One of many high executives at Santander UK is getting ready to leaving Britain’s fifth-biggest financial institution amid a row which has left colleagues complaining that he’s a sufferer of “double requirements” in its boardroom.
Sky Information has learnt that Mike Ellwood, the managing director for company banking, is that this weekend negotiating the phrases of his exit from the Spanish-owned lender.
Mr Ellwood, who has labored for Santander since 2009, when he joined from Royal Financial institution of Scotland (RBS), is claimed to have requested his secretary to finish a obligatory coaching module on his behalf.
The coaching course, which senior executives should undertake yearly as a part of the financial institution’s regulatory necessities, is claimed to be routine, and there’s no suggestion that Mr Ellwood sought any private acquire from not enterprise the programme himself.
The difficulty is claimed to have been drawn to the eye of Santander UK’s board, which is chaired by the previous Treasury minister Baroness Vadera, in addition to the Monetary Conduct Authority (FCA) and Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA).
It was unclear this weekend whether or not Mr Ellwooden’s alleged motion is the topic of any exterior probe, however his therapy has sparked fury amongst various present and former colleagues.
Santander UK has been going through specific scrutiny in latest months as a result of Nathan Bostock, its chief govt, and Chris Sullivan, who runs its company and business lending actions, have been each concerned within the administration of RBS’s controversial International Restructuring Group (GRG) unit.
The division, which was supposed to assist struggling SMEs return to monetary well being, in lots of circumstances hastened their demise by charging them unsustainable charges.
Neither Mr Bostock nor Mr Sullivan have been subjected to any regulatory sanction, at the same time as particulars of GRG’s therapy of hundreds of small enterprise prospects emerged from an impartial investigation performed on behalf of the FCA.
Mr Bostock was RBS’s danger chief for a number of years earlier than briefly changing into its chief monetary officer, whereas Mr Sullivan was accountable for the company banking arm through which GRG sat.
The FCA, which has additionally been criticised for its dealing with of the disaster surrounding GRG, is continuous to conduct an enforcement investigation into the problem.
Though not accused of private wrongdoing in relation to GRG prospects, Mr Sullivan was accused of deceptive parliament after a session in entrance of the Treasury Choose Committee throughout which he insisted that GRG had not been “a revenue centre” for RBS within the interval after its £45.5bn taxpayer bailout.
Mr Ellwood, who led the structuring of personal fairness offers throughout his time at RBS, was not related to GRG in any formal capability.
In an announcement issued to Sky Information, a Santander UK spokesman stated:”We don’t touch upon personnel issues relating to particular person members of workers.
“GRG is a matter for RBS and the FCA , not Santander.”
The conduct of people within the banking business has been thrown into sharper focus by the introduction of the Senior Managers Regime, which was launched within the wake of the Parliamentary Fee on Banking Requirements.
The brand new framework is meant to make executives extra accountable for his or her actions.
Probably the most outstanding instance of a person’s conduct being scrutinised inside the revised parameters is that of Jes Staley, the Barclays chief govt, who’s beneath investigation for his therapy of a whistleblower.A supply near Santander UK insisted that the case of Mr Ellwood was “severe” however stated its investigation had not but concluded.
They added that it had “completely nothing” to do with GRG or RBS.
One particular person near Mr Ellwood stated, nevertheless, that what he had executed was “a yellow, not a purple, card offence, and had had no affect on prospects or colleagues”.
One other senior banker described Santander UK’s response as “an overreaction” and accused it of trying to look robust on disciplinary breaches even because it ignored the previous obligations of different main executives.
“It is a flagrant case of double requirements,” they added.