Tribunal rules on pension compliance case

In the case of J.M. Kamau Limited v The Pensions Regulator, the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) reached a pivotal decision regarding the jurisdiction and authority of The Pensions Regulator (TPR) in overseeing pension compliance. During the hearing, Judge O'Connor evaluated various procedural elements while determining the validity of compliance notices issued to J.M. Kamau Limited. This case, numbered 484, was discussed at Field House on 1 May 2025. The appellant contested penalties imposed by TPR, stemming from allegations of non-receipt of critical correspondence about their pension obligations.

The case arose after J.M. Kamau Limited failed to submit a Re-Declaration of Compliance before the statutory deadline of 30 June 2021. In response, TPR sent several notices, including a Re-registration Information Provision Breach Compliance Notice on 13 July 2021, followed by penalty notices that the company claimed were never received. This situation led to the appeal after the firm was notified that fines had been accrued due to non-compliance.

Cathy Doherty, representing TPR, testified that all notices were dispatched to the company's registered address as recorded with Companies House. This included a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) issued on 25 August 2021 and an Escalating Penalty Notice (EPN) sent on 27 September 2021, which resulted in daily fines of £500 until compliance was satisfied. The company’s director, John Mburu, argued that the failure to receive these notices invalidated the imposed penalties.

The tribunal's task was to evaluate whether it had jurisdiction over the appeal. Judge O'Connor emphasised the necessity of procedural fairness and the importance of verifying the issuance and reception of the notices. The tribunal examined legal precedents and the obligations of TPR to provide concrete evidence of compliance with their notification processes. Doherty described TPR's automated notice dispatch system backed by stringent checks to avoid errors in record-keeping, ultimately leading the tribunal to conclude that TPR had fulfilled its responsibilities in sending out the notices.

Crucially, the tribunal's decision revolved around whether J.M. Kamau Limited effectively rebutted the presumption that the notices had been received. Despite the company's assertions, the tribunal determined that failure by Royal Mail to deliver notices did not invalidate their issuance or the company’s compliance obligations. Mere claims of non-receipt were insufficient to counter TPR's substantive proof.

Further scrutiny revealed personal challenges faced by John Mburu, particularly regarding access to communication during COVID-19 lockdowns, which he argued impacted his ability to respond to TPR. The tribunal found, however, that these challenges did not significantly influence the case's outcome, as the notices were sent to the registered address as required.

Ultimately, the tribunal ruled that the notices had been sent in compliance with the Pensions Act, leading to the conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal against the penalties. Under Rule 8(2) of the Tribunal Procedure Rules, the proceedings were struck out due to jurisdictional issues, leaving J.M. Kamau Limited subject to the full force of the penalties imposed.

The ruling underscores the critical nature of maintaining accurate communication channels between TPR and the businesses it oversees. It serves as a reminder for appellants of the importance of ensuring their registered office addresses are up-to-date to circumvent complexities associated with compliance and penalties