Operational Resilience / Outsourcing in United Kingdom

Key dates

2026-08-27

The Bank of England announced deferral of the entire November 2026 RTGS standards release, including CHAPS messaging standards; Swift announced the corresponding Standards Release delay on the same date.

2026-12-31

Swift has indicated that it will provide an update on the optimal timing and approach for the structured-address change by December 2026 at the latest; this is an expected communications milestone, not a confirmed implementation deadline.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should update regulatory-change inventories and project plans to record that the November 2026 RTGS and CHAPS standards release has been deferred, without assuming that the change has been cancelled.
• CHAPS and RTGS participants should obtain the BoE’s revised implementation timetable and monitor the BoE ISO 20022 implementation page, participant communications and Swift governance updates, including the expected update by December 2026 at the latest.
• Compliance and payments teams may wish to preserve completed analysis and technical preparations for structured or hybrid postal addresses, while reassessing sequencing, testing windows, release dependencies and vendor delivery dates against the revised timetable.
• Firms should distinguish the deferred BoE/CHAPS release from any other payment-system or bilateral requirements that may continue on their original schedules, and should confirm the treatment of address validation, message rejection, exception handling and operational support with relevant counterparties and vendors.
• Technology and operations teams should maintain regression-test environments and data-quality remediation plans so that implementation can resume without restarting discovery or delaying future mandatory testing.
• Firms using both CHAPS/RTGS and Swift CBPR+ should assess whether the coordinated deferral changes their customer communications, correspondent-bank testing, operational-resilience scenarios, payment-routing controls and incident-management assumptions.
• Governance committees may wish to record the deferral as a schedule and dependency change rather than as a reduction in scope, because the BoE states that the November release is deferred in its entirety and provides no indication that the underlying standards work is withdrawn.

What changed

The November 2026 RTGS standards release will not proceed as originally planned and has been deferred in its entirety rather than being split into separate changes. This includes the RTGS messaging standards applicable to CHAPS payments. The decision maintains alignment with Swift’s deferred CBPR+ release and means that the previously expected 2026-11-14 removal of fully unstructured postal addresses should not be treated as the operative BoE/Swift implementation date; Swift has indicated that it will consult market participants and provide an update by December 2026 at the latest.

Key dates

2026-12-31 Deadline

AST critical recommendations expected to be implemented, including same-day trade allocation/confirmation and adoption of the FMSB SSI standard

2027-10-11 Deadline

UK T+1 securities settlement cycle begins; transferables securities traded on a UK venue and settled on a UK CSD are expected to settle on T+1 basis

Suggested considerations

• Review whether the firm has completed a T+1 project plan, secured budget and governance, and mapped all required system and process changes.
• Check that trade allocation and confirmation processes can operate by end of trade date, or identify remediation needed to reach that standard.
• Confirm adoption of the FMSB standard for sharing standard settlement instructions and align client outreach to ensure clients use the same standard where relevant.
• Assess whether current settlement performance can be measured clearly, including failure rates and root causes, and whether management information is sufficient to track progress.
• Validate dependencies on custodians, counterparties, clients and third-party providers, and obtain their implementation timelines and testing plans.
• Prepare testing strategy and evidence for testing readiness, including alignment with the UK/EU joint testing plan.
• Consider whether the firm’s fund settlement cycle should move to T+2 before 11 October 2027 to reduce cycle mismatch risk.
• Increase automation where manual processes remain material, particularly in matching, confirmation and settlement instruction workflows.

What changed

This is not a new rule notice, but it is a supervisory signal about expectations for the 11 October 2027 T+1 transition. The FCA expects firms to have completed T+1 project planning, secured budget and governance, and be well into implementation, with system and process changes underway and testing plans finalised by the time the market moves closer to 2027. The FCA highlighted specific implementation priorities drawn from the Accelerated Settlement Taskforce framework, including allocating and confirming trades by the end of trade date, adopting the Financial Markets Standards Board...

Key dates

31 July 2023

- Consumer Duty came into force for open products and services and firms were expected to have outcomes monitoring capability in place from day one

31 July 2024 Deadline

- The final Consumer Duty implementation deadline applied to all in-scope financial services firms

2025

- The FCA reviewed firms’ approaches to outcomes monitoring over the past year and published its findings in this blog and related review material

TBD (ongoing)

- Firms are expected to continue regular monitoring, testing, and evidence-gathering on an ongoing basis under PRIN 2A.9

Suggested considerations

• Firms must establish and maintain a documented outcomes monitoring framework that defines good and poor customer outcomes for each relevant product or service.
• Firms must map metrics to the full customer journey, including product design, communications, customer support, and distribution arrangements.
• Firms must collect MI that can identify poor or potentially poor outcomes, root causes, and emerging risks before harm crystallises.
• Firms must document the rationale for each metric, threshold, and tolerance, including why those measures are appropriate for the customer population and product.
• Firms must maintain a clear audit trail linking MI, governance review, decisions, remediation, and outcome improvement testing.

What changed

• - The FCA expects firms to regularly assess, test, understand, and evidence the outcomes retail customers are receiving under the Consumer Duty.
• Firms should use monitoring to identify whether any group of retail customers is experiencing different outcomes from another group for the same product and understand why those differences exist.
• Monitoring frameworks should define what good outcomes look like in practice and translate those outcomes into measurable indicators tied to the customer journey.
• Firms should not rely on broad or high-level MI alone; they must use information to challenge performance, identify risks, and drive improvements.
• Firms should be able to explain why metrics and tolerances were chosen and whether any actions taken have been tested and shown to reduce harm or friction.

Key dates

14 October 2026 Deadline

- Deadline for submitting responses to PRA Consultation Paper CP10/26 on the deletion of the Continuity of Provision of Services Chapter and related changes to the Ring‑fenced Bodies Part

Suggested considerations

• Assess the current use of the Continuity of Provision of Services Chapter in the Ring‑fenced Bodies Part within your firm’s ring‑fencing policies, procedures, contracts and governance, and identify all controls that explicitly rely on those rules.
• Prepare and submit a considered response to CP10/26 by 14 October 2026, addressing the practical impact of deleting the Continuity of Provision of Services Chapter, any residual areas of concern, and suggestions for guidance or transitional arrangements.
• Coordinate with group entities acting as permitted suppliers or critical service providers to ensure their OCIR documentation, service catalogues, TSAs and liquidity arrangements remain aligned with the ring‑fenced body’s continuity requirements in the absence of the deleted chapter.
• Monitor for the subsequent PRA policy statement that will follow CP10/26, and be prepared to implement any final rule changes, transitional provisions or clarifications on how ring‑fencing continuity expectations intersect with OCIR and operational resilience regimes.

What changed

• - The PRA proposes to delete in full the Continuity of Provision of Services Chapter in the Ring‑fenced Bodies Part of the PRA Rulebook, removing the specific ring‑fencing continuity‑of‑services...
• The PRA will make consequential amendments to the Ring‑fenced Bodies Part to remove or adjust cross‑references, defined terms and obligations that are linked to the deleted Continuity of Provision of...
• The proposal effectively retires the bespoke continuity‑of‑services construct that was introduced when ring‑fencing was implemented (including detailed constraints on termination, suspension or...
• The consultation paper explains how the PRA intends to align ring‑fenced bodies’ continuity‑of‑services expectations with existing supervisory statements on operational continuity in resolution (for...
• The PRA invites stakeholders to comment on whether deleting the Continuity of Provision of Services Chapter, and relying on the broader operational continuity regime, still adequately protects the...

Key dates

12 November 2024

- UK regulators publish final policy and supervisory materials setting out the CTP oversight regime, including Fundamental Rules and operational risk and resilience requirements

01 January 2025

- CTP rules and oversight regime take legal effect, but only apply once a provider is designated as a CTP

13 July 2026

- Regulations for CTP oversight come into effect for the first designated CTPs; Bank of England, PRA and FCA formally start supervising AWS EMEA, Google Cloud EMEA, Microsoft Ireland Operations and Oracle UK as CTPs

Suggested considerations

• Review and update the firm’s operational resilience framework, including impact tolerances and scenario testing, to explicitly incorporate systemic risk arising from reliance on the designated CTPs and potential correlated failures affecting multiple services or regions.
• Re‑assess outsourcing and third‑party risk management policies to ensure they clearly distinguish between obligations placed on regulated firms and those placed directly on CTPs, while maintaining robust due diligence, ongoing monitoring and exit strategies for all CTP‑hosted services.
• Engage with designated CTPs (through account management, risk and security channels) to understand their approach to compliance with the CTP regime, including incident reporting arrangements, resilience testing, communication protocols and any new assurance artifacts they plan to provide.
• Update board and senior management reporting so that reliance on designated CTPs, associated systemic risk and regulatory developments under the CTP regime are regularly monitored and discussed at appropriate governance forums (e.g. risk committee, operational resilience committee).
• Review major incident management and crisis communication playbooks to ensure they include specific escalation paths, contact points and joint incident handling procedures with designated CTPs and relevant regulators.

What changed

• - A new CTP oversight regime becomes operational on 13 July 2026, under which the Bank of England, PRA and FCA will jointly supervise certain technology and service providers whose failure could...
• HM Treasury has made the first formal CTP designations: Amazon Web Services EMEA SARL, Google Cloud EMEA Limited, Microsoft Ireland Operations Ltd and Oracle Corporation UK Limited.
• Designated CTPs must identify and manage risks to their critical services effectively, including governance, risk management and operational resilience arrangements specifically focused on services...
• CTPs are required to maintain open, timely communication with regulators and with firms that rely on them, particularly during major incidents, implying strengthened incident reporting,...
• The three regulators will jointly oversee CTPs under a proportionate regime focused on resilience of “critical services”, including assessing and mitigating system‑level risks and reducing the risk...

Key dates

10 November 2025

- Bank of England consultation paper issued on the proposed regulatory framework for sterling‑denominated systemic stablecoins and systemic payment system operators

Late 2026

- Bank of England intends to finalise the Code of Practice and supporting materials by the end of 2026, confirming the prudential and structural regime for systemic stablecoins

From 2026

- UK introduces new regulatory authorisation requirements for stablecoin issuers, including FCA authorisation for qualifying issuance and custody activities

10 February 2026

- Consultation period closes for the Bank of England’s systemic stablecoin regime proposals

June 2026

- Bank of England publishes its policy statement and draft Code of Practice for systemic stablecoin issuers, setting out detailed prudential and backing‑asset rules and confirming joint work with the FCA on an end‑to‑end regime

Suggested considerations

• Map all existing and planned sterling‑denominated stablecoin products against the UK’s systemic and non‑systemic regimes and assess whether their intended use in UK payments could trigger HM Treasury systemic recognition.
• Initiate or update FCA authorisation applications for stablecoin issuance and cryptoasset custody activities, ensuring business models, governance and safeguarding arrangements align with CP25/14 and the forthcoming stablecoin regime.
• Design and implement reserve‑management frameworks capable of maintaining backing assets equal to outstanding coins, in the proposed 70/30 mix between short‑term UK government debt and Bank of England deposits, with appropriate stress testing and liquidity risk oversight.
• Establish statutory trust and segregation structures for backing assets and liquid‑asset reserves, including appointing UK‑authorised third‑party custodians and aligning documentation with FCA client‑asset‑style protections and coinholder proprietary claims.
• Develop capital planning processes and ICAAP‑style assessments to meet the Bank of England’s requirements for capital against general business risk and dedicated reserves for financial risk and wind‑down costs.

What changed

• - UK stablecoin issuance will be subject to a dual regulatory regime: non‑systemic stablecoins will be supervised solely by the FCA, while systemic stablecoins used for payments will be jointly...
• Issuing a qualifying sterling‑denominated stablecoin in the UK will become a regulated activity, requiring FCA authorisation for non‑bank issuers and bringing them within the FCA’s prudential,...
• HM Treasury will apply statutory systemic tests under the Banking Act (e.g. scale, interconnectedness, substitutability, impact on confidence in sterling) to decide whether a stablecoin payment...
• Once recognised as systemic, stablecoin issuers and systemic payment system providers will fall under the Bank of England’s remit under the Banking Act 2009, including powers to obtain information,...
• Systemic sterling‑denominated stablecoin issuers will be required to maintain backing reserves equal to all outstanding coins, with backing assets held on statutory trust in the UK and ring‑fenced...

Key dates

15 July 2025

– Payments Vision Delivery Committee agrees the new public‑private model to deliver the next‑generation UK retail payments infrastructure under the National Payments Vision

Late 2026

– HM Treasury and the Bank of England are expected to publish conclusions on whether, and in what form, to proceed with a digital pound, which will influence infrastructure design and multi‑money functionality (date inferred as “later this year”)

25 June 2026

– Retail Payments Infrastructure Board consultation on the design of the future UK retail payments infrastructure is launched

11 September 2026 Deadline

– Deadline for stakeholders to submit responses to the RPIB consultation on the next‑generation retail payments infrastructure

Suggested considerations

• Identify internal stakeholders (payments product, technology, operations, legal, compliance, risk) and establish a formal project to coordinate your firm’s response to the RPIB consultation.
• Perform a gap analysis of your firm’s current use of Faster Payments, Bacs and cheque imaging, focusing on account‑to‑account capabilities, cross‑border flows, fraud and financial crime controls, customer authentication and operational resilience.
• Map and document key payment journeys relevant to your firm (e.g. point‑of‑sale account‑to‑account payments, bill payments, peer‑to‑peer transfers, ecommerce, cross‑border transactions) to enable substantive feedback on user needs and design priorities.
• Assess your firm’s strategic interest in account‑to‑account payments at the point of sale and enhanced cross‑border services, and identify functional requirements (APIs, messaging, reconciliation, chargeback‑like protections) that should be reflected in the consultation response.
• Review emerging regulatory publications under the National Payments Vision and Payments Forward Plan to ensure your consultation input aligns with expected regulatory outcomes on access, competition, resilience and innovation.

What changed

• - The RPIB has opened a consultation to develop a high‑level “blueprint” for the future UK retail payments infrastructure, which will underpin the National Payments Vision and inform the design to be...
• The consultation scope explicitly covers payment journeys, key design choices and priorities for the next‑generation infrastructure, rather than setting immediate prescriptive rules for firms.
• The next‑generation infrastructure is intended to support new payment methods, including account‑to‑account payments at the point of sale (in‑store and online) as a complement to card payments, and...
• Existing retail interbank payment systems (Faster Payments, Bacs, Image Clearing System) operated by Pay.UK will continue to run safely and resiliently during the transition, implying a multi‑year...
• The new infrastructure is being designed to support a multi‑money ecosystem, including existing commercial bank money and emerging forms of digital money (e‑money, tokenised deposits, systemic...

Key dates

2024

- UK Government publishes its National Payments Vision, which provides the policy backdrop for a UK regime on digital money, including stablecoins

10 November 2025

- BoE consultation paper “Proposed regulatory regime for sterling‑denominated systemic stablecoins” is published, setting out the initial framework, including 60% cap on gilts and per‑holder limits

10 November 2025

- BoE Financial Stability Paper on “The role of holding limits for sterling‑denominated systemic stablecoins and a potential digital pound” is published, exploring the macro‑prudential rationale for quantitative limits

End of 2026

- BoE intends to finalise the Code of Practice and supporting rules for systemic sterling‑denominated stablecoins, following the consultation feedback

02 February 2026

- Sarah Breeden speech “Talking ’bout next generation” elaborates on digital money and the proposed stablecoin regime

Suggested considerations

• Conduct a regulatory perimeter and recognition analysis to determine whether any issued or planned sterling‑denominated stablecoin could meet the Banking Act 2009 systemic tests and therefore fall under the BoE systemic stablecoin regime.
• Review and update treasury and investment policies for stablecoin backing assets to ensure the portfolio structure can comply with the revised requirement of up to 70% short‑term UK government debt and the remainder in BoE deposits.
• Perform detailed liquidity and redemption stress‑testing to evidence that central bank deposits and gilt portfolios can support prompt redemption under extreme but plausible scenarios while remaining within the £40 billion issuance guardrail.
• Re‑calibrate business plans and revenue models for systemic stablecoin issuance to reflect the increased allowable share of interest‑bearing gilts, the absence of per‑holder limits, and continued constraints on paying interest to coinholders.
• Design and implement governance and risk‑management frameworks that meet BoE expectations for systemic payment systems, including Board‑level oversight, risk appetite for digital money, and clear accountability for prudential and operational risks.

What changed

• - The Bank of England has published a policy statement “Sterling‑denominated systemic stablecoins” (22 June 2026) and a draft Code of Practice that will constitute the primary rulebook for systemic...
• The regime applies only to systemic sterling‑denominated stablecoins used for UK payments, i.e. stablecoins recognised as systemic under Banking Act 2009 tests where disruption could threaten UK...
• The previous proposal that at least 40% of backing assets be unremunerated central bank deposits and up to 60% in short‑term UK government debt has been revised so that up to 70% of backing assets...
• Backing assets must remain highly liquid and low‑risk, with central bank deposits used explicitly to support prompt redemption in stress, while the expanded gilt component is intended to improve the...
• The BoE has dropped the earlier concept of temporary per‑holder limits (for example, £20,000 per individual and £10 million per business that were consulted on in 2025) and replaced them with a...

Key dates

06 December 2023

– FCA publishes CP23/28 “Updating the regime for Money Market Funds,” consulting on higher liquidity minima (15% DLA and 50% WLA), delinking, enhanced KYC, and broader resilience measures

14 May 2026

– HM Treasury and the FCA publish the joint policy statement “Reforms to Money Market Fund Regulations,” confirming the Government’s intention to replace the UK MMFR with a new framework and that most MMF requirements will be set in FCA rules and guidance, including higher liquidity expectations

15 May 2026

– FCA issues its statement “FCA update on reforms to the UK Money Market Fund Regulation,” setting out updated proposals, including retention of current minimum WLA in rules, the new “adequate resilience” liquidity rule, and supervisory expectations of 40% WLA for stable NAV and 20% WLA for variable NAV MMFs, and indicating that CP23/28 measures such as delinking and enhanced KYC will largely be taken forward

Q4 2026

– The UK’s new MMF regime is expected to be in place, subject to Parliamentary approval of the enabling legislation, after which the detailed FCA rules and guidance (including the new resilience rule and WLA expectations) will apply

TBD (as soon as Parliamentary time allows)

– HM Treasury will lay the statutory instrument replacing the UK MMFR with the new legislative framework under which FCA rules and guidance for MMFs will be made

Suggested considerations

• Conduct a comprehensive gap analysis comparing current MMF liquidity management frameworks (DLA, WLA, and stress‑testing assumptions) against the forthcoming FCA “adequate resilience” rule and the 40% (stable NAV) / 20% (variable NAV) WLA supervisory expectations.
• Update MMF liquidity policies, board‑approved risk appetites, and internal limits to reflect the new WLA expectations, including documentation of when and how funds may temporarily operate below 40%/20% WLA and the governance required to approve such deviations.
• Implement enhancements to liquidity monitoring and MI reporting so that portfolio managers, risk, and compliance have near‑real‑time visibility of DLA and WLA levels, breaches of internal and supervisory thresholds, and redemption‑driven use of liquidity buffers.
• Review and update fund prospectuses, KIIDs/KIDs, and investor disclosures to ensure that descriptions of MMF liquidity management, the availability of liquidity management tools, and the operation of stable NAV structures are accurate under the new FCA regime.
• Revise and strengthen investor KYC procedures for MMFs to capture concentration risks and potential correlated outflows, including segmentation of investor types, monitoring of large holders, and scenario analysis around key client redemption behaviour.

What changed

• - The FCA will introduce a new overarching rule requiring that all UK‑domiciled MMFs must hold sufficient liquidity for “adequate resilience”, explicitly linking fund liquidity to financial stability...
• The FCA will retain the current minimum WLA requirements from the existing UK Money Market Fund Regulation (UK MMFR) in its rules, instead of the previously consulted increases to 50% WLA for all...
• The FCA will issue guidance setting out strong supervisory expectations that stable NAV MMFs should hold 40% WLA and variable NAV MMFs should hold 20% WLA to meet the new resilience requirement,...
• The FCA makes clear that falling below the 40%/20% WLA supervisory expectations should only occur to meet redemption requests or due to factors beyond the manager’s control, and should be rare, with...
• The FCA will retain existing minimum daily liquid asset (DLA) requirements from UK MMFR in rules and does not plan to issue new guidance on DLA levels, but expects DLA and WLA together to be...

Key dates

2024

– The Bank of England and FCA wrote to CCPs, RIEs and RCSDs to request feedback on the effectiveness of cooperation under the MoU based on firms’ interactions during 2024

2025/26

– The authorities conducted the annual joint review of the MoU for FMIs, considering the responses received from supervised entities over the preceding 12 months and assessing the effectiveness of coordination and duplication

Annually (ongoing)

– The Bank of England and FCA will continue to review the MoU each year, including soliciting feedback from FMIs, to confirm that supervisory cooperation remains effective and to identify potential enhancements

Suggested considerations

• Confirm internally that your firm’s regulatory engagement framework recognises the Bank of England–FCA MoU and clearly allocates responsibilities for managing relationships with both authorities in line with their respective roles.
• Review and, where necessary, update internal regulatory communications and escalation procedures to ensure that information relevant to both the Bank of England and FCA can be shared consistently, accurately and on a timely basis, in anticipation of coordinated supervisory expectations.
• Prepare to continue providing structured, constructive feedback during the annual MoU review process by maintaining records of supervisory interactions with each authority, including instances of overlap, gaps, or divergent expectations.
• Align incident management, operational resilience and major change approval processes with the expectation that both authorities may need to be informed and coordinated, and verify that notification playbooks and contact trees reflect this dual‑regulator structure.
• For groups operating multiple FMIs or cross‑border infrastructures, map where other regulators rely on the Bank of England/FCA supervisory cooperation (for example, via substituted compliance or recognition regimes) and integrate this into your global regulatory engagement strategy.

What changed

• - The Bank of England and FCA confirm, following consultation with FMIs over the last 12 months, that the existing MoU framework for supervisory cooperation on financial market infrastructures...
• The authorities explicitly reaffirm their commitment to efficient coordination to enhance the effectiveness of supervision, signalling continued emphasis on timely, accurate and proactive information...
• The statement maintains, rather than revises, the current allocation of responsibilities between the Bank of England (as primary prudential and systemic supervisor for FMIs) and the FCA (as conduct,...
• The authorities confirm the continuation of an annual review process of the MoU, including consultation with supervised FMIs to obtain feedback on how coordination is working in practice, embedding...
• The publication sits alongside the underlying 2025 MoU text (and the broader multi‑regulator MoU framework with FCA, PRA and PSR), reinforcing that FMIs should align their governance, reporting and...

Key dates

Mid‑June 2026 Deadline

– First LIVE submissions using Statistics Taxonomy v1.3.1 become due, covering **end‑May 2026** data; firms must use v1.3.1 for these returns and v1.3.0 instance documents will no longer be valid for submission

02 June 2026 – 12 June 2026

– BEEDS User Acceptance Testing (UAT) window for firms and software houses to test submissions using Statistics Taxonomy v1.3.1 in a non‑production environment, running in parallel with live reporting for some firms and returns

Suggested considerations

• Update internal reporting systems, data integration layers and XBRL engines so that all relevant BoE statistical returns are generated using Statistics Taxonomy v1.3.1 for end‑May 2026 reporting onwards.
• Review and update all XBRL instance document templates and configuration to ensure they reference the correct v1.3.1 entry points and filing indicators (XX.XX.XX format, e.g. FI.01.01).
• Decommission or phase out any dependency on the BoE Statistical Utility tool, and implement an alternative XBRL generation solution (recognised software provider or internal tooling) capable of producing valid v1.3.1 files.
• Conduct a detailed review of the BoE‑published change log, taxonomy package, sample files and XBRL filing manual to understand validation changes, DPM updates and implementation nuances that could cause submission failures.
• Schedule and complete end‑to‑end testing in the BEEDS UAT environment (where available) and in internal test environments to validate that v1.3.1 submissions pass all technical and business validations.

What changed

• - Bank of England Statistics Taxonomy v1.3.1 replaces v1.3.0 for statistical reporting under the BoE Statistics Taxonomy framework.
• The new taxonomy applies to LIVE submissions of end‑May data due from mid‑June 2026, meaning firms must generate those returns using v1.3.1.
• Reporting requirements and published definition documents remain unchanged, with the update limited to technical implementation changes (validation fixes, data point model changes and related...
• Taxonomy v1.3.1 is not backwards compatible with v1.3.0, so XBRL instance documents created under v1.3.0 will not be valid for submission once v1.3.1 is in force.
• Filing indicators are standardised across statistics reporting and now follow the format XX.XX.XX (for example, FI.01.01), requiring alignment of internal mapping and validation rules.

Key dates

Summer 2026

- The Bank plans to run a second consultation on the specific wildlife options to feature on the new series

End of 2026

- The Bank intends to announce the outcome of the consultation and final design direction

03 June 2026

- The Bank of England launches the public consultation on wildlife imagery for the next series of banknotes

03 July 2026

- The consultation closes

TBD (multi

year process; after 2026); - The Bank will complete detailed design, testing, printing, and rollout of the new series, which it says will take several years

Suggested considerations

• Review internal cash and branch readiness plans to account for a future change to the visual appearance of UK banknotes.
• Monitor the Bank of England’s consultation outcomes so denomination-specific handling, ATM, sorting, and authentication procedures can be updated in time.
• Update customer communications and frontline scripts to reflect that the next series will feature wildlife imagery, while retaining the monarch’s portrait.
• Validate that note-recognition, counterfeit-detection, and cash-acceptance systems can accommodate new denomination designs once specifications are released.
• Track the Bank’s second consultation in summer 2026 if your organisation relies on cash logistics, cash processing, or public education materials.

What changed

• - The Bank has opened a consultation on selecting four distinct native wildlife images for the central design of the next series of banknotes, one for each denomination from £5 to £50.
• The eligible imagery is limited to a published shortlist; the Bank is not seeking alternative nominations and will only consider animals on that list.
• The shortlist spans mammals, birds, and amphibians/insects/fish, reflecting the Bank’s intent to represent different UK environments across the banknote set.
• The Bank will select up to two examples from each category in the consultation, but the final selection may not match the highest-voted options.
• The Bank will retain a portrait of the monarch on the next series, alongside additional wildlife and nature elements.

Key dates

End May 2026

– Reference date of the first LIVE reporting period to which Bank of England Statistics Taxonomy v1.3.1 applies (end‑May 2026 data)

25 May 2026

– Last date for software houses to email the BEEDS queries mailbox to request access to the BEEDS UAT environment for this specific UAT window

Mid June 2026 Deadline

– Due date window for LIVE submissions of end‑May 2026 statistical data under Taxonomy v1.3.1 via BEEDS LIVE

02 June 2026

– Opening of BEEDS UAT environment for the June testing window under Taxonomy v1.3.1 FINAL

12 June 2026

– Closing of BEEDS UAT environment for the June testing window

Suggested considerations

• Identify all Bank of England statistical returns in scope of Taxonomy v1.3.1 and confirm that internal reporting calendars and responsibilities reflect the end‑May 2026 effective period and mid‑June 2026 submission deadlines.
• Ensure that all in‑scope statistical reporting firms’ BEEDS LIVE user and firm information are accurate and up to date, so that automatic mirroring into the BEEDS UAT environment creates correct and controlled user profiles.
• Instruct software houses and third‑party vendors supporting Bank of England statistical reporting to request BEEDS UAT access by emailing the BEEDS queries mailbox no later than 25 May 2026 if they intend to participate in this UAT window.
• Coordinate with internal IT and vendors to schedule, prepare, and execute test submissions in BEEDS UAT between 02 June and 12 June 2026, covering all relevant entry points and reporting scenarios under Taxonomy v1.3.1.
• Implement or validate an alternative XBRL generation solution to replace the withdrawn Bank of England Statistical Utility Tool, and complete end‑to‑end testing (source data to BEEDS receipt) ahead of the mid‑June 2026 live submission deadline.

What changed

• - The Bank of England has opened a BEEDS UAT environment specifically for testing statistical submissions under Statistical Taxonomy v1.3.1 FINAL, distinct from the BEEDS LIVE production environment.
• A dedicated UAT window is set from 02 June to 12 June 2026, during which the UAT environment will run in parallel with live reporting for some firms and returns.
• Statistical reporting firms are automatically enabled for BEEDS UAT using their existing BEEDS LIVE firm and user information and do not need to request UAT access.
• Software houses that wish to use this UAT window must request access by emailing the BEEDS queries mailbox by a stated cut‑off date (25 May 2026).
• All principal and additional user details for firms will be mirrored from the BEEDS LIVE environment into BEEDS UAT, with UAT‑specific temporary passwords issued from the designated BEEDS UAT email...

Key dates

Second half of 2017

- Proposed implementation date for superseding SS18/13 (achieved with December 2017 publication)

21 September 2017 Deadline

- PRA consultation deadline for CP9/17 (the consultation paper preceding this statement)

11 December 2017

- SS9/17 first published and became effective

Ongoing Deadline

- Firms must maintain and test recovery plans continuously; the PRA notes this statement "may be revised as recovery planning becomes further embedded in firms' risk management practices"

Suggested considerations

• *Develop comprehensive recovery plans containing all minimum elements specified in the Recovery Planning Part of the PRA Rulebook and detailed in SS9/17
• *Establish governance frameworks documenting how recovery plans are produced, reviewed, approved by the board, and how recovery options would be implemented
• *Conduct fire drill exercises that simulate recovery scenarios, test governance arrangements, and validate management information capabilities
• *Create implementation playbooks (for complex plans) that enable rapid execution by senior management during stress
• *Perform detailed impact analysis for each recovery option, quantifying capital and liquidity impacts with realistic timelines

What changed

SS9/17 introduced several material enhancements to recovery planning requirements: Governance and Integration: Recovery planning must be embedded within firms' risk management frameworks, with board-level oversight and integration with stress testing and ICAAP processes. The PRA expects clear governance documentation showing how plans are produced, reviewed, signed off, and implemented. Fire Drill Exercises: Firms must conduct regular fire drill exercises that simulate recovery scenarios in a live environment, testing governance arrangements, management information systems, and the...

Key dates

December 2024

- CP17/24 consultation published

H1 2026

- Final PRA/FCA rules on operational incident and third-party reporting effective (per industry analysis)

30 working days post

incident resolution; - Submit final incident report update (extendable to 60 working days in complex cases)

Annual

- MTP register reporting (exact date not specified; aligns with notifications)

Suggested considerations

• Identify and notify MTP arrangements via FCA Connect (excluding exemptions); maintain annual register with reduced fields.
• Monitor/assess operational incidents against clarified thresholds (e.g., contagion, reputation); submit single report if met, within specified timelines.
• Update policies per SS1/26 (thresholds) and SS2/21 (MTP identification).
• Align reporting with PRA/FCA/Bank templates; use data for resilience prioritization.
• For insurers: Integrate with ongoing operational resilience post-SS1/21 milestone (31 March 2025).

What changed

• - MTP Reporting: Amended notification rule for clarity; scope excludes credit unions with <£50m assets and all third-country branches; separated register and notification templates with reduced data...
• Operational Incident Reporting: Merged three-phased reports (initial, interim, final) into one simplified, aligned template across PRA/FCA/Bank; removed fields, made more optional; clarified...
• Guidance Enhancements: Updated SS2/21 with MTP identification examples; SS1/26 clarifies threshold interpretation, early-stage assessments, and systemic impact expectations.
• Alignment: Full harmonization with FCA/Bank and international standards (DORA, FSB FIRE). | Aspect | CP17/24 Proposal | PS7/26 Final Policy | |--------|------------------|---------------------| |...

Key dates

18 March 2026

- Publication date of SS1/26

18 March 2027 Deadline

- Effective date; firms must comply with reporting requirements

Within 24 hours

- Expected submission of initial phase report after determining threshold met (as soon as practicable)

Each significant change

- Intermediate phase update(s), including at resolution

Within 30 working days of resolution

- Final phase report (extendable to 60 working days if impracticable)

Suggested considerations

• Assess incidents against PRA thresholds (e.g., risk to stability/soundness/policyholders, considering contagion, disruptions > thresholds, data loss, media impact); report if met, even if internally high-priority.
• Submit phased reports using specified fields: Initial (basic details promptly); Intermediate (updates on changes like impact, strategy shifts, resolution); Final (full details post-resolution).
• Maintain processes for prompt classification, data gathering, and submission while prioritizing resolution; continue ad-hoc supervisory notifications if needed.
• Review internal policies to align severity ratings with PRA thresholds; document assessments.
• For critical third-party (CTP) incidents, both firms and CTPs report uniquely.

What changed

• - Introduces clear reporting thresholds in Regulatory Reporting Rule 24.2: Firms must report if an incident poses risks to UK financial stability, firm safety/soundness, or (for insurers)...
• Mandates a phased reporting approach (Rule 24.1-24.4): Initial report as soon as practicable (expected within 24 hours of threshold determination); intermediate updates for significant changes (e.g.,...
• Excludes near-misses (potential events without disruption/data loss to external users); aligns with but does not replace Fundamental Rule 7 or Notification Part Chapter 2 obligations.
• Specifies reporting via a "Reporting Fields Document"; firms balance reporting with incident resolution.

Key dates

March 17, 2026

- Consultation launch (today)

April 27, 2026

- Consultation closes (three-month window)

September 30, 2026

- Insurance liquidity reporting effective date (parallel reform)

Early 2027 – 2030

- Implementation timeline for final rules (phased approach)

Suggested considerations

• *Immediate (by April 27, 2026):
• Review the full consultation document and impact assessment
• Identify internal stakeholders (Treasury, Risk, Operations, Compliance) for response coordination
• Assess current liquidity stress testing capabilities against proposed weekly timeframe requirement
• *Medium-term (post-consultation, pre-implementation):

What changed

• The consultation proposes four primary regulatory modifications:
• Weekly stress testing requirement: Firms must conduct internal stress tests evaluating rapid outflows within one week, supplementing the existing monthly reporting framework
• Removal of Level 1 asset exemption: Sovereign bonds and other "level 1 assets" will no longer be exempt from annual testing of monetization capability for non-liquid assets, closing a significant...
• Barrier identification mandate: Firms must systematically evaluate their liquidity, identify barriers to asset monetization, and document findings
• Central bank facility preparedness: Regulatory encouragement (not mandate) for operational readiness to access Bank of England facilities during stress Critically, the PRA explicitly states these...

Key dates

July 2025

- Initial public consultation on banknote themes closed

Summer 2026

- Second public consultation to gather views on specific wildlife species (announced as forthcoming)

Future (multi

year process); - Design, testing, and printing of next-generation banknotes with anti-counterfeiting technology

Several years ahead

- Issuance of next generation of banknotes

Suggested considerations

• *Monitor the summer 2026 consultation: Track the announcement of the wildlife expert panel's curated species list and participate in the second consultation if relevant to your operations
• *Plan for authentication updates: Currency handlers and retailers should prepare staff training programs for new security features once designs are finalized
• *Update systems and procedures: Payment processors and financial institutions should plan for gradual transition protocols as new notes enter circulation
• *Engage with BoE communications: Subscribe to Bank of England announcements regarding final design decisions and implementation timelines
• *Prepare customer communications: Financial institutions should develop materials explaining the design change and new security features to customers

What changed

• The Bank of England is implementing the following design changes:
• Theme Selection: Wildlife native to Britain will feature on all denominations (£5, £10, £20, £50) of the next banknote series, replacing historical figures such as William Shakespeare, Winston...
• Monarch Continuity: King Charles' portrait will continue to appear on all notes.
• Security Integration: Wildlife imagery has been selected partly for its effectiveness in developing banknotes with easily recognizable and distinguishable security features.
• Scope Expansion: The design may incorporate additional natural elements including plants and landscapes to complement wildlife imagery.

Key dates

24 October 2025 Deadline

- Consultation response deadline for CP13/25

20 February 2026

- Publication date of PS5/26 (final policy)

~20 August 2026 Deadline

- Implementation deadline for SS2/23 CUSO expectations (six months from PS5/26 publication)

Suggested considerations

• Review and update policies: Credit unions must conduct due diligence/risk assessments before any CUSO investment/use; implement conflict of interest policies, especially for non-credit union partnerships.
• Ensure structural safeguards: Limit liability to investment amount; maintain legal/operational separation between credit union and CUSO; monitor aggregate investments ≤7.5% of capital.
• Governance alignment: Decisions must prioritize member benefits per legislative objects; update internal investment rules to comply with amended PRA Rulebook (Credit Unions Part).
• Implementation planning: Within six months, integrate SS2/23 expectations into operations; non-engaging credit unions need no action but should monitor for opportunities.
• Reporting/oversight: Prepare for PRA supervision on CUSO risks; consider CBA updates if significantly impacting mutuals.

What changed

• - Investment permission and cap increase: Credit unions can now invest in CUSOs using own capital, with the cap raised from 5% to 7.5% of total capital across all CUSOs (clarifications added on...
• Expanded CUSO scope: CUSOs can now serve other UK-regulated mutuals (with Part 4A permission) beyond just credit unions; partnerships with non-credit unions permitted as owners, subject to safeguards.
• Supervisory expectations in SS2/23: New chapter requires due diligence, risk analysis, limited liability to investment amount, legal/operational separation, conflict of interest policies, and...
• Other updates: Chapter 17 of SS2/23 amended due to deletion of SS20/15; six-month implementation window for SS2/23 CUSO expectations.

Key dates

Q1 2026

– Final design of Future Entity expected; live transactions expected through VRP scheme

End of 2026

– FCA expected to consult on Long-Term Regulatory Framework; statutory instrument for Open Banking expected to be laid by HM Treasury

February 2026

– Independent assessment process begins; KPMG commences evaluation of proposals

Before March 2026 Deadline

– FCA's Open Finance roadmap due for publication

Early April 2026

– KPMG delivers final assessment report; FCA publishes on its website

Suggested considerations

• *For industry participants and trade associations:
• *Engage with the assessment process: Participate in the independent assessment by submitting proposals or supporting existing proposals for Future Entity leadership
• *Arrange FCA Q&A sessions: Organizations interested in leading Future Entity establishment should contact the FCA directly to schedule one-hour Q&A sessions ahead of the independent consultancy process launch
• *Coalesce behind proposals: Industry should decide which proposal option should lead the next phase of work, with the FCA commissioning assessment of either multiple proposals or a single industry-supported proposal
• *Prepare for VRP implementation: Ensure systems and processes are ready for live Variable Recurring Payments transactions expected in Q1 2026

What changed

• The regulatory landscape for UK open banking is undergoing fundamental restructuring:
• Transition of regulatory authority: The FCA is becoming the primary regulator for open banking, replacing the Joint Regulatory Oversight Committee (JROC).
• Future Entity establishment: A new standards-setting body will become the primary UK standard-setting organization for open banking APIs, responsible for setting and maintaining common standards for...
• Independent assessment process: KPMG will evaluate competing proposals from industry participants to determine which organization should lead the Future Entity establishment.
• Legislative framework: HM Treasury will introduce legislation granting the FCA new rulemaking powers for open banking under the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025.

Key dates

October 2025

- First cohort began testing (historical reference)

19 January 2026

- Second application window opens

2 March 2026 Deadline

- Application deadline for second cohort

April 2026

- Testing starts for second cohort

Mid

March 2026; - Notification of successful applicants

Suggested considerations

• Review FCA's Terms of Reference (PDF) for eligibility, focusing on mature POCs and enterprise-level AI systems.
• Submit application form via FCA portal by 2 March 2026 if ready for live testing; contact suptech@ fca.org.uk for queries.
• Prepare documentation on AI system components (model, context/risks, governance, human oversight, evaluation, controls) for three-phase process.
• Assess internal governance, data, risk frameworks, and monitoring for AI readiness; consider non-participation but monitor for future FCA expectations.
• Firms not selected should use insights from first cohort (e.g., evaluation frameworks) to strengthen internal AI practices.

What changed

This is not a mandatory regulatory change but a voluntary testing service launched by the FCA; no new enforceable requirements are imposed. Key elements include a holistic focus on the AI system (model + deployment context, risks, governance, human-in-the-loop, evaluation, input/output controls) rather than isolated foundation models. The program features three phases: Discovery, Framework validation, and AI system testing (quantitative/qualitative), emphasizing live monitoring, governance, and risk management. It complements the FCA's Supercharged Sandbox for earlier-stage AI exploration.

Key dates

1 January 2025

UK CTP rules came into effect, applying to CTPs designated by HMT

Ongoing (process begun pre

2025); HMT designation process for CTPs, with regulators recommending based on concentration and materiality criteria; no fixed end date specified

DORA effective date (prior context)

EU CTPPs oversight under DORA aligns with UK regime; MoU signed to ensure compatibility (exact DORA timeline not in publication but supports post-2024 implementation)

Suggested considerations

• For CTPs/CTPPs: Once designated, implement regular assurance reporting to regulators, conduct resilience testing (e.g., scenario testing), and report major incidents promptly; prepare for cross-border information requests under the MoU.
• For financial firms/FMIs: Continue managing operational resilience and third-party risks per existing outsourcing rules (e.g., identify dependencies on potential CTPs); monitor HMT designations and enhance incident response coordination with regulators.
• Regulators' internal actions: Use CCF for coordination; notify counterparts of investigations or material developments per MoU Article 3 and 12.
• Firms should review contracts with third parties for compliance alignment and conduct gap analyses against CTP requirements.

What changed

• - Establishes a framework for timely information sharing, coordination of oversight activities, and joint responses to incidents affecting CTPs/CTPPs, including power outages or cyber-attacks.
• Defines principles for cooperation on mutually designated CTPs/CTPPs, including notifications of investigations and best endeavors to share material information where legally and operationally...
• Complements the UK's CTP regime (effective 1 January 2025), which requires designated CTPs to provide regular assurance, conduct resilience testing, and report major incidents, without altering...
• Supported by a tripartite MoU among UK regulators for coordinated oversight via a joint CTP Consultation and Coordination Forum (CCF).

Key dates

4 May 2021

- FCA announced opening of investigation into Mirabella's oversight of Greensill Capital Securities Limited as AR

12 September 2025

- Mirabella's authorisation cancelled; firm no longer provides financial services

What changed

There are no new regulatory changes, requirements, or rules introduced by this publication. The statement solely announces the closure of an existing investigation with no identified breaches by Mirabella, maintaining the status quo on AR oversight obligations under FCA rules such as SUP 12 (Appointed Representatives). The FCA reserves the right to reopen if new information emerges, but no policy shifts or guidance updates are provided.

Key dates

4 December 2025

- PRA published CP22/25 consultation paper

31 December 2025

- Baseline date for commencement of new annual quantitative reporting template requirements (AoC.01) for firms with financial year-end on or after this date

31 December 2025

- Baseline date for commencement of quarterly QMC.01 reporting for internal model firms with financial year-end on or after this date

55 business days after quarter Deadline

end; - Deadline for quarterly QMC.01 submission (internal model firms)

100 business days after financial year Deadline

end; - Deadline for annual AoC.01 submission (internal model firms and groups)

Suggested considerations

• *Immediate Actions (January-February 2026):
• *Review consultation paper: Obtain and analyze CP22/25 in full to understand proposed amendments
• *Assess applicability: Determine which reporting requirements apply to your firm (internal model status, portfolio types, reporting obligations)
• *Identify gaps: Compare current reporting processes against PRA expectations outlined in the supervisory statement (SS4015)
• *Engage supervisory contacts: Discuss any planned changes to reporting methodology (e.g., accident vs. underwriting year classification) with PRA supervisory contacts prior to implementation

What changed

• The consultation introduces clarifications and amendments to Solvency II reporting requirements in several critical areas: Reporting Framework Modifications
• Accident or underwriting year reporting: The PRA sets expectations for how firms should apply options within the Reporting Part of the PRA Rulebook regarding temporal classification of claims.
• Annuity reporting by currency: Specific guidance on reporting annuities stemming from non-life obligations disaggregated by currency.
• RBNS claims development: Clarification on reporting of reported but not settled (RBNS) claims and their development patterns. Internal Model Requirements
• Firms using partial or full internal models for Solvency Capital Requirement (SCR) calculation must describe governance information including responsible roles, specific committees, their tasks,...

Key dates

19 December 2025, 5:00 PM GMT Deadline

– Deadline for completing confidentiality preference survey in BEEDS portal

January–December 2026

– Reporting reference periods covered by granted permissions

Ongoing

– Consent remains valid for these periods unless explicitly withdrawn; applies to resubmissions and late submissions for 2026 reference periods

Suggested considerations

• *Log into the BEEDS portal and access the confidentiality permission survey
• *Select one of four consent options (blanket, form-by-form, selective, or case-by-case)
• *For multi-entity groups: Complete a separate survey for each individual entity
• *Review prepopulated firm information and make adjustments as needed
• *Submit final preferences via the portal (latest submission version is treated as final)

What changed

The notice introduces a streamlined confidentiality permission framework with four consent options for reporting institutions: 1. Blanket consent – Give prior approval for all statistical forms 2. Form-by-form consent – Approve permissions on individual forms 3. Selective consent – Approve all forms except specified data points 4. Case-by-case opt-out – Require explicit consent for each publication instance The material change is the Bank's shift toward pre-approval for aggregate data publication where firms represent fewer than three contributors to an aggregate figure.