JO Cutteridge v The Pensions Regulator

1. This appeal (Reference) relates to the Respondent's decision of 1 November 2025 by which, after a review, it upheld the issuing of a fixed penalty notice of 14 October 2025 with reference 125585134302.

2. Rule 32 The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 provides that, unless the Tribunal is satisfied that it can properly determine the issues without a hearing and the parties also agree, the Tribunal must hold a hearing before making a decision which disposes of proceedings. In the appeal form the Appellant asked that the matter be dealt with without a hearing and in its Response the Respondent said that it was content with this approach. Having considered the issues raised in this Reference, seen the bundle of papers provided and had regard to the overriding objective I am satisfied that the issues can be properly dealt with without a hearing.

3. I have considered the content of the bundle of 85 pages and the following definitions are adopted:- The Pensions Act 2008 the 2008 Act The Pensions Act 2004 the 2004 Act The Employers’ Duties (Registration and Compliance) Regulations 2010 the 2010 Regs John Cutteridge and Gladys Cutteridge the Employer John Cutteridge, Gladys Cutteridge & Laraine Cutteridge John, Gladys & Laraine The Respondent TPR unpaid contribution notice & fixed penalty notice UCN & FPN the Employer's address the Address Parties

4. It appears that the Employer is a partnership between John and Gladys. Having first dealt with "J O Cutteridge" (which may be the trading name of the Employer) on 19 August 2025 TPR wrote to John and said that "the Regulator has conducted its enquiries and is satisfied that the Unpaid contributions was incorrectly issued to JO Cutteridge and not the PAYE name registered with HMRC of Mrs Gladys Angela Cutteridge and Mr John Edward Cutteridge. Therefore, the Unpaid contributions notice is deemed to be incorrectly served and has been revoked. We have updated our records to reflect the HMRC registered employer name as Mrs Gladys Angela Cutteridge and Mr John Edward Cutteridge. If this is incorrect, please contact us immediately." This has not been disputed.

5. John was married to Laraine who worked for the Employer. They have separated and are seeking a divorce. At all material time the Address was Old Poultry Farm, Hospital Road, Doddington, March, Cambridgeshire PE15 0SL. As regards TPR the Chamber President in J. M. Kamau Limited v The Pensions Regulator (PEN/2023/0160) from para 16set out its objectives and ability to issue notices. Relevant law

6. By section 37 of the 2008 Act TPR may issue an UCN to an employer if it is of the opinion that relevant contributions have not been paid on or before the due date. By section 40(1)(c) of the 2008 Act TPR may issue a FPN if it is of the opinion that there has been a failure to comply with a UCN. By reg 12 of the 2010 Regs a FPN is £400. Applying for a review

7. Section 43(1) of the 2008 Act provides to the recipient of a notice the right to apply to TPR for a review of a notice and TPR may carry one out of its own volition. The time-limits for this (which are not extendable) are as set out in reg 15(1) & (2) of the 2010 Regs. Reference to the Tribunal

8. If the conditions in section 44(2) of the 2008 Act apply a recipient of a notice may apply to the Tribunal by section 44(1) of the 2008 Act in respect of (a) the issue of the notice (b) the amount of the notice.

9. For the Tribunal to have jurisdiction it needs to be satisfied that the relevant notice was issued (ie sent and received) and, if it was, that one of the conditions of section 44(2) of the 2008 Act is satisfied. Role of the Tribunal

10. Where the Tribunal has jurisdiction its role is as set out in section 103 of the 2004 Act. Relevant legal authorities such as Kamau, Pensions Regulator v Strathmore Medical Practice [2018] UKUT 104 (AAC)),Keith's Rubbish Clearance Limited v-the Pensions Regulator PEN/2020/0203and In the Matter of the Bonas Group Pension Scheme [2011] UKUT B 33 (TCC)) have stated that the Tribunal:- (a) does not sit as an appellate body from a decision of TPR but decides what action, if any, is appropriate. (b) is to reach a decision having considered the evidence presented which may be different from that which TPR considered and can reach a different decision to that of TPR, even if the original decision fell within the range of reasonable decisions. (c) can take account of reasonable excuses for compliance failures. Chronology

11. I concluded that:- (a) on 9 July 2025 TPR issued a UCN to J O Cutteridge. (b) on 12 August 2025 (following a call on 6 August 2025) John wrote to TPR to explain the position. (c) on 19 August 2025 TPR notified John that the 9 July 2025 UCN was revoked and on the same day issued a new UCN this time addressed to the Employer. (d) on 14 October 2025 TPR issued a FPN to the Employer due to the failure to comply with the UCN of 19 August 2025. (e) on 28 October 2025 the Employer requested a review of the FPN and on 1 November 2025 TPR wrote to John to say it had carried out a review of the 14 October 2025 FPN but had upheld it. The Reference

12. On 9 November 2025 this Reference was issued. By it John said that they would like the "…decision and fine to be revoked as all of this has been out of my control until recently gaining access." On 15 December 2025 TPR responded to the Reference. In summary TPR says that the notices were properly issued and that the grounds of appeal do not amount to a reasonable excuse. The relevant notices

13. On 19 August 2025 TPR addressed an UCN this time to the Employer at the Address because it had received information that the Employer had missed the payment of pension contributions between 1 February 2025 and 30 April 2025. It set out what the Employer was required to do by 29 September 2025. It said that default could lead to a FPN. On 14 October 2025 TPR prepared a FPN with notice number 125585134302 addressed to the Employer at the Address because the Employer was still in default.

14. Having considered the chronology, what the Employer says in its Reference and the response and having noted that default commenced in February 2025 I conclude that TPR was entitled to issue each of the notices and that doing so was an appropriate and proportionate step on each occasion for TPR to take in light of the evidence of unpaid contributions and then the failure to respond to the UCN. Jurisdiction

15. The Employer does not dispute the sending or receipt of the UCN and FPN and in any event the Employer sought a review of the FPN. I am satisfied from this and the submissions made that the notices were issued to the Employer. The Employer sought a review by section 43(1)(a) of the 2008 Act within the required time-limit and on 1 November 2025 TPR confirmed the FPN. Therefore the Employer was entitled to bring this Reference to the Tribunal by section 44(1) of the 2008 Act as the condition at section 44(2)(a) was satisfied. Review of the grounds of the Reference

16. John referred to his wife's role at the Employer. In particular he said that she had dealt with pension contribution administration and he had never had access to or been involved with it. He explained the impact the separation was having including that he had difficulty accessing the pension information. He said that his wife had not provided the details necessary to enable him to deal with pensions. He said that he had worked tirelessly and done everything possible. He had asked for help in the catch up process but said that gaining access to passwords and sites was "out of my control and has taken a while to conclude."

17. I accept that John has experienced practical issues in dealing with pensions and I can understand the difficult personal and professional position in which he found himself. However I do not accept that these reasons amount to a reasonable excuse for the Employer failing to make the pension contributions required and then not complying with the UCN. This is because:- (a) payment of employees' pension contributions is a serious issue and I agree with Judge Oliver who in Cafe Piano (Radcliffe-on-Trent) Limited -v- the Pensions Regulator [2023] UKFTT 00084 (GRC) said:- "19. Payment of pension contributions is an essential part of the automatic enrolment system. The whole purpose of the system is to provide workers with a pension fund on retirement, and this requires all contributions to be made correctly and at the right time. The use of UCNs and fixed penalty notices is a central part of the Regulator’s compliance and enforcement approach. Employers are responsible for ensuring that the important duties are all complied with, and there needs to be a robust enforcement mechanism to support this system." (b) in this case the period of default had started as early as February 2025 and JO Cutteridge was warned of the issues in the first UCN as early as 9 July 2025. (c) although the call between John and TPR in early August 2025 came before the UCN on which the FPN was based it was clear at that stage to him that there was an issue to resolve. However it was not resolved even when the later UCN was issued which gave the Employer more time. (d) where an employer delegates the responsibility for dealing with pension matters this does not alleviate that employer of the responsibility for ensuring that contributions are made. I agree with Judge Buckley in A M Multi-Utilities Limited v The Pensions Regulator PEN/2018/0101 in which it was decided that "16…It is the Employer’s duty to ensure that the duties are complied with, and if it delegates those duties it must take appropriate steps to ensure that the duties are complied with." Decision

18. The FPN was issued to the Employer and the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the Reference. I have not been persuaded, on the basis of the evidence submitted, that the Employer had a reasonable excuse for the failure to deal with its contribution obligations and then the notice. Accordingly the Reference is dismissed and remitted to TPR with no directions. SignedJudge HealdDate: 24 February 2026