Willsecure Limited v The Pensions Regulator

1. This is a reference against a fixed penalty notice (“FPN”) issued under section 40 of the Pensions Act 2008 (“ the Act ”) by the Pensions Regulator (“the Regulator”). The Appellant’s form GRC1 states that this decision was made in 2019. The Tribunal made directions on 24 October 2025 noting that it was likely to strike out the reference under Rule 8(2)(a). This is on the basis that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction because no review has been undertaken by the Regulator.

2. Under Rule 8(2) 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 - (a) does not have jurisdiction in relation to the proceedings or that part of them; and (b) does not exercise its power under rule 5(3)(k)(i) (transfer to another court or tribunal) in relation to the proceedings or that part of them”

3. Under section 43(1) of the Pensions Act 2008 , the Regulator may review a fixed penalty “ (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 for a review under section 43(1) (a) is 28 days from the date of the notice.

4. Under section 44 of the Pensions Act 2008 , 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) (b).

5. The Appellant requested a review of the FPN on 26 March 2025. The Regulator responded on 21 May 2025 and declined to conduct a review because it had been received outside the 28-day time frame for doing so and declined to conduct a review on its own initiative.

6. The Appellant made a reference by way of form GRC1 which was dated 22 May 2025. Its grounds for appeal gave the following reasons why the decision was wrong and the appeal filed late: “I have gone around in circles over that last few years and now struggling to find old correspondence. I will continue to look and try to create a folder of events. To try and summarise, during Covid I found it very difficult to understand and keep up to date with our pension responsibilities. This plus the fact we moved after covid, a separation in my marriage and general stress meant penalties rose to an astonishing amount and I’ve been in bits ever since trying to not go bankrupt. I’ve tried to appeal but was apparently ‘out of time’ to do so and also tried through local politicians and still no further forward. This is truly life changing for me and my family. Not just the amount of the penalty but I’ve probably paid the same again in interests in loans to cover the losses ever since and just circling the drain before bankruptcy. I sincerely hope this last resort is the answer as I believe the size of the penalties is extremely disproportionate when compared to the ‘crime’ . “

7. The Appellant also made submissions in response to the Tribunal’s direction dated 24 October 2025 as to why the matter should not be struck out on 10 November 2025. In summary these submissions made the following points: a. The company fell behind with pension contributions in 2020 and 2021 which were unprecedented times for the business b. The Appellant misunderstood the re-enrolment process, believing it had been completed correctly around 1 August 2020. c. The Covid-19 pandemic placed significant pressure on the business, which experienced reduced operations, disrupted cash flow and staff absences. d. The individual responsible for handling pensions administration left the business unexpectedly in 2020 and the transfer of responsibilities was not managed effectively e. Some correspondence from the Regulator was not received promptly due to changes in the personal and business addresses concerned. f. The Appellant’s director experienced difficult personal circumstances which compounded the difficulty in maintaining compliance with pension responsibilities. g. The Appellant’s director did not respond promptly to the Regulator as they were overwhelmed by the situation, experienced distress and misunderstood the appeal process. h. The fines imposed are not reasonable or proportionate in light of these circumstances. i. The company did not seek to avoid its responsibilities intentionally and steps have now been taken to ensure full compliance going forward.

8. I have taken into account the submissions made by the Appellant. However, it appears to me that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction because the conditions in section 44(2) of the Pensions Act 2008 are not met. The decision in Mosaic Community Centre Limited v Pensions Regulator (PEN/2015/0004) shows that the Tribunal only has jurisdiction when a review under section 43 has been undertaken by the Regulator. The Regulator says there was no review in this case. There was also no refusal to carry out a review within the meaning of section 44(2) because the Appellant had not requested a review in the prescribed 28-day period which is set down in Regulation 15(1) of the Employers’ Duties (Registration and Compliance) Regulations 2010.

9. It is clear from the information provided by both parties that no request for a review of the FPN was made within the 28-day time limit. The Regulator refused to conduct any review for this reason. This means that the conditions of Section 44 of the Pensions Act are not met. There is no issue relating to receipt of notices. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider this reference and so it is struck out under Rule 8(2)(a). Signed Judge Harris Date: 9 December 2025