Bank of England governor Andrew Bailey rejected reports of a falling out with Chancellor Rachel Reeves after claims he blocked a three‑way meeting over Revolut’s bid for full UK banking authorisation. He said relations were very good, defended the PRA’s operational independence and said the regulator and Revolut are working through a restricted mobilisation phase that could face timing and resourcing hurdles.
Andrew Bailey, governor of the Bank of England, dismissed suggestions of a rupture with the Treasury over delays to fintech firm Revolut’s move to full UK banking authorisation, telling CNBC there had been “no falling out” with Chancellor Rachel Reeves. Speaking to CNBC’s Ritika Gupta, Bailey said relations were “very good” and repeated that the Prudential Regulation Authority was working with Revolut through its mobilisation phase, although he declined to discuss the firm’s case in detail. According to the original interview, the comments were intended to downplay reports of friction between the central bank and ministers.
Those reports had been fuelled by press accounts that a proposed three‑way meeting between the Chancellor, Revolut and the PRA was cancelled after intervention from the Bank’s governor. The Financial Times and The Guardian reported that Bailey blocked the meeting amid concerns that ministerial participation could be perceived as political interference in an area of prudential supervision that the Bank insists must remain operationally independent. The episode has been portrayed in some coverage as emblematic of wider tensions over whether regulators should be urged to take a more growth‑friendly stance.
Bailey’s stance sits alongside a broader defence of the Bank’s remit. He has told MPs he will resist characterisations that the Bank’s rules are a straitjacket on growth, and he disputed a description by the Chancellor — reported in Parliament — that some rules were “a boot on the neck of business.” He made clear the Bank remains open to targeted adjustments but will protect core safeguards such as ring‑fencing and depositor protection. At the same time he reiterated, in the CNBC interview, that the PRA is “working things through” with Revolut as the firm moves through its restricted mobilisation period.
Revolut itself has framed the development as progress. In a company announcement last July, Revolut said it had received a UK banking licence with restrictions and entered the PRA’s mobilisation stage on 25 July 2024. The fintech characterised mobilisation as an “authorisation‑with‑restrictions” phase that allows a new bank to build systems, governance and operational capacity before full launch, and it emphasised that customers would see no immediate change. Those claims are Revolut’s account of its status and milestones, and they focus on the firm’s readiness to meet regulatory conditions rather than firm timetables for opening to wider deposits.
But industry reporting has flagged practical obstacles. City A.M. has reported growing doubts within the sector that Revolut could complete mobilisation within the typical 12‑month window envisaged by PRA guidance, citing operational, compliance and resourcing challenges at a scale that has surprised some observers. That reporting warns of regulatory consequences if mobilisation is not completed on schedule, while noting Revolut’s public line that it is working constructively with the regulator rather than chasing a calendar deadline.
The dispute reaches beyond one firm. Ministers have made clear that supporting fintech growth and bolstering London’s appeal as a global technology and finance hub are priorities for the Treasury, while the Bank stresses that financial stability and depositor protection cannot be compromised. The clash of emphasis — growth versus prudential caution — frames why the Revolut case carries political as well as regulatory significance and why any suggestion of government intervention in supervisory decisions attracts scrutiny.
For now both sides stress common ground: ministers and the Bank say they want a thriving fintech sector, and the PRA and Revolut say they are engaged in a mobilisation process designed to ensure new banking activity is safe and sustainable. Whether that process produces full authorisation within the expected timetable will depend on the practical work now under way between the firm and its regulator — and on whether political pressure remains in the background or stays expressly out of the regulatory room.
Reference Map:
Reference Map:
- Paragraph 1 – [1], [2]
- Paragraph 2 – [3], [4]
- Paragraph 3 – [1], [7]
- Paragraph 4 – [5]
- Paragraph 5 – [6]
- Paragraph 6 – [3], [7], [1]
- Paragraph 7 – [1], [5], [6]
Source: Noah Wire Services
- https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/08/bank-of-england-governor-denies-rift-with-government-over-revolut.html – Please view link – unable to able to access data
- https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/08/bank-of-england-governor-denies-rift-with-government-over-revolut.html – This CNBC article reports an interview with Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey in which he denies any “falling out” with the UK government over delays to Revolut’s full banking authorisation. Speaking to CNBC’s Ritika Gupta, Bailey said relations with Chancellor Rachel Reeves remain good and rejected suggestions of a rift. He said he could not comment in detail on Revolut’s case but confirmed the Prudential Regulation Authority is working with the fintech during its mobilisation phase. The piece frames the matter alongside political pressure to support fintech growth and previous press reports about a cancelled meeting involving Reeves, Revolut and regulators.
- https://www.ft.com/content/6677d91a-ee1f-483b-b09d-5aada80f43cc – The Financial Times article reports that a meeting proposed by Chancellor Rachel Reeves with Revolut and the Prudential Regulation Authority was cancelled after intervention by Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey. FT’s reporting suggested the cancellation reflected tensions over perceived government attempts to influence regulatory decisions about Revolut’s move from a restricted mobilisation stage to full banking authorisation. The piece explores the political sensitivity of regulatory independence, notes Revolut’s importance to the government’s fintech agenda and London’s capital markets ambitions, and places the episode in the context of wider debate over whether regulators should be urged to adopt a more growth‑friendly stance.
- https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jul/30/bank-of-england-governor-blocks-rachel-reeves-revolut-meeting – The Guardian reports that the Bank of England governor intervened to block a proposed three‑way meeting between Chancellor Rachel Reeves, the Prudential Regulation Authority and Revolut. The story, citing the FT’s initial disclosure and sources, explains that Bailey acted to protect the operational independence of prudential supervision, arguing that ministerial involvement could be seen as political interference. The article describes the meeting’s intent — to discuss progress towards Revolut’s full UK banking authorisation — and situates the episode within greater friction between the Treasury’s pro‑growth push and the Bank’s caution about relaxing rules that underpin financial stability.
- https://www.revolut.com/news/revolut_receives_uk_banking_licence/ – Revolut’s own press release announces that on 25 July 2024 the firm received a UK banking licence with restrictions from the Prudential Regulation Authority and entered the PRA’s ‘mobilisation’ stage. The statement outlines that mobilisation is an authorisation‑with‑restrictions phase allowing new banks to build operations before a full launch, and notes customers experience no immediate change while the bank develops systems and governance. The release explains some mobilisation limits, including the low total deposit threshold applicable during the restricted period, and frames the milestone as a responsible step towards delivering full banking services to UK customers once regulatory conditions are satisfied.
- https://www.cityam.com/exclusive-doubts-grow-over-revolut-banking-license-as-fintech-set-to-miss-key-deadline/ – City A.M. reports insider concerns that Revolut might miss a key milestone in its 12‑month PRA mobilisation window, suggesting the firm could fail to complete mobilisation by the expected July deadline. The piece outlines reasons why the process has been unusually complex for a firm of Revolut’s scale, citing operational, compliance and resourcing challenges. It emphasises that the PRA’s guidance envisages mobilisation normally lasting no longer than a year and explains possible regulatory consequences if mobilisation is not completed, while noting statements from Revolut that it is working constructively with the regulator rather than chasing a specific calendar deadline.
- https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/bank-englands-bailey-defends-bank-rules-after-reeves-attack-2025-07-22/ – This Reuters report covers Andrew Bailey’s testimony to MPs in which he defended the Bank of England’s regulatory stance after Finance Minister Rachel Reeves described some rules as a “boot on the neck of business.” Bailey disputed that characterisation, stressed the importance of preserving core safeguards such as ring‑fencing, and said he would not use that phrase. The article situates his remarks amid broader tension between the Treasury’s growth agenda and the Bank’s financial‑stability remit, and explains that while the Bank is open to fine‑tuning certain rules, it will resist changes that could undermine depositor protection and systemic resilience.
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
8
Notes:
The narrative is recent, published on August 8, 2025. However, similar reports have appeared in the past week, notably on July 29, 2025, in the Financial Times, detailing the Bank of England governor’s intervention to block a meeting between Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Revolut. ([ft.com](https://www.ft.com/content/6677d91a-ee1f-483b-b09d-5aada80f43cc?utm_source=openai)) This suggests the content is not entirely original. Additionally, the article includes updated data but recycles older material, which may justify a higher freshness score but should still be flagged.
Quotes check
Score:
7
Notes:
The article includes direct quotes from Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey, such as his statement, “We can’t compromise on basic financial stability.” Similar quotes have appeared in earlier material, indicating potential reuse. For instance, Bailey’s comments on not using certain terms and the importance of financial stability were reported in the Financial Times on July 29, 2025. ([ft.com](https://www.ft.com/content/6677d91a-ee1f-483b-b09d-5aada80f43cc?utm_source=openai)) This suggests the quotes may not be exclusive to this report.
Source reliability
Score:
9
Notes:
The narrative originates from CNBC, a reputable organisation known for its financial reporting. This adds credibility to the information presented.
Plausability check
Score:
8
Notes:
The claims made in the narrative align with recent events and reports. The Financial Times reported on July 29, 2025, that Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey blocked a meeting between Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Revolut, citing concerns over political interference. ([ft.com](https://www.ft.com/content/6677d91a-ee1f-483b-b09d-5aada80f43cc?utm_source=openai)) This corroborates the narrative’s claims. However, the article’s tone is unusually dramatic, which may warrant further scrutiny.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): OPEN
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): MEDIUM
Summary:
The narrative is recent and originates from a reputable source, enhancing its credibility. However, it recycles content from earlier reports, and the quotes used are not exclusive, indicating potential reuse. While the claims are plausible and align with recent events, the dramatic tone warrants further scrutiny.
