Brewery and its chairman fined for failing to hand over information to TPR
31 July 2018
Samuel Smith Brewery and its chairman Humphrey Smith have been ordered to pay nearly £28,000 after admitting failing to hand over information to The Pensions Regulator (TPR).
Further to the news in April that Samuel Smith Brewery and its chairman were to be prosecuted for failing to provide information and documents required for an ongoing TPR investigation, they have been ordered to pay combined fines of £26,750 and £1,240 in costs and victim surcharges.
TPR required information about Samuel Smith Old Brewery’s financial position following the submission of the 2015 valuation of some of the company’s final salary pension schemes. The information was required to enable TPR to understand whether the pension schemes were being adequately supported.
The information was not provided by the deadline set in TPR’s statutory notice issued under section 72 of the Pensions Act 2004. The information was provided three months after the deadline expired, and only after criminal proceedings had commenced.
Both Samuel Smith Brewery and its chairman pleaded guilty at Brighton Magistrates’ Court on 15 May to neglecting or refusing to provide information and documents without a reasonable excuse, contrary to section 77(1) of the Pensions Act 2004. Humphrey Smith was charged on the basis that he consented to or connived in the offence by the company, or caused it by his neglect.
At Brighton Magistrates’ Court on 30 July 2018, both company chairman Humphrey Smith and Samuel Smith Old Brewery fined £18,750. They were also ordered to pay £1,240 in costs and victim surcharges.
The case is the sixth criminal conviction secured by TPR against individuals or organisations for failing to comply with section 72 notices.
Nicola Parish, TPR’s executive director of frontline regulation, said:
“Mr Smith and the brewery could have avoided this fine and a criminal conviction by simply complying with our notice requiring the information to be provided. Our ability to request information is a necessary part of our regulatory toolkit and we take it very seriously when parties do not co-operate with us.
People who ignore our notices asking them to provide information should expect us to launch a criminal prosecution. As Mr Smith has discovered, becoming compliant with our requests after a court summons has been served will not halt criminal proceedings.”