Long Life Fencing & Decking Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 15 June 2026

Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 887 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

Short overview

This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.

AI confidence in this short overview: high

This appeal concerned a Schedule 26 VAT late payment penalty issued to Long Life Fencing & Decking Ltd for failure to pay VAT due by 7 November 2025; HMRC assessed a penalty of £420.52. The Tribunal found liability and that notification was given within the statutory time, and rejected the appellant’s para 12 reasonable excuse defence (director’s inexperience and lack of specific HMRC correspondence). The appeal was dismissed and the penalty upheld.

Ratio decidendi

This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.

AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high

The Tribunal applied the Perrin staged approach: record the asserted facts, determine which facts are proven, and then assess objectively whether those proven facts constitute a reasonable excuse. It held that a newly registered trader’s inexperience and lack of specific HMRC correspondence do not, without more, amount to a reasonable excuse for missing standard filing/payment deadlines; accessible guidance and no evidence of steps taken to check the rules meant no reasonable excuse was shown.

Obiter dicta

This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.

AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium

The judgment indicated that HMRC’s automated processes which prevent production of an original penalty notice do not prevent proof of notification: a screenshot and an example notice can suffice to establish notification on the balance of probabilities. It also observed that prompt corrective action after the failure does not establish a reasonable excuse for the original failure to pay on time.