Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery Chamber

[2025] UKUT 00185 (TCC)

Fecha: 09-Abr-2025

September

September

446.

The September Audit Committee was informed by Ms Gillan that “inconsistencies in the reporting of commercial RWAs, specifically on commercial lending assets secured on property had been identified”. The Committee was also informed, wrongly, that the regulatory position was “ambiguous”, although it was also told that it had been “accepted that the error should be remediated”, see §148.

447.

At the September NEDs meeting, Mr Gunn reported on the meeting with the PRA and on the PSM letter, and Mr Lockhart stated that “the RWA error amounted to a £40m capital amount”, see §150.

448.

The September Board meeting took place the same afternoon (see §§151-153). The Board was provided with:

(1)

Ms Gillan’s report, which said (in a passage not discussed during the meeting) that the RWA reclassification “could” increase regulatory capital by around £40m, but did not include the estimated increase to the RWAs; and

(2)

the PSM letter, which was “noted”; the minutes record that the Board was told that the classification of commercial risk weights had been discussed with the PRA; that remediation was taking place and that “once fully remediated, the PRA had confirmed that they would be able to reconsider the application of Pillar 2 Offset”.