FT/PEN/0025/0023 - [2025] UKFTT 01328 (GRC)

The Appellant accepts that there were grounds for the Respondent to issue a PN but the amount of the penalty is excessive. The Appellant seeks a reduction of the penalty.

The penalty is disproportionate to the size of the company and the size of the scheme which has a pot of £132,000. The penalty will have a large impact on the financial stability of the business, which is a small, not-for-profit company with 12 full time equivalent employees and a turnover of £1,087,407. Also, as at 31 March 2024, there were only 6 members of the scheme and the total pension savings of the 6 members was less than £100,000.

For some kind of breaches the Respondent levies lower fines for smaller businesses so this penalty seems unfair.

The Appellant never intended to breach any rules or regulations.

The Appellant acted promptly to the emails from the Respondent dated 8 and 18 April 2024.

The Appellant kept in regular contact with the Respondent since becoming fully aware of the failure to meet its obligations.

The Appellant is a publisher and media professional and not an expert in pension regulation.

The Appellant appointed a professional pension adviser to run the scheme on 26 June 2024.

There was some confusion about the number of directors of the Appellant and the Appellant was previously exempt from the relevant scheme.