Pure Vision Eye Care Limited v The Pensions Regulator

Neutral citation number: [2025] UKFTT 01419 (GRC) Case Reference: FT/PEN/2024/0257 Decision given on: 25 November 2025 First-tier Tribunal General Regulatory Chamber [Pensions Regulation] Heard on: 24 November 2025. On: GRC – CV Platform. Before: Tribunal: Brian Kennedy KC Between: Pure Vision Eye Care Limited and The Pensions Regulator Appellant: Respondent Decision: The appeal is Dismissed. Introduction 1. This is an appeal by Pure Vision Eye Care Limited (“the Appellant”) against an Escalating Penalty Notice (EPN) issued by The Pensions Regulator (“TPR” or “the Respondent”) on 9 May 2024 under section 41 of the Pensions Act 2008. The EPN accrued at £500 per day and reached £2,000 before compliance was achieved on 18 June 2024.

2. The Tribunal’s task under section 103(3) of the Pensions Act 2004 is to determine what, if any, is the appropriate action for the Regulator to take in relation to the matter referred to it. The Tribunal does not sit as an appellate body reviewing the reasonableness of TPR’s decision but makes its own determination based on the evidence. Issues for Determination 3. (i) Was the EPN lawfully served on the Appellant? (ii) Did the Appellant have a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the Compliance Notice by the deadline? (iii) Was the amount of the penalty correctly calculated and proportionate? (iv) Should the EPN be confirmed, varied, or revoked? Summary of Facts 4. a) Staging date: 17 August 2020. b) Re-declaration deadline: 16 January 2024 c) Compliance Notice issued: 29 January 2024 (deadline 11 March 2024). d) Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN): 27 March 2024 (£400), paid on 7 May 2024. e) EPN issued: 9 May 2024 (deadline 5 June 2024; £500/day thereafter). f) Re-declaration completed: 18 June 2024. g) Total EPN accrued: £2,000. Appellant’s Grounds of Appeal 5. At the appeal hearing (after a significant delay in joining by telephone) the Appellants confirmed their grounds as follows; a) Lack of prior communication: The Appellant asserts it did not receive the EPN and only became aware through reminder letters dated 6 and 11 June 2024. b) Previous compliance efforts: The FPN

was paid promptly, and the Appellant believed c) this resolved the matter. Impact on small business: The Appellant is a small NHS optician with one permanent staff member (who opted out) and locum staff. The financial burden is said to be disproportionate. Respondent’s Position 6. a) All notices were lawfully served at the registered office address under s.303(6)(a) Pensions Act 2004 and Regulation 15(4) of the Employers’ Duties (Registration and Compliance) Regulations 2010. b) The Appellant has not rebutted the statutory presumption of service; a bare assertion of non-receipt is insufficient (London Borough of Southwark v Akhtar [2017] UKUT 150; Keith’s Rubbish Clearance Ltd v TPR (PEN/2020/0203)). c) No reasonable excuse exists; ignorance of duties or financial hardship does not discharge statutory obligations. d) Penalty amount is fixed by law and based on workforce size; TPR has no discretion to reduce it. e) At the hearing of the appeal Mr. Mageed Gharib on behalf of TPR was asked to provide an explanation as to why the Respondent used ordinary mail sent by post to issue statutory notices to employers subject to the Pensions Act 2008 Employer Duties which he provided as follows; (i)Issuing Notices via post provides TPR with a presumption of service under s.303 Pensions Act 2004 (PA04) when read in conjunction with the Interpretation Act 1978 (s.7) and Regulation 15(4) of

the Employers’ Duties (Registration and Compliance) Regulations 2010. Where TPR complies with s.303 PA04 and Regulation 15(4), the burden to rebut the presumption that a Notice was sent and/or received then rests with the employer. (ii)Section 304 PA04 provides for documents, which extends to Notices, to be issued electronically if the recipient has “indicated” a “willingness” to receive them in this manner. TPR has historically not issued Notices electronically as it has considered the safest interpretation of s.304 is that “willingness” requires consent from the recipient to minimise issues of valid service arising. (iii) The Respondent is and has not been made not aware of the Appellant ever showing any willingness to receive statutory notices by email at any time prior to their application to the First-Tier Tribunal. (iv) With respect to the statutory notices, the Respondent relies on section 303(6) (a) of the Pensions Act 2004 which provides that, for the purposes of s.7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 (service of documents by post), the proper address for a notice issued to a body corporate is their registered or principal office. Therefore, a notice issued to a limited company at their registered or principal office address is properly served (Section 303(2)(c) of the Pensions Act 2004). In addition, Regulation 15(4) of the Employers’ Duties (Registration and

Compliance) Regulations 2010 provides a further presumption that a notice (subject to review) is received by the person to whom it was addressed. Taken together, there is a strong statutory presumption that documents sent to an employer’s registered office address are properly served and received. Further Applicable Law 7. Pensions Act 2008: a) s.11: Duty to provide prescribed information (Declaration/Re-declaration of Compliance). b) s.35: Power to issue Compliance Notice. c) s.40: Fixed Penalty Notice (£400). d) s.41: Escalating Penalty Notice (daily rate £50–£10,000). e) s.43: Review process. f) s.44: Right of appeal to Tribunal.

8. Employers’ Duties (Registration and Compliance) Regulations 2010, regs 3–4, 12–13 (prescribed information and penalty rates).

9. Pensions Act 2004, s.303(6)(a): Presumption of service.

10. Case law: a) London Borough of Southwark v Akhtar [2017] UKUT 150: Mere denial insufficient to rebut presumption. b) Keith’s Rubbish Clearance Ltd v TPR (PEN/2020/0203): Tribunal c) emphasised importance of compliance and upheld penalty. I J Plant v TPR [2024] UKFTT 00935 (GRC): EPN upheld; financial hardship and misunderstanding not reasonable excuse. Analysis Service of Notices: 11. Notices were sent to the registered office (197–199 Main Road, Sheffield S9 5HP). Under s.303(6)(a) PA04 and Reg.15(4) of the 2010 Regulations, service is presumed.

12. The Appellant provides no evidence beyond their assertion to rebut this presumption. Following Akhtar and Keith’s Rubbish Clearance, the Tribunal finds service proved. Reasonable Excuse: 13. The Appellant’s belief that paying the FPN resolved the matter is not a reasonable excuse. The FPN expressly warned that failure to comply with the Compliance Notice would result in further penalties.

14. Lack of awareness or reliance on an accountant does not discharge statutory duties (I J Plant).

15. Financial hardship and small business status, while sympathetic, do not negate compliance obligations. Proportionality: 16. The EPN amount is prescribed by law and calculated based on PAYE size. TPR has no discretion to vary the rate. The Tribunal cannot substitute a lesser amount. Decision 17. The Tribunal confirms the Escalating Penalty Notice.

18. The appeal is dismissed. The penalty of £2,000 stands.

19. No directions are necessary. Reasons 20. Compliance with re-declaration duties is central to the automatic enrolment regime.

21. The Appellant had multiple reminders and opportunities to comply.

22. Statutory presumptions of service apply and were not rebutted.

23. No reasonable excuse has been established.

24. The penalty is proportionate and mandated by legislation. Right to Apply for Costs 25. Any application for costs must be made under Rule 10 of the Tribunal Procedure (GRC) Rules 2009 within 28 days. Judge Brian Kennedy KC Date: 25 November 2025.