BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) >> Lovechampagne Sales Ltd v The Pensions Regulator [2022] UKFTT 378 (GRC) (18 October 2022) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2022/378.html Cite as: [2022] UKFTT 378 (GRC) |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Neutral citation number: [2022] UKFTT 378 (GRC).
Case Reference: PEN/2022/0090
First-tier Tribunal
General Regulatory Chamber
Pensions Regulation
Heard by: Judge in Chambers on the papers
Decision given on: 18th October 2022
Before
HHJ DAVID DIXON
Between
LOVECHAMPAGNE SALES LIMITED
Appellant
and
THE PENSIONS REGULATOR
Respondent
Decision: The reference is dismissed and the matter is remitted to the Regulator. The Penalty Notice is confirmed, without any further directions.
REASONS
1. By this reference Lovechampagne Sales Limited (“the Employer”), challenges a fixed penalty notice (”FPN”) issued by the Regulator on 15th March 2022.
2. The FPN was issued under s. 40 of the Pensions Act 2008. It required the Employer to pay a penalty of £400 for failing to comply with the requirements of a compliance notice issued on 17th January 2022. The Compliance Notices was issued under s. 35 of the Pensions Act 2008. It directed the Employer file a redeclaration of compliance by 28th February 2022.
3. The Employer referred the matter to the Tribunal on 12th April 2022.
4. The parties and the Tribunal agreed that this matter was suitable for determination on the papers in accordance with rule 32 of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, as amended. The Tribunal considered all the evidence and submissions made by both parties.
The Appeal
5. Under s. 44 of the 2008 Act, a person who has been issued with a FPN may make a reference to the Tribunal provided an application for review has first been made to the Regulator. The role of the Tribunal is to make its own decision on the appropriate action for the Regulator to take, taking into account the evidence before it. The Tribunal may confirm, vary or revoke a FPN and when it reaches a decision must remit the matter to the Regulator with such directions (if any) required to give effect to its decision.
6. The Employer’s Notice of Appeal, dated 12th April 2022, indicates that they were members of a scheme and payments were made into the same. They provided statements from the relevant provider. The Appellant did not address certification of the same or the compliance notice.
7. The Regulator’s Response indicates that the Appellant failed to provide certification of compliance as is required, a compliance notice followed that was not heeded and as a result the FPN was entirely appropriate.
8. The Regulator indicates a Review was completed as a result of the Appellant’s request. Having considered the circumstances advanced the FPN was confirmed.
9. The Tribunal considered a bundle of 48 pages.
Submissions
10. The Appellant seeks to have the FPN rescinded. Little further information is provided.
11. The Regulator responds that there is no excuse for non-compliance, let alone a reasonable one. It is the Employer’s responsibility to meet the legal requirements, and here the Appellant has not provided evidence to reverse the imposition of the FPN.
Conclusion
12. The Appellant it seems is a member of an appropriate scheme but has failed to confirm the same to the Regulator as required. The Regulator followed the appropriate steps in sending a CN, which it seems was ignored. The Appellant therefore completely failed to comply with its basic requirements, and indeed the CN. The FPN was bound to follow and did in the authorised and normal way.
13. Having failed to comply, the standard penalty was imposed. The penalty is designed to remind companies of the importance of compliance, and I do not see that the penalty in this case is inappropriate or disproportionate to the breach.
14. In all the circumstances I am driven to the view the appeal has absolutely no merit at all, and I remit the matter to the Regulator, upholding the Fixed Penalty Notice and penalty.
15. No further directions are required
Signed: HHJ David Dixon DATE: 18th October 2022
