[2025] UKFTT 01284 (GRC)

There is a single issue for determination in this appeal:

Based on the information before me, I find that the appellant was aware of the requirement to pay contributions and in fact was paying contributions before 1 April 2024. It appears that the appellant delegated this to their accountant, as it was the accountant who held the login details for the NEST account. The appellant changed their accountant on an unknown date, but I find that it was some time around 1 April 2024, which is when the breach began. I find that Mr Shah was not instructed in relation to the pensions contributions until January 2025 when the appellant provided him with the UCN. His oral evidence was consistent with the grounds of appeal where he states that this is when he became aware that the appellant was registered for pensions contributions.

I accept that Mr Shah took steps to try and obtain access to the NEST account when he became aware of the unpaid contributions. I accept that he contacted the previous accountant to try and obtain the account details, and while there was no documentary evidence to support his assertion that he contacted the respondent or NEST on multiple occasions, I accept that he did take steps to contact NEST on 1 March 2025 which resulted in access being granted. I also accept that Mr Shah ensured that the missed contributions were paid in a timely manner once access was obtained and that there is no evidence of any further breaches.

While I have accepted what happened between January 2025 and 7 April 2025 when the breach was remedied, there is no explanation from the appellant whatsoever as to why the breach occurred at all. This is what is relevant to the decision to issue the FPN and whether the appellant has provided a reasonable excuse. I find that the appellant has failed to provide a reasonable excuse for the breach of their duty between 1 April 2024 and 31 October 2024, the period covered by the UCN and in respect of which the FPN was issued.

Accordingly, I find that the FPN was properly issued and that the appellant is liable to pay the fixed penalty of £400. I heard submissions from Mr Shah about the hardship that this will cause, but this is not a matter for me. I am unable to reduce the amount of the penalty, which is prescribed in the 2010 Regulations. I note that in the response, it is stated that if the appellant does consider that paying the penalty in one instalment is likely to cause hardship, they may contact the respondent to discuss what payment options may be available.

The reference is dismissed.