Mulberry Street Limited v The Pensions Regulator

1. On 28 October 2025 the Appellant made this reference (appeal) to the Tribunal pursuant to section 44 Pensions Act 2008 . It relates to a decision dated 18 September 2025 not to review a fixed penalty notice and escalating penalty notice issued to the Appellant by the Respondent which totalled £14,400 and had references 108732879581 and 272349985502.

2. In making this decision I have considered the Appellant's form of appeal (GRC1), a copy of the letter refusing to review, the Appellant's further information by letter dated 16 January 2026 and the refusal letter from the Respondent of 18 September 2025. The Respondent has not been required to provide a response and therefore I have only considered the Appellant's evidence and submissions.

3. The following definitions are adopted. The Pensions Act 2008 the 2008 Act The Pensions Act 2004 the 2004 Act The Employers’ Duties (Registration and Compliance) Regulations 2010 the 2010 Regs The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 the 2009 Rules Mulberry Street Limited the Company the Company's letter to the Tribunal of 16 January 2026 the Letter The Pensions Regulator TPR TPR's letter refusing to review dated 18 September 2025 the Decision Compliance Notice, Fixed Penalty Notice & Escalating Penalty Notice CN. FPN & EPN Registered Office Address of the Company the RO address Background

4. From the GRC1, the Decision and the Letter I am satisfied that:- (a) the Company is a small business with 16 employees. (b) in 2021 the Company changed the RO address and the new RO address was at the residential address of a business partner who sadly died suddenly. (c) TPR issued the Company with a FPN of £400 and an EPN which as at the date of the Decision was at £14,000. This related to the Company's failure to provide a re- declaration. (d) the Appellant asked TPR to review the penalties. By the Decision on 18 September 2025 TPR said (i) they could not carry out a review as the Appellant's request was outside the 28 day deadline and (ii) they could not carry out their own review as the 18 month deadline for this had also expired (e) at some point before this Reference was issued the FPN of £400 was paid leaving the £14,000 EPN.

5. From the papers the Company's position is as follows:- (a) it is accepted that it was a mistake not completing the re-declaration but this was caused by a lack of knowledge and inexperience. (b) the £400 FPN has been paid but the £500 a day (EPN) and £14,000 "interest" is a "massive amount" for a small business for a genuine mistake. (c) the Company got no papers from TPR because the RO address had changed to a home address and "As this was his home address and he had died we have not had any letters from the pensions regulator which is why we are in this situation to start with". Relevant law

6. By section 40 of the 2008 Act TPR may issue a FPN if it is of the opinion that there has been a failure to comply with a CN issued under section 35 and by section 41(1) (a) of the 2008 Act an EPN can be issued by TPR " if it is of the opinion that the person has failed to comply with—(a) a compliance notice under section 35 ". The level of a EPN is calculated by reference to a prescribed daily rate.

7. By section 43(1) of the 2008 Act the recipient of a Notice may apply to TPR for a review of a Notice and TPR may carry one out of its own volition. The time-limits for this are as set out in reg 15 of the 2010 Regs. They are (a) on a request from the Company, 28 days starting from the day a notice is issued to a person and (b) where TPR decides to review, 18 months, starting from the day a notice is issued to a person. Role of the Tribunal

8. Only if there has been a review or a decision not to carry one out after a request can there be a reference to the Tribunal by section 44(1) of the 2008 Act . The Tribunal's role, if there is a reference, is set out in section 103 of the 2004 Act . The Tribunal on a reference is entitled (in the same way as TPR) to consider reasonable excuses for non compliance by an employer. Receipt of Notices

9. The Company says that it did not receive the Notices but does not dispute that they went to the RO address. The Company is a body corporate and by section 303(6) (a) of the 2008 Act :- "For the purposes of this section and section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 (c. 30) (service of documents by post) in its application to this section, the proper address of a person is—...(a)in the case of a body corporate, the address of the registered or principal office of the body"

10. Reg 15(3) and (4) of the 2010 Regs says:- "(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."

11. As Judge Buckley said in the Directions of 30 December 2025:- "11. In law, receipt at the ‘proper address’ (the registered office address) amounts to receipt by the appellant company, even if none of the individuals working for the company in fact received or were aware of the notices (see the discussion in paragraph 116-121 of J M Kamau Limited v The Pensions Regulator [2025] UKFTT 00484 (GRC), with which I agree)." Strike out

12. Rule 8(2)(a) 2009 Rules provides that "The Tribunal must strike out the whole or a part of the proceedings if the Tribunal— (a) does not have jurisdiction in relation to the proceedings or that part of them." Rule 8(3)(c) 2009 Rules provides that " The Tribunal may strike out the whole or a part of the proceedings if—(c) the Tribunal considers there is no reasonable prospect of the appellant's case, or part of it, succeeding." Additionally:- (a) there can be no strike out "...without first giving the appellant an opportunity to make representations..." (b) when considering this issue the Tribunal must consider the overriding objective in rule 2 2009 Rules to deal with cases fairly and justly. Tribunal's review

13. The Company has had an opportunity to make representations on the strike-out as required and I have kept in mind the overriding objective. I have concluded that the Company:- (a) does not dispute that there has been no review either at the request of the Company or by TPR itself. (b) does not dispute TPR's conclusion that a review was not possible due to the time-limit constraints in reg 15 2010 Regs. (c) accepts that it did not re-declare but should have done so. (d) is concerned about the EPN but not because the £500 daily rate or the £14,000 total is wrong in law. I am not aware of the date the re-declaration was due and how many days elapsed from then to the date of compliance. However the Company says they have 16 employees (ie between 5 and 49 employees) and therefore by reg 13 (table 1) 2010 Regs the prescribed daily rate is £500. (e) does not dispute that the Notices were issued and sent by TPR. (f) does not dispute that the Notices were received at the RO address of the Company.

14. In summary therefore the Company's case is that:- (a) due to the issues with the RO address the Notices were not seen by the right person or people at the Company. (b) the level of the EPN is very high for a small business where there has been a mistake made but only due to lack of knowledge and inexperience and the RO address issue. Decision

15. A reference to the Tribunal can be made where the conditions of section 44(2) 2008 Act are met. TPR has not carried out a review and the Company was outside the 28 day time-limit for seeking a review by reg 15(1) 2010 Regs. The conditions for making this reference are therefore not met. In addition the Company accepts that the Notices were sent to and received by the Company at the RO address. Despite the understandable issues caused by the decision to move the RO address to the home of a new business partner (who then died) this would not amount to a successful challenge to the FPN or EPN or TPR's decision not to review.

16. In my view there is no jurisdiction for the Tribunal to consider this Reference and/or there is no reasonable prospect of the Company's case, or part of it, succeeding. Accordingly the Reference is struck out. Signed Judge Heald Date: 9 February 2026.