TC09531 - [2025] UKFTT 00567 (TC)

It was Ms Adeosun’s evidence that she never saw or was aware of the penalty notices or the PLN. Ms Adeosun said that Mr Pervez submitted the VAT Appeals on behalf of the company and, so far as she was concerned, was dealing with the matter on their behalf. She was not aware of the appeal deadlines for the penalties issued by HMRC. Her understanding was that it was all part of the same ongoing process.

All the letters addressed to NNN that we have seen were sent to Strathnairn Street, the place of business indicated by NNN on its VAT registration form. Mr Auchterlonie in his oral evidence advised that, whilst there may have been numerous addresses for Ms Adeosun, as far as NNN was concerned, HMRC were obliged to send correspondence to the registered address. NNN had never requested that the address held by HMRC be changed from Strathnairn Street. In response to questions in the hearing Mr Auchterlonie confirmed, having consulted the files on HMRC’s records, that all letters except the penalty and PLN notices were also copied to Mr Pervez. The penalty and PLN notices were issued by a central team and they did not tend to copy in advisers and he could not see evidence that they had done so. We note that the email of 10 November 2022 from Mr Auchterlonie to Mr Pervez outlined HMRC’s position on penalties but did not amount to appealable penalty notices.

In support of HMRC’s argument that Ms Adeosun must have seen some or all of the 6 letters relevant to the penalties and PLN, Mr Auchterlonie noted that none of the letters had been returned. Further, from Google maps images it was clear that the property at Strathnairn Street was standing in March 2023 but had been demolished by July 2024. It was possible that the letters had all been sent to that address whilst it was standing and, indeed, it would be odd for the Post Office (presumably Mr Auchterlonie means the Royal Mail) not to return letters which had been delivered to a demolished building. It was Ms Adeosun’s oral evidence that the property was demolished in April 2023 and therefore she could not have received the penalty notices. However, Ms Adeosun proffered no evidential support for this assertion and could not explain why no changes were made to update the company’s place of business for VAT purposes.

As to the PLN notice of 29 June 2023, this was sent to Ms Adeosun at an address in Sheridan Place, London. Ms Adeosun in her oral evidence was not entirely clear as to the precise dates but she had moved in the relevant periods and so at times she was not living at Sheridan Place. Mr Auchterlonie gave evidence that Sheridan Place was the address on Ms Adeosun’s records and again HMRC could only send letters and notices to the address they had been given.

During the hearing we questioned Ms Adeosun on whether she had ever received any letters sent by HMRC. Ms Adeosun denied receiving any.