Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery Chamber

[2025] UKUT 00185 (TCC)

Fecha: 09-Abr-2025

Nature of the data issues

Nature of the data issues

370.

We have already made the following findings of fact:

(1)

On 17 August 2018, Mr MacLean emailed Mr Arden about errors in “upstream data that have caused inaccuracies in reg and external reporting”, see §§118-119.

(2)

In November 2018, Deloitte reported that there were “multiple gaps in the controls framework at every stage of the process, from data sourcing through to report generation”, see §245.

(3)

The PRA subsequently confirmed that the Bank’s “front-end data capture and systems did not allow it to capture all relevant information that it needed to accurately classify exposures and calculate risk weights for its lending portfolio, see §261.

371.

We thus make the further finding that at the time of the Q3 Update, there were data issues within the Bank’s systems.

372.

We also find that those errors related to the categorisation of loans rather than to their existence or quantum or to the security held over them. That is clear from the following earlier findings:

(1)

Mr MacLean referred to problems with regulatory and external reporting, see §118;

(2)

Deloitte was engaged to review the classification issues, see §155;

(3)

the Bank’s internal team were looking at the individual loans “to understand which classification had been applied” and to compare that with the correct classification, see §158;

(4)

Deloitte concluded that the data issues meant that it was “virtually impossible to evidence the integrity of the RWA calculation or the COREP reports”, see §245; and

(5)

the PRA similarly said that the Bank was “unable to accurately classify exposures and calculate risk weights for its lending portfolio”, see §261(6).