[2025] UKUT 00185 (TCC)

the Chief Risk Officer’s Report, the summary page of which contained a brief reference to the fact that “standardised RWAs continue to be above threshold”, while the more detailed slide unhelpfully conflated the reference to the historic issue of reweighting CRE assets with the new CLIP loan problem. The same slide also stated (again, our emphasis) that “this metric could increase by around 10 per cent (circa 40 million of capital) upon completion of the asset classification project”, but without more explanation. Although there was a discussion at the meeting about other elements of the report, there are no minuted comments about this item, see §§204-206;

the RWA Report, which included slides which said that RWAs were expected to increase by an estimated £642m including £574m relating to CLIP loans, and that “any further adjustments to calculations are not expected to be material”. However, the minutes record that the Committee was also told that “the commercial business was now largely correctly risk weighted” and that the wrong risk weighting “had been driven by a lack of clarity and conflicting rules in the regulatory publications”. Neither of those statements was correct, see §§210-211; and

the report on business and commercial lending as previously circulated to the CRPAC, see §186. The Executive Summary said (our emphasis) that the Bank had “experienced some issues with asset classification for regulatory reporting of RWAs”; that this was “not unique to Metro Bank” and would be “resolved over a two-year period”. Although the minutes show that commercial lending was discussed, there was no mention of RWAs.