The AIRB application
The AIRB application
We have already found as facts that:
the Bank wanted to move from standardised basis to IRB; it had developed a plan to do this over five years, beginning in February 2018 when it applied for residential mortgages to move onto that basis. The Bank’s plan was to follow this in turn by buy-to-let mortgages, revolving unsecured mortgages, and finally by commercial loans, see §91. Thus, the application which had been made at the time of the Q3 Update related only to residential mortgages, not to CLIP loans.
The Bank’s own expectation, set out in its 2018 half year update, was that it would make the transition to IRB for residential mortgages in the second half of 2019, see §112.
At the meeting with Mr Gunn on 6 September 2018, the PRA said that the Bank’s application was “more complex/challenging than any other of our comparator banks” and they had “some genuine concern about the depth of [the Bank’s] use test experience and also of the depth of experience of [its] modelling team”. Although the PRA had not yet carried out detailed testing, they were “uneasy” and as a result “it may take [the Bank] longer to get approval, maybe considerably so”, see §131(3).
The PSM letter dated 10 September 2018 warned the Bank about speaking publicly about the application, saying that this “may risk setting false expectations over the timeframe for achieving IRB model approval” and adding that the PRA had “not yet reached any formal decision on [the Bank’s] application but we remain concerned about the depth of your relevant modelling experience”, see §132.
At the meeting on 12 September 2018, the PRA said there “was no decision yet but the high level feedback so far is that the firm does not have the required level of use testing experience”. When Ms Gillan and Mr Donaldson challenged that response, Mr Sutherland advised the Bank that “there would be an internal Challenge Session and there would be an opportunity for the firm to appeal the decision after that”.
The 2019 Budget paper which was discussed at the October Board meeting, said that the Bank was hoping that AIRB approval for residential mortgages would be being “received during Q3 2019”, adding “we should have early sight of actual dates on AIRB before our full year results announcement”.
Mr Donaldson agreed in cross-examination that, given the PRA’s response at the meeting on 12 September, the application for AIRB was not “looking particularly promising” and was in any event “some way in[to] the future”.
We find that the reasonable issuer in the Bank’s position would not have considered that obtaining IRB for the residential mortgages would mitigate against the increased RWAs for CLIP loans, given:
its own expectation, in the same Board meeting as the Q3 Update was approved, was that this would not be achieved before the third quarter of 2019, a full year ahead; and
the warnings from the PRA about the Bank’s unrealistic expectations and the reference in the meeting on 12 September to appealing the outcome of the decision-making process.
- Heading
- Introduction
- The jurisdiction of the Tribunal
- The burden and standard of proof
- The PRA and capital requirements
- The Bank’s lending
- CRE loans
- CLIP loans
- PBTL loans
- COREP reporting
- The Authority
- Listing Rule 1.3.3R
- The MAR
- The evidence
- Approach to the evidence
- Mr Arden
- Mr Donaldson
- Ms Gillan
- Ms Roberts
- Mr Somers and Mr Dransfield
- Mr Sutherland
- Mr Lane
- Mr Brierley
- Individuals who were not called as witnesses
- Findings of fact
- The early years
- Linklaters
- Key personnel during the period from March 2018
- Relationship with the PRA and the Authority
- 2016 and 2017
- The COREP audit and the CRE loans
- Mr Arden, the Board and the committees
- KPMG appointed
- April to June 2018
- July 2018
- The 2018 capital raise and half year results
- August 2018: PBTL and CLIP
- Communicating with the PRA
- KPMG decision trees
- PBTL classification
- Annual Review of Commercial Lending
- September Audit Committee
- September NEDs meeting
- September Board meeting
- Engagement of Deloitte
- Internal work in support
- Communications with the PRA
- Meeting with Linklaters
- Disclosure Committee meeting
- Mr Somers’ email
- Meetings with Mr Hill and Mr Bernau
- The October CRPAC meeting
- RWA Report
- Business and Commercial Lending
- The October Audit Committee meeting
- The Q3 Update
- Accounting, reporting and control report
- The October ROC meeting
- Chief Risk Officer’s Report
- The RWA Report
- Business and Commercial Lending Review
- The October Board meeting
- Linklaters Governance Update
- Audit Committee Update
- The Q3 Update
- 2019 Budget Paper
- Whether the RWA issue was discussed
- Chief Risk Officer’s Report
- Response to PSM Letter
- The Q3 Update and analyst calls
- Deloitte’s reports
- Discussions with Linklaters
- Discussions with the PRA and the January announcement
- Subsequently
- The PRA
- The Authority
- Mr Donaldson’s and Mr Arden’s careers
- The common ground
- The Parties’ cases
- The Authority’s case
- The Applicants’ case
- ISSUE ONE: WHETHER THE BANK BREACHED LR 1.3.3R
- The PRA and the COREP Returns
- Findings of fact
- The Applicants’ position
- The Tribunal’s view
- The PRA and confidentiality
- Findings of fact
- The Applicants’ position
- The Authority’s position
- The Tribunal’s view
- Mr Lane’s advice
- Findings of fact not in dispute
- Who was at the meeting
- How long was the meeting
- Linklaters’ practice when giving advice
- Knowledge of the impending Q3 Update
- What was said by Mr Arden at the meeting
- Confidential matter?
- The Tribunal’s finding
- The purpose of the meeting
- Reasonable to rely?
- Overall conclusion on legal advice
- No breach if uncertain and under investigation?
- Mr Jaffey’s submissions
- Mr Stanley’s submissions
- The Tribunal’s view
- No material breach if unknown
- The knowledge issue
- Key findings already made
- The Authority’s overall position on the knowledge issue
- The Applicants’ overall position on the knowledge issue
- Rules on classification
- Data issues
- Nature of the data issues
- Extent of the data issues
- Effect on materiality
- SME supporting factor
- Residential property
- Conclusion on data issues
- The mitigants overall
- The AIRB application
- Pillar 2A Offset
- Submissions
- Findings of fact
- Conclusion on Pillar 2A offset
- Phasing in
- PRA discretion
- Taking all the above into account
- Overall conclusion on the Knowledge Issue
- The PBTL Loans
- Findings of fact
- Submissions and the Tribunal’s view
- Whether the alternatives were unreasonable
- The Applicants’ position
- The Authority’s submissions
- The Tribunal’s view
- Reliance on the board and the Committees
- Findings of fact
- September
- October Audit Committee
- October ROC meeting
- October Board meeting
- The position of the parties
- The Tribunal’s view
- The Audit Committee
- The Board
- Reliance on Ms James
- Findings of fact
- Submissions
- Discussion
- Overall conclusion on Issue one
- The legal principles
- The statutory provisions
- Burton v Bevan
- Scandex
- Capital Alternatives
- Avacade
- Ferreira
- Submissions on Ferreira
- The words of the provision
- The ratio of Ferreira
- The corporate veil
- Forster: meaning of “knowingly concerned”
- Forster: reliance on legal advice
- The Applicants’ submissions
- The Authority’s submissions
- The Tribunal’s view
- The principles summarised and the issues remaining
- Mr Arden
- Mr Donaldson
- The position of the parties
- The Tribunal’s view
- ISSUE THREE: PENALTIES
- The Tribunal’s approach
- The DEPP
- The Authority’s position
- The Applicants’ position
- The Tribunal’s view
- The penalty framework
- Applying the Steps
- Step 2(1)-(3): Earnings
- The Tribunal’s view
- Step 2(4)-(7): Seriousness
- Step 3: Mitigation
- DEPP
- Submissions and discussion
- Co-operation
- Remediation
- Compliance with the PRA’s requirements
- Communications with the Authority
- No negative factors
- Other consequences
- Difference between the Applicants?
- Conclusions
![[2025] UKUT 00185 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png)