Pensions Regulator Cracks Down After Retail Group Goes Bust

16/01/2018


Thousands of employees rely on company pension schemes to fund their retirement and that is why both regulators and the courts enjoy broad powers to ensure they are properly managed. In one case that proved the point, a businessman was convicted of failing to comply with notices requiring him to provide information to the Pensions Regulator.

The case concerned a retail group that had gone into administration not long after its purchase by a company of which the businessman was the majority shareholder. The group’s pension fund sustained catastrophic losses and that prompted the Pensions Regulator to serve him with a series of three notices under Section 72 of the Pensions Act 2004 requiring him to provide information, in the form of answers to questions, regarding the group’s acquisition and other matters.

The businessman put forward various explanations for his late compliance, or partial or total non-compliance, with the notices. Amongst other things, he argued that he had placed the matter in the hands of his solicitors, that he had been prevented from accessing documents by the group’s administrators and that he had been concerned about providing false or misleading information.

In convicting him of three offences under the Act, however, a district judge found that he had deliberately stalled for time in respect of the first two notices and failed entirely to comply with the third. The Pensions Regulator’s requests were relevant, necessary and proportionate and he had no reasonable excuse for neglecting or refusing to provide answers. The maximum penalty for the offences was a fine and issues in respect of sentencing were adjourned for further argument.

Contact us for more information


Share this article