Briskys Ltd v The Pensions Regulator

1. The Tribunal dismisses the appeal with no order as to costs there being no application for same. The Fixed Penalty Notice (£400) and Escalating Penalty Notice (£2,000) are confirmed. The Appellant failed to rebut statutory presumptions of service or establish a reasonable excuse for non-compliance under the Pensions Act 2004 (“ PA 2004 ”) which is a key piece of legislation governing occupational and personal pension schemes and sets out the framework of the Pensions Regulators (“TPR”) powers and duties. The penalty amounts were correctly calculated and as prescribed by law. The Tribunal has no discretion to reduce them. Payment arrangements may be agreed with the Respondent. [Bundle: Annex A pp.37–38; Annex B pp.39–40; Respondent Response pp.25–32] REASONS Introduction:

2. This appeal concerns enforcement action by TPR following Briskys Ltd.’s failure to complete its re ‑ declaration of compliance by the statutory deadline. The Appellant’s grounds are non ‑ receipt of mail due to a damaged post box, lack of intent, and financial hardship. [Bundle: Appellant’s Appeal pp.22–23; Invoice p.23]. TPR sent the Compliance Notice, Fixed Penalty Notice, and Escalating Penalty Notice to the company’s registered office. There is no dispute about the address used. Under s.303(6) (a), PA 2004 those notices are deemed served. The Appellant attempts to rebut the charge of non-compliance arguing non-receipt due to a damaged post box but provided no material evidence in support of his arguments (e.g., Royal Mail documentation or indeed any evidence of financial hardship). Therefore, the statutory presumption stands. Background:

3. The re ‑ declaration deadline was 19 February 2025, notified via courtesy letters in June 2024 and November 2024. [Bundle: Annex J pp.61–63]

4. A Compliance Notice (CN) was issued on 27 February 2025, extending compliance to 9 April 2025 and setting out the steps to comply. [Bundle: Annex C pp.41–43]

5. Following non ‑ compliance, TPR issued a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) on 28 April 2025 (£400) and an Escalating Penalty Notice (EPN) on 29 May 2025 (£500/day from 26 June 2025). [Bundle: Annex A pp.37–38; Annex B pp.39–40]

6. The EPN accrued for four days (26–29 June) to £2,000; TPR sent a penalty reminder on 1 July 2025 and a Letter Before Legal Action (“LBLA”) on 16 July 2025. [Bundle: Respondent Response pp.25–32; Annex D pp.44–45; Annex E pp.46–49]

7. On 28 July 2025, the Appellant requested a review and completed the re ‑ declaration. TPR confirmed the penalties on 31 July 2025. [Bundle: Annex F pp.50–51; Annex G pp.50–55; Annex H p.57] Role of The Pensions Regulator:

8. TPR’s statutory objectives include maximising compliance with automatic enrolment duties. It applies graduated enforcement: CN ( s.35 PA 2008 ), FPN ( s.40 ), EPN ( s.41 ); amounts prescribed by the 2010 Regs 12–13. [Bundle: Respondent Response pp.25–32; FPN/EPN texts Annex A–B]

9. Service is properly effected at the registered office (“proper address”) under the Pensions Act 2004 s.303(6) (a), Interpretation Act 1978 s.7 , and of the Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Automatic Enrolment) Regulations 2010 Reg.15(4), creating presumptions of posting/issue/receipt unless rebutted. [Bundle: Respondent Response pp.27–31; Companies House Annex I pp.58–60] Issues joined between the parties:

10. Whether CN/FPN/EPN were lawfully served and deemed received and whether the Appellant rebutted presumptions. [Bundle: Annex A–C; Annex I]

11. Whether the Appellant established a reasonable excuse for non ‑ compliance. [Bundle: Appellant’s Appeal pp.22–23; Review request Annex F]

12. Whether the penalties were correctly calculated and any discretion exists to vary. [Bundle: Respondent Response pp.31–32]

13. Whether s.44(2) (a) PA 2008 jurisdictional precondition was met by TPR’s review. [Bundle: Annex H p.57] Findings:

14. Section 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 Compliance Notice, Fixed Penalty Notice, and Escalating Penalty Notice were each 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 Appellant’s assertion of non-receipt, supported only by an invoice for a replacement post box, does not amount to material evidence or cogent proof to displace the statutory presumption. Accordingly, service was effective under Section 7 .

15. 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. In this case, all notices were addressed and sent to the Appellant’s registered office. There is no evidence of any error in addressing or any returned correspondence. Service is therefore deemed effective under Regulation 15(4), reinforcing the statutory presumption that the notices were received.

16. The combined effect of Section 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. The Appellant does not take issue that the post was sent as indicated by TPR. Mere assertions of non-receipt or reliance on circumstantial factors, such as a damaged post box invoice, are insufficient. Cogent evidence—such as Royal Mail documentation of delivery failure or returned mail—is required to displace the presumption. No such evidence was provided in this case. The Tribunal is satisfied that the statutory requirements for service were met and that the presumptions of receipt under Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 and Regulation 15(4) of the 2010 Regulations have not been rebutted. The notices were lawfully served and are deemed received, and the Appellant remains liable for the penalties imposed.

17. Despite instructions to test access to the CVP prior to the oral hearing on the GRC CVP on 5 January 2026, the Appellants representative was late in getting through to the delayed hearing and even then, only by phone. However, in effect ultimately the issues and reasoning herein were explained to him although he indicated he did not accept same and continues to regard the outcomes as unfair in all the circumstances. The Tribunal accepted his apology for late connection to the appeal hearing.

18. Service and receipt: All notices were sent to 11 Queensway, Rochdale, the Appellant’s registered office as per Companies House records. The CN (27 Feb 2025), FPN (28 Apr 2025), and EPN (29 May 2025) each show that address on their face. The Appellant also used that address in this appeal. [Bundle: Annex C pp.41–43; Annex A pp.37–38; Annex B pp.39–40; Annex I pp.58–60; Appellant’s Appeal pp.22–23]

19. Presumptions: PA 2004 s.303(6) (a), IA 1978 s.7 , and 2010 Reg.15(4) apply; no evidence of returned mail appears in the bundle. [Bundle: Respondent Response pp.27–31; Annex D–E show continued correspondence without returns]

20. Rebuttal evidence: The Appellant relies on a Screwfix invoice (14 Apr 2025) for a replacement post box and general assertions of Royal Mail resumption. No Royal Mail complaint reference, holding notice or suspension document is provided. [Bundle: Invoice p.23; Annex F pp.50–51] For the avoidance of doubt the invoice was not a receipt for payment although ultimately that has no bearing

21. On this record, the statutory presumptions of service/receipt are not displaced. [Bundle: Respondent Response pp.27–31]

22. Reasonable excuse: The CN provided a six ‑ week extension (to 9 Apr 2025) with clear steps and contacts. The Appellant did not adopt interim mail-handling measures or contact TPR before late July; it complied on 28 July 2025 only after reminder and LBLA. [Bundle: Annex C pp.41–43; Annex D pp.44–45; Annex E pp.46–49; Annex G pp.50–55]

23. The Appellant’s assertions of damaged post box/internal mail issues do not in any way amount to reasonable excuse as employers must ensure statutory communications are received and acted upon. [Bundle: Respondent Response pp.28–33]

24. Penalty calculation: FPN fixed at £400; EPN daily rate £500 for the 5–49 workforce band; accrual for four days totals £2,000. TPR’s calculations align with the EPN terms and the workforce band stated. [Bundle: Respondent Response pp.31–32; Annex B pp.39–40]

25. Discretion: Neither TPR nor the Tribunal has discretion to reduce prescribed amounts; hardship can be addressed through payment plans (as stated in LBLA). [Bundle: Annex E pp.46–49; Respondent Response p.32] The Appellant produced no evidence of financial hardship.

26. Jurisdiction: TPR conducted a review on 31 July 2025 ( s.43(1) (b) PA 2008 ), confirming the notices; s.44(2) (a) is satisfied. [Bundle: Annex H p.57] Authorities:

27. London Borough of Southwark v Akhtar & Stel LLC [2017] UKUT 150 (LC) – mere assertion of non ‑ receipt insufficient to displace postal presumptions. [Bundle: Annex K pp.62–85]

28. J.M. Kamau Ltd v The Pensions Regulator [2025] UKFTT 00425 (GRC) – acceptance of TPR’s automated processes and evidential standards; non ‑ receipt claims require cogent proof. [Bundle: Annex L pp.86–112]

29. Skewer House Taunton Ltd v TPR (FTT, 2022) – late compliance does not negate liability; reminders are courtesy; fixed sums prescribed. [Bundle: Annex M pp.113–121] Decision and Order:

30. The appeal is dismissed. The Fixed Penalty Notice (£400) and Escalating Penalty Notice (£2,000) are confirmed. [Bundle: Annex A–B]

31. The matter is remitted to TPR for enforcement steps consistent with this decision. If staged payment is sought, the Appellant should propose a plan within 14 days; any arrangements are for TPR to consider administratively. [Bundle: Annex E pp.46–49]

32. The Tribunal wishes to thank the Appellants representative for ultimately presenting his oral submissions albeit late in the day and also pay due appreciation to Mr. Wood-Jones who presented a comprehensive and most competent response to the material queries the Tribunal made of him during the oral hearing, which have been reflected in the above reasoning. Brian Kennedy KC 5 January 2026.