Krish Care-AKM Limited v The Pensions Regulator

Definitions CN Compliance Notice DOC Declaration of Compliance FPN Fixed Penalty Notice KC-AKM Ltd Krish Care-AKM Limited TPR The Pensions Regulator Introduction

1. KC-AKM Ltd appeals by reference a decision of TPR on 13 March 2025 to issue an FPN numbered 109041226464, imposing a penalty of £400 in response to an alleged failure to file a DOC.

2. The parties have agreed to a paper determination of the appeal. The Tribunal is satisfied that it can properly determine the issues without a hearing within rule 32(1)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 (as amended). Legal Framework

3. Section 1 of the Pensions Act 2004 established TPR. Its function is to maximise compliance with employers’ duties in respect of auto-enrolment under the Pensions Act 2008 .

4. Those duties include those under The Employers’ Duties (Registration and Compliance) Regulations 2010 (“the 2010 Regulations”), which were implemented under Section 11 of the Pensions Act 2008 . They prescribe information that employers must provide to TPR and when that information must be provided – within five months of the employer’s “staging date”. This is known as a Declaration of Compliance.

5. Section 35 of the Pensions Act 2008 confirms that: (1) The Regulator may issue a compliance notice to a person if the Regulator is of the opinion that the person has contravened one or more of the employer duty provisions. (2) A compliance notice is a notice directing the person to whom it is issued to take, or refrain from taking, the steps specified in the notice in order to remedy the contravention. (3) A compliance notice may, in particular— (a) state the period within which any step must be taken or must cease to be taken; (b) require the person to whom it is issued to provide within a specified period specified information relating to the contravention; (c) require the person to inform the Regulator, within a specified period, how the person has complied or is complying with the notice; (d) state that, if the person fails to comply with the requirements of the notice, the Regulator may issue a FPN under section 40.

6. Section 40 confirms that TPR may issue an FPN if in its opinion an employer has failed to comply with, among other things, a CN issued under Section 35 . The prescribed penalty is £400.

7. Section 303(2) (c) Pensions Act 2004 confirms that TPR may send CNs by post to an employer’s “proper address”, which in the case of a company is confirmed by Section 303(6) (a) as the company’s registered office or principal office. Regulation 15(4) of the 2010 Regulations creates a presumption that a CN was posted on the date indicated on its face and was received by the person to whom it is addressed. That presumption is however rebuttable [ Philip Freeman Mobile Welders Ltd v Pensions Regulator [2022] UKUT 62 (AAC) ].

8. A person to whom a notice is issued under Section 40 may make a reference to this Tribunal under Section 44 . Section 103 of the Pensions Act 2004 confirms that this Tribunal may consider any evidence relating to the subject matter of the reference, whether or not it was available to the TPR. The Tribunal must determine what if any is the appropriate action for the TPR to take in relation to the matter referred to it – the Tribunal can make a different decision to that of TPR even if the original decision fell within the range of reasonable decisions. The Tribunal must take into account any reasonable excuse for compliance failures [ Pensions Regulator v Strathmore Medical Practice [2018] UKUT 104 (AAC) ]. The Decision

9. On 13 March 2025, TPR issued an FPN of £400 to KC-AKM Ltd.

10. On 28 March 2025, KC-AKM Ltd requested a review of the decision. The decision was upheld on 3 April 2025. The Appeal

11. KC-AKM Ltd’s Notice of Appeal dated 8 May 2025 relies on the following grounds as reasons for the appeal: (a) They had changed agents, with the old agent deactivating their account, causing issues with payments; (b) They reactivated the account when they became aware of this and payments were made; (c) They did not receive a letter dated 26 February 2025 because previous correspondence referred to an old company name; (d) TPR were updated with the new company details; (e) At no point were KC-AKM Ltd informed that they needed to submit a DOC; (f) When they registered with NEST, they sought guidance; (g) NEST did not advise them that they needed to complete a DOC; and (h) Once they became aware of the obligation on 13 March 2025, they took immediate action to comply by submitting the declaration.

12. TPR’s Response dated 27 October 2025 resists the appeal. TPR states that: (a) The grounds of appeal neither individually nor collectively amount to a reasonable excuse for failure to comply with the CN or to revoke the FPN; (b) KC-AKM Ltd has a statutory responsibility to provide the prescribed information to TPR by the prescribed deadline; (c) The FPN arises solely from KC-AKM Ltd’s failure to complete the DOC by the statutory and extended deadlines: no allegation of missing contributions forms part of this enforcement action; (d) TPR denies ever stating that a review request would waive the breach or cancel penalties; (e) The CN and FPN were sent to KC-AKM Ltd’s registered office at Companies House, which is also the address given on the Notice of Appeal; (f) A “bare assertion” of non-receipt cannot rebut the statutory presumptions; (g) TPR did not receive any notification that any communications were not delivered and has no record of any of them being returned; (h) The three reminder letters together with the CN gave sufficient notice of the employer obligations; (i) TPR took appropriate steps, beyond legislative requirements, to alert KC-AKM Ltd to their employer duties; (j) Alternative means were used in an attempt to contact KC-AKM Ltd before the FPN was issued; (k) Even if no correspondence is received, this does not relieve an employer of their statutory duties; (l) Delegation to accountants or third-party agents does not constitute a reasonable excuse: statutory responsibility rests solely with the employer; (m) Compliance with the other duties does not excuse or explain the failure to submit the DOC; and (n) Late compliance does not excuse failure to comply by the deadline nor does it provide grounds to revoke the penalty; (o) No reasonable excuse has been shown in fact or law; and (p) The penalty is consistent with that applied to other employers, prescribed, fair, reasonable and proportionate. The Evidence

13. I considered a bundle of evidence containing 121 pages, including Companies House information, copies of relevant correspondence and screenshots of customer relationship management notes of telephone calls on 31 January and 14 March 2025. Findings of Fact

14. KC-AKM Ltd was incorporated on 26 July 2024. Its registered office is 418 Greenford Road, Greenford, UB6 9AH. Bina Maistry is listed as company director.

15. TPR sent letters to Bina Maistry, Director at KC-AKM Ltd at 418 Greenford Road, Greenford, UB6 9AH in September, October and December 2024. They confirmed, among other things, that a DOC was due on 6 January 2025, and that non-compliance could result in fines. The declaration deadline is marked in bold and red at the top right corner of the letters. The December 2024 letter heading confirms in bold and red that Ms Maistry should “take immediate action to avoid a potential fine”. On the front page of the letter in bold and red, it reads “Your declaration deadline is 6 January 2025. Do not ignore this letter, you need to act now.” Underneath that, also in bold it reads “If you do not complete your legal duties, including submitting your DOC on time, you may be subject to fines”.

16. KC-AKM Ltd has not provided any evidence that these letters were not received – all that is said is that a letter of 26 February 2025 was not received because previous correspondence related to a prior company AKM Care. However, it is clear that the letters were in fact sent to KC-AKM Ltd, not AKM Care. The letters were not returned as undelivered. They were sent to the same address as the FPN that was received. I therefore find as a fact that the letters were received at the registered office.

17. KC-AKM Ltd did not file a DOC by the deadline.

18. On 16 January 2025, TPR issued a CN to KC-AKM Ltd at 418 Greenford Road, Greenford, UB6 9AH, requiring it to submit a DOC with an extended deadline of 26 February 2025. The CN confirmed in bold at the top that a £400 penalty may be imposed if the company failed to comply. The letter goes on to explain what the company needs to do and how to do it. It concludes by informing the company of its right to seek a review of the notice.

19. No evidence is presented that this was not received – again there is reference only to a letter dated 26 February 2025 sent to AKM Care. The CN was sent to KC-AKM Ltd on 16 January 2025 at the same address as the FPN that was received. It was not returned as undelivered. I therefore find as a fact that it was received at the registered office.

20. On 31 January 2025, Tracey Kelly attempted to call KC-AKM Ltd on behalf of TPR. There was no answer and no option to leave a voicemail.

21. KC-AKM Ltd did not seek a review of the CN and did not file a DOC by the extended deadline.

22. On 13 March 2025, TPR issued an FPN of £400, which also required compliance with the CN by 10 April 2025. This was also sent to 418 Greenford Road, Greenford, UB6 9AH.

23. On 14 March 2025, Krishika Mahajan telephoned TPR regarding the FPN. They were advised that the FPN had been issued for not submitting the DOC before the extended deadline. They said that they were not aware of the need to submit a DOC and asked if the FPN could be cancelled. They were advised that they could submit a review if they had reasons and evidence.

24. KC-AKM Ltd then submitted its DOC on the same day.

25. On 28 March 2025, KC-AKM Ltd asked TPR to carry out a review of its decision to issue an FPN, alleging that the FPN wrongfully alleges breach and fails to set out which part of Section 40 has been breached. It goes on to say that KC-AKM Ltd is up to date with all payments.

26. TPR upheld its decision on 3 April 2025, referring to employers’ duties to complete a DOC within five months of its staging date, TPR’s practice of issuing a CN and the steps taken in this case. The reviewer goes on to confirm that TPR conducted enquiries and is of the opinion that notices were correctly served, that KC-AKM Ltd was provided with sufficient time to complete its DOC and that there was no record of any contact from KC-AKM Ltd advising of any issues or seeking any extension. Conclusions

27. Three letters were sent to an individual named as KC-AKM Ltd’s director at its registered office making clear the company’s obligation to file a DOC by 6 January 2025. I have found as a fact that the letters were received at KC-AKM Ltd’s registered office. I do not know whether they were opened or read but if they had been, KC-AKM Ltd would have had ample notice of the requirement to submit the DOC and the deadline to do so. The letters could not be clearer.

28. KC-AKM Ltd has not rebutted the statutory presumption that the CN was received. It has presented no evidence whatsoever – there is reference only to a letter dated 26 February 2025 sent to AKM Care. The CN was sent to KC-AKM Ltd on 16 January 2025 to the same address as the FPN that was received. It was not returned as undelivered. I have therefore found as a fact that it was received. It is clear on the face of the CN that KC-AKM Ltd is being given another chance to comply with its obligation to submit a DOC, how it can do that, and that it may be fined if it does not.

29. Whilst I do not know whether the CN was opened and read, KC-AKM Ltd has no reasonable excuse for not submitting the DOC by the extended deadline. TPR went beyond the legislative requirements to notify KC-AKM Ltd of its statutory obligations to file the DOC and gave it a further period to do so when it failed to comply by the statutory deadline.

30. TPR had valid grounds to issue the FPN because KC-AKM Ltd failed to comply with the CN. Further, it was the appropriate action for it to take in this case. A DOC is an important part of the enforcement of auto-enrolment employer duties because it provides TPR with the information it needs to ensure compliance. KC-AKM Ltd was given ample warning of the deadline for compliance, and the consequences of non-compliance. When it did not comply, it was issued a CN with an extended deadline and further warning of the consequences of non-compliance. I have found that the letters and CN were sent and received, and that KC-AKM Ltd had no reasonable excuse for the failure to comply. It has presented no evidence of any financial difficulty in meeting the penalty. TPR has in any event indicated that it would be willing to consider payment options. The amount of the penalty is of course fixed by law.

31. The fact that KC-AKM Ltd complied the day after the FPN does not mean that it was not appropriate to uphold the FPN on review. Late compliance does not excuse failure to comply before the deadline.

32. I therefore dismiss this appeal and remit the matter to TPR. No directions are necessary. Signed Date: 25 February 2026 Judge Taft