IndoBritish Academy of Science and Technology Ltd v The Pensions Regulator

1. The Appellant is an employer for the purposes of the Pensions Act 2008 (“PA08”). Its duties start date was 1 January 2018.

2. Under PA08 and the Employers’ Duties (Registration and Compliance) Regulations 2010, employers must complete a Re-Declaration of Compliance every three years following their automatic re-enrolment duties.

3. The Appellant’s second re-enrolment window was between 1 December 2023 and 31 May 2024, with a statutory deadline of 31 July 2024 to submit its Re-Declaration of Compliance.

4. The Respondent sent multiple reminders between October 2023 and May 2024 (Annex A), followed by a Warning Letter on 9 August 2024 (Annex B) and a Compliance Notice on 27 August 2024 requiring compliance by 7 October 2024 (Annex C).

5. The Appellant failed to comply by that date. A Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) of £400 was issued on 22 October 2024 (Annex D).

6. The Appellant requested a review on 17 November 2024 (Annex E). The Respondent upheld the FPN on 26 November 2024 (Annex F).

7. The Appellant eventually submitted its Re-Declaration of Compliance on 20 December 2024 (Annex G), after the penalty was imposed. Issues for Determination

8. Whether the Appellant had a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the Compliance Notice by 7 October 2024.

9. Whether the Fixed Penalty Notice should be revoked or confirmed. Appellant’s Submissions

10. The Appellant contends: a) It had no employees requiring pension contributions since August 2022. b) It informed NEST (its pension provider) of this fact and therefore believed no further action was required. c) The £400 penalty is unfair and excessive, given that no contributions were outstanding.

11. The Appellant argues that compliance was unnecessary because there were no eligible staff and that the penalty should be cancelled. Respondent’s Submissions

12. The Respondent submits: a) The penalty was imposed for failure to submit the Re-Declaration of Compliance, not for unpaid contributions. b) The duty to re-declare compliance is a separate statutory obligation, regardless of whether any staff are eligible for re-enrolment. c) The Appellant was given ample notice: reminders, a warning letter, and a Compliance Notice with extended deadlines. d) The Appellant did not contact the Respondent before the deadline to seek clarification or an extension. e) Late compliance (on 20 December 2024) does not excuse failure to comply by the statutory deadline. f) The amount of the penalty (£400) is fixed by law under Regulation 12 of the 2010 Regulations; the Respondent has no discretion to reduce it.

13. The Respondent relies on persuasive Tribunal decisions ( Skewer House Taunton Ltd and Stonehill MOT Centre Ltd ) confirming that: ◦ Employers must be aware of their duties and comply on time. ◦ Late compliance does not negate liability for a penalty. Tribunal’s Findings and Reasons

14. The Tribunal accepts the Respondent’s evidence that the Compliance Notice and FPN were correctly served at the Appellant’s registered office address (supported by statutory presumptions under PA08 and Interpretation Act 1978 ).

15. The Appellant does not dispute eventual compliance but accepts that the Re-Declaration was submitted after the Compliance Notice deadline.

16. The Appellant’s argument that no employees required pension contributions is irrelevant to the statutory duty to re-declare compliance. This duty applies even where no staff are eligible for re-enrolment.

17. The Appellant had previously complied in 2021 and was expressly informed that re-enrolment and re-declaration would be required again in three years.

18. Multiple reminders and notices were sent; the Appellant did not act until after the penalty was issued.

19. The Tribunal agrees with the reasoning in Stonehill MOT Centre Ltd that timely provision of compliance information is crucial to the regulatory scheme.

20. No reasonable excuse has been advanced for the failure to comply by the deadline. Late compliance does not justify revocation of the penalty.

21. The penalty amount is prescribed by law; the Respondent acted within its powers and proportionately. Conclusion

22. The Tribunal finds that the statutory grounds for issuing the Fixed Penalty Notice were satisfied and that the Appellant has provided no reasonable excuse for non-compliance. The appeal is therefore dismissed, and the Fixed Penalty Notice is confirmed. Signed: Brian Kennedy KC Tribunal Judge Date: 28 November 2025.