Krishnapillai Prunthaven v Pernsions Regulator

NCN: [2025] UKFTT 00870 (GRC) First-tier Tribunal General Regulatory Chamber Pensions Case Reference: FT/PEN/2025/0007 Heard: on the papers in Chambers Heard on: 18 July 2025 Decision given on: 18 July 2025 Before TRIBUNAL JUDGE HAZEL OLIVER Between KRISHNAPILLAI PRUNTHAVEN and PENSIONS REGULATOR Appellant Respondent Decision: 1. The proceedings are struck out under Rule 8(2)(a) because the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in relation to the proceedings. REASONS 1. This is an appeal against a Fixed Penalty Notice issued on 14 December 2022 under section 40 of the Pensions Act 2008 (the Act) and an Escalating Penalty Notice issued on 13 January 2023 under section 41 of the Act. 2. Under section 43(1) of the Act, the Regulator may review a fixed penalty and escalating penalty notice, “(a) on the written application of the person to whom the notice was issued, or (b) if the Regulator otherwise considers it appropriate”. The prescribed period for a written application to review under section 43(1)(a) is 28 © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2024 days from the date of the notice (Regulation 15(1) of the Employers’ Duties (Registration and Compliance) Regulations 2010). The Regulator cannot review a notice under section 43(1)(b) more than 18 months from the day the notice was issued (Regulation 15(2)). 3. Under section 44 of the Act, a person can make a reference to the Tribunal in respect of the issue or amount of a penalty notice. The conditions are that the Regulator has completed a review under section 43, or “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” (section 44(2)). 4. Under Rule 8(2)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, the Tribunal must strike out the whole or a part of the proceedings if the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in relation to the proceedings or that part of them. 5. The Regulator made an application to strike out the appeal on 23 May 2025. The Regulator submits that the appeal should be struck out because the conditions in section 44(2) of the Act are not met. 6. The Regulator says that no review of the Fixed Penalty Notice or the Escalating Penalty Notice was sought by the Appellant within the required 28 days. The Appellant did make a written application for a review, but this was not received until 6 December 2024. This is outside the 18 months during which the Regulator may conduct a review at its discretion. The Regulator says that the Appellant does not claim he did not receive the notices. The Appellant made telephone calls to the Regulator on 2 and 14 March 2023 in which he said he intended to request a review of the notices, but he did not do so until December 2024. 7. The GRC5 application form completed by the Regulator confirms that the Appellant was sent a copy of the application. The Appellant has had the opportunity to respond to the application but has not sent any representations to the Tribunal. 8. Having considered the papers, I agree that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal. The conditions in section 44(2) of the Act must be met before a reference can be made to the Tribunal about the issue of a notice. The Regulator did not receive a valid written application for a review within 28 days from the date of the notices. The written application for a review was sent more than 18 months after the date of the notices, meaning the Regulator had no power to review the notice at that point. 9. This is not a case where the Appellant is disputing whether he received the notice at all, meaning it would not have been possible to apply for a review within 28 days. There do not appear to be any disputed facts which would be relevant to why the Appellant did not seek a review within 28 days. I not that there were telephone calls between the Appellant and the Regulator in March 2023, so the Appellant was clearly aware of the notices at this point. No written application for a review was made for a further 21 months. I therefore consider that it is not necessary to have a hearing on this issue and it is appropriate to strike out on the papers. 10. For these reasons the proceedings are struck out. Signed: Judge Hazel Oliver Date: 17 July 2025 3