on the evidence provided to it. Evidence and submissions

14. The Grounds of Appeal (bundle page 10) are signed by Bulpitt Crocker Taxation Limited (“BCTL”) as representative of the Appellant: a. The “letters” dated 24 June 2024 and 6 August 2024 were not received by the Appellant. b. Only the letter (i.e. FPN) of 21 August 2024 was received and that was received on 30 September 2024. c. The Appellant always passes to BCTL any paperwork relating to any part of their business as soon as it is received. d. The Appellant’s address has now been updated to BCTL’s address.

15. TPR applied for the appeal to be struck out in that application (see pages 32 to 44 of the bundle) they submit: a. They rely on Ms Doherty’s evidence (see paragraphs 45 and 46 of the strike out application). b. There is no evidence of the FPN being received late, just an assertion which is insufficient to rebut the presumption of service.

16. TPR’s initial application was for the appeal to be struck out. That was refused by Judge Harris in Case Management Directions made on 10 October 2025 (see bundle page 28 to 31). Judge Harris’s reasons include the following observations: …

13. I do not agree that the Appellant has currently provided credible evidence to rebut the presumption of service. However, I find that it would be in accordance with the overriding objective to give the Appellant the opportunity to present such evidence to a full hearing.

14. The Appellant will need to show that the notices were not received at the company’s registered office address at all (as opposed to correctly delivered but then overlooked). This evidence could include a witness statement explaining the process of receiving post at the office, and how and when the Appellant first became aware of communications from the Regulator. I do not suggest that such evidence will necessarily be sufficient to rebut the presumption of service. This will be a matter for the Tribunal deciding the final hearing. However, in the circumstances, particularly the fact that the case will proceed to a paper determination, and bearing in mind the overriding objective to deal with cases fairly and justly, particularly in relation to ensuring, so far as practicable, that the parties are able to participate fully in proceedings, I consider that he Appellant should have an opportunity to present further evidence on this point.

15. I refuse the application for strike out and the matter will therefore be listed for a full hearing, albeit that it will be determined on the papers. The hearing will consider (a) whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction in relation to the proceedings, and (b) if so, whether the reference should succeed. The Appellant can present any additional evidence at this hearing. The Regulator can also provide evidence of screenshots of relevant tabs from its IT system in accordance with paragraph 84 in [ Kamau Limited v The Pensions Regulator [2025] UKFTT 00425 ], together with any further evidence that it wishes to present. Consideration

17. The Appellant’s own case that the FPN was received late means they must accept that it was issued. For completeness I find that it was issued in a manner prescribed by section 303 of the Act and that it was issued on the date on its face – 21 August 2024.

18. The Appellant, despite having been sent Judge Harris’s Directions which included helpful information about sensible next steps, has not provided any witness statement about what happened or what may have happened to mean that the FPN only arrived at the relevant address (or with the relevant person) on 30 September 2024. It is for the Appellant to rebut the presumption that the FPN, which is properly addressed, was not received. I find, as a matter of law, that the FPN was delivered to the correct address and, even though it may not have reached the hands of the Appellant’s owner, the Interpretation Act 1978 section 7 allows me to find that it was received by the Appellant “ at the time the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post ”.

19. Therefore, the request for review was outside the 28-day period, meaning that the Appellant did not have the right to a review. TPR refused to conduct a discretionary review of the FPN and, therefore, this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider a reference. Conclusion

20. Pursuant to rule 8(2) of the Rules the Tribunal “ must strike out the whole or part of the proceedings if the Tribunal does not (a) have jurisdiction in relation to the proceedings or that part of them…” . These proceedings are, consequently, struck out. Signed Date: Judge Worth 23 January 2026