{"id":567933,"date":"2026-04-15T12:07:18","date_gmt":"2026-04-15T10:07:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/global-kids-aldgate-east-limited-v-the-pensions-regulator\/"},"modified":"2026-04-15T12:07:18","modified_gmt":"2026-04-15T10:07:18","slug":"global-kids-aldgate-east-limited-v-the-pensions-regulator","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/global-kids-aldgate-east-limited-v-the-pensions-regulator\/","title":{"rendered":"Global Kids Aldgate East Limited v The Pensions Regulator"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

1. This reference has been determined without a hearing. I am satisfied that the parties have consented to the matter being determined without a hearing and I can properly determine the issues without a hearing having considered rules 2 and 32 of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009. I have considered a bundle of 153 pages, whilst reference is not made to each individual piece of evidence considered in this decision notice, I have carefully considered all of the evidence in the hearing bundle. 2. This reference concerns a Fixed Penalty Notice (\u201cFPN\u201d) which was issued by the Respondent, the Pensions Regulator (\u201cthe Regulator\u201d) on 24 April 2025 (Notice number: 139754017503) to the Appellant. 3. The FPN was issued under section 40 of the Pensions Act 2008 and notified the Appellant that they were required to pay a financial penalty of \u00a3400, for failing to comply with the requirements of a Compliance Notice, which had been issued under section 35 of the Act on 24 February 2025. 4. The Regulator carried out a review of the decision to impose the FPN and informed the Appellant on 13 May 2025 that the FPN had been upheld. The Law 5. The Pensions Act 2008 (\u201cPA 2008\u201d) imposed a number of legal obligations on employers in relation to the automatic enrolment of certain \u2018jobholders\u2019 into occupational or workplace personal pension schemes. The Pensions Regulator has statutory responsibility for securing compliance with these obligations and may exercise certain enforcement powers. 6. This reference is concerned with the duty to give prescribed information to the Regulator under section 11 PA 2008: a. The information to be provided to the Regulator is prescribed in the Employers\u2019 Duties (Registration and Compliance) Regulations 2010 (\u201cthe 2010 Regulations\u201d). It includes information about the number of workers automatically enrolled into a pension scheme, those already in a pension scheme, and those not in either category, as well as details of the pensions provider and scheme (if any). b. Regulation 3(1) of the 2010 Regulations sets the deadline for providing the information, which is five months starting from the Employer\u2019s staging date (the date when the automatic enrolment legislation first applies to the Employer). c. Regulation 4(1) of the 2010 Regulations sets the deadline for providing the re-enrolment information, which is within five months beginning with the third anniversary of the Employer\u2019s duties start date. 7. In the event of a contravention of the Employer\u2019s duties or safeguards, the Regulator has the power, among others, under the PA 2008 to: a) Issue a CN specifying steps that the Employer must take (including payment of pension contributions) to remedy a contravention of the Employer\u2019s duties or the inducement safeguard (section 35); and b) Issue a FPN in the sum of \u00a3400, in the event of a failure to comply with a CN (section 40 and the 2010 Regulations). 8. Under s 44 of the PA 2008 a person who has been issued with a FPN may make a reference to the Tribunal provided that a review has been carried out or an application for review has been made to the Regulator. The Tribunal's role, if there is a reference, is set out in section 103 of the Pensions Act 2004. The Tribunal must determine what (if any) is the appropriate action for the Regulator to take in relation to the matter referred to and may consider any evidence relating to the subject-matter of the reference, whether or not it was available to the Regulator at the material time. In J. M. Kamau Limited v The Pensions Regulator (PEN\/2023\/0160), it was held that the Tribunal can reach a different decision to that of the Regulator, even if the original decision fell within the range of reasonable decisions. The Facts 9. There is no dispute that the Appellant is the employer for the purposes of the \u2018Employer Duties\u2019 under the PA 2008. 10. The Appellant was required to complete and submit the Re-Declaration by 24 February 2025. 11. The Appellant did not complete and submit its Re-Declaration of Compliance by the required date confirming that the Employers\u2019 Duties had been complied with, by providing the prescribed information. 12. The Respondent issued a Compliance Notice on 24 February 2025, directing the Appellant to re-declare compliance. The Notice extended the deadline for compliance to 7 April 2025 and warned that a penalty may be issued in the event of ongoing non-compliance. The Respondent did not receive a response to this Notice. 13. The Respondent elected to issue a Fixed Penalty Notice on 24 April 2025. The Notice directed the Appellant to complete the re-declaration and pay the fine of \u00a3400 by 22 May 2025. 14. On 6 May 2025, the Appellant sought a review of the Fixed Penalty Notice. The Regulator replied to this request, upholding the penalty, on 13 May 2025. On 4 June 2025, the Tribunal received a complete appeal against the Fixed Penalty Notice. Grounds of Appeal 15. In the Notice of Appeal, the Appellant sets out the following grounds: (i) They did not receive the Compliance Notice in February. No letter was received at their address. They maintain accurate secure handling of all correspondence. The failure to receive this communication was beyond their control. (ii) Had they received the reminder in February, they would have acted upon it as they did promptly on receiving the FPN. They take their duties seriously and have a good compliance history. (iii) In light of the above, they submit that the penalty be waived or reduced. 16. The Regulator submits in response: (i) The appeal grounds do not amount to a reasonable excuse for the failure to comply with the requirements of the Compliance Notice or indicate that the Respondent has acted unfairly in any way by issuing a FPN. (ii) The Compliance Notice and FPN were sent to the registered address of the Appellant, which is the same address provided in the notice of appeal. The Appellant has not provided any persuasive explanation in its grounds of appeal as to why the FPN was received (and appealed against) but the Compliance Notice was not. (iii) The Regulator relies on the statutory presumptions of service and the Appellant has not rebutted them. Conclusions 17. The Tribunal on a reference is entitled to consider reasonable excuses for non-compliance by an employer. The Regulator in this case relies on the presumption of service. The Appellant is a body corporate and by section 303(6)(a) of the Companies Act 2008:- "For the purposes of this section and section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 (c. 30) (service of documents by post) in its application to this section, the proper address of a person is\u2014 …(a)in the case of a body corporate, the address of the registered or principal office of the body" 18. Reg 15(3) and (4) of the 2010 Regulations states:- "The presumptions in paragraph (4) apply where notices to which section 43 applies are issued (including compliance notices issued under section 51 of the Act and penalty notices issued under section 52 of the Act). For the purposes of this regulation, it is presumed that\u2014 (a) where a notice is given a date by the Regulator, it was posted or otherwise sent on that day; (b) if a notice is posted or otherwise sent to a person's last known or notified address, it was issued on the day on which that notice was posted or otherwise sent; and (c) a notice was received by the person to whom it was addressed." 20. The presumptions can be rebutted by the Appellant but it has the burden of doing so (Kamau para 107), if it does then the burden passes back to the Regulator. Rebutting the presumption will require more than a bare denial (see the UT in London Borough of Southwark v Akhtar and Stel LLC [2017] UKUT 150 (LC) (at paragraph 84). 21. I find that the Appellant\u2019s statement that they did not receive the Compliance Notice is no more than a bare denial. No further details have been provided regarding the log of correspondence, which is relied upon as being evidence that the Notice could not have been received. Therefore, the presumption of service has not been rebutted and the Regulator is entitled to rely on the presumption of service. 22. In any event, irrespective of whether the Regulator sent reminder Compliance Notices to the Appellant, the Appellant was required to submit the Declaration within certain time limits which it failed to do, without reasonable excuse. 23. Whilst the Appellant eventually complied with the obligation to complete and submit a Re-Declaration of Compliance, this was after the deadline for doing so had passed and following a further period of grace in which the Respondent extended this deadline in a Compliance Notice. That eventual compliance came about after the FPN had been issued and received at the registered address of the company. 24. Whilst a Regulator may send reminders to a company to adhere to its legal obligations, this does not serve to remove the duty of an employer to be aware of and adhere to the regulatory regime which they must abide by. That duty falls to the employer alone, and it is the employer\u2019s responsibility to ensure compliance. 25. In this instance, the Appellant has not raised a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with their employer duties by the initial deadline required. I am satisfied that the issuing of the FPN was the appropriate action to take in these circumstances. No consideration may be given to a reduction to the \u00a3400 penalty fee, as this sum is prescribed by the 2010 Regulations. 23. The appeal is dismissed and the matter is remitted to the Regulator. SignedJudge DwyerDate: 08\/12\/2025<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Sources officielles :<\/strong> consulter la page source<\/a><\/p>\n

Open Justice Licence (The National Archives).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

1. This reference has been determined without a hearing. I am satisfied that the parties have consented to the matter being determined without a hearing and I can properly determine the issues without a hearing having considered rules 2 and 32 of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009. I have considered a bundle of 153 pages,…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[7880],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[8463],"kji_subject":[7625],"kji_keyword":[7633,8024,7903,7882,7661],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-567933","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-royaume-uni","kji_court-first-tier-tribunal-general-regulatory-chamber-pensions","kji_year-8463","kji_subject-commercial","kji_keyword-appellant","kji_keyword-compliance","kji_keyword-notice","kji_keyword-regulator","kji_keyword-section","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nGlobal Kids Aldgate East Limited v The Pensions Regulator - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/global-kids-aldgate-east-limited-v-the-pensions-regulator\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"ru_RU\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Global Kids Aldgate East Limited v The Pensions Regulator\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"1. This reference has been determined without a hearing. I am satisfied that the parties have consented to the matter being determined without a hearing and I can properly determine the issues without a hearing having considered rules 2 and 32 of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009. I have considered a bundle of 153 pages,...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/global-kids-aldgate-east-limited-v-the-pensions-regulator\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\u041f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u044f \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0447\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"8 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/global-kids-aldgate-east-limited-v-the-pensions-regulator\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/global-kids-aldgate-east-limited-v-the-pensions-regulator\\\/\",\"name\":\"Global Kids Aldgate East Limited v The Pensions Regulator - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-15T10:07:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/global-kids-aldgate-east-limited-v-the-pensions-regulator\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/global-kids-aldgate-east-limited-v-the-pensions-regulator\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/global-kids-aldgate-east-limited-v-the-pensions-regulator\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/avocats-en-droit-penal-a-paris-conseil-et-defense-strategique\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jurisprudences\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Global Kids Aldgate East Limited v The Pensions Regulator\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"description\":\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"width\":2114,\"height\":1253,\"caption\":\"Kohen Avocats\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Global Kids Aldgate East Limited v The Pensions Regulator - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/global-kids-aldgate-east-limited-v-the-pensions-regulator\/","og_locale":"ru_RU","og_type":"article","og_title":"Global Kids Aldgate East Limited v The Pensions Regulator","og_description":"1. This reference has been determined without a hearing. I am satisfied that the parties have consented to the matter being determined without a hearing and I can properly determine the issues without a hearing having considered rules 2 and 32 of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009. I have considered a bundle of 153 pages,...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/global-kids-aldgate-east-limited-v-the-pensions-regulator\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\u041f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u044f \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0447\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f":"8 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/global-kids-aldgate-east-limited-v-the-pensions-regulator\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/global-kids-aldgate-east-limited-v-the-pensions-regulator\/","name":"Global Kids Aldgate East Limited v The Pensions Regulator - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-15T10:07:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/global-kids-aldgate-east-limited-v-the-pensions-regulator\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"ru-RU","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/global-kids-aldgate-east-limited-v-the-pensions-regulator\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/global-kids-aldgate-east-limited-v-the-pensions-regulator\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/avocats-en-droit-penal-a-paris-conseil-et-defense-strategique\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jurisprudences","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Global Kids Aldgate East Limited v The Pensions Regulator"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/","name":"Kohen Avocats","description":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"ru-RU"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"ru-RU","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","width":2114,"height":1253,"caption":"Kohen Avocats"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_likes_enabled":false,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision\/567933","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/kji_decision"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=567933"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=567933"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=567933"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=567933"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=567933"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=567933"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=567933"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=567933"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}