NatWest status: access issues and outage reports

Problems in the last 24 hours in Yalding, England

The chart below shows the number of NatWest reports we have received in the last 24 hours from users in Yalding, England and surrounding areas. An outage is declared when the number of reports exceeds the baseline, represented by the red line.

Live Outage Map Near Yalding, England

The most recent NatWest outage reports came from the following cities: Maidstone.

City	Problem Type	Report Time
Maidstone	Website	1 month ago
Maidstone	Withdrawals	4 months ago
Swanley	Mobile App	1 year ago
Crowborough	Mobile App	1 year ago
Gillingham	Login	1 year ago
Crowborough	Transactions	2 years ago

Community Discussion

Tips? Frustrations? Share them here. Useful comments include a description of the problem, city and postal code.

Beware of "support numbers" or "recovery" accounts that might be posted below. Make sure to report and downvote those comments. Avoid posting your personal information.

NatWest Issues Reports Near Yalding, England

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in Yalding and nearby locations:

• 
  Cloud Surfer 💫 🇮🇸 (@777flyaway) reported 36 minutes ago from Sissinghurst, England

  @natwest Hi there , my app isn’t working atm .. any ideas when it will come back online please ? #natwest

NatWest Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  JoeRoot𓃵 (@NO_1TestBatter) reported 6 minutes ago

  @temporary_sw6y Right taking down this post bcz i checked from Espn & it hasn’t mentioned it as bilateral but as Natwest series so got confused.

• 
  Goodyear Blimp (@Goodyear_Blinnp) reported 8 minutes ago

  @pokemondealsuk Never had an issue with Chrome and Natwest debit cards

• 
  Lorraine Morris (@MLorrM) reported 8 minutes ago

  In the case of Perks v NatWest Markets Plc (evidence given around 2022), Mr Neil Graham — a GRG director, chartered accountant and experienced banker — was cross-examined under oath about the bank’s RMP credit system entries for swap-related credit lines / contingent obligations (often referred to as CLU – Credit Line Utilisation). Key exchanges reported in the materials include: 🔹Mr Graham accepted that the credit-line entry on the RMP system represented the client’s contingent obligation. 🔹Mr Graham agreed it was a factor the bank used when considering in loan-to-value calculations for the overall connection. 🔹When asked whether it could push a connection over a loan-to-value ratio covenant, he answered (subject to market movements) yes. 🔹He further accepted that this could ultimately lead to the connection being transferred into GRG. 🔹Mr Graham is experienced and the testimony is truthful; however, as happened in Ireland - bank’s counsel later attempted to “distance the bank from this evidence in closing submissions”. 🔹Surprise, surprise but bank’s counsel is categorically misleading the Court. 🔹They characterised Graham’s answers as given “on the hoof,” - said it was not his specialist area and submitted that he was wrong on the LTV impact point. 🔹They argued the bank did not accept that the CLU had the effect claimed and that there was no duty to volunteer information about it to the customer. 🔹This was what bank counsel is required to do to keep the charade going and that they cavalierly do so is a scandal in itself. 🔹Mr Graham’s testimony exists and is on the public record, as circulated by campaigners and referenced in related presentations. 🔹So, a senior bank director & chartered accountant with a GRG/risk-adjacent role did accept under oath that the credit line could cause or contribute to an LTV breach and subsequent transfer into GRG. 🔹This is rather obvious and is in fact why the products were sold in the first instance - as confirmed by numerous insiders. 🔹NatWest’s formal position in that case (and more generally) has been to treat such lines as “internal risk measures” rather than customer-facing hard liabilities that automatically breach covenants in the way alleged, and to reject the broader fraud characterisation. But that would be their formal position would it not? When billions of euros is at stake? 🔹Meanwhile customers faced enormous break costs & this fact alone is wholly inconsistent with the characterisation of the credit line as a purely internal risk measure. 🔹It is however consistent with the reality, which is that the bank had booked (and later crystallised) an exposure against their customers and the credit line had been concealed. 🔹That bank counsel filed pleadings that falsely characterised these structures as just fixing an interest rate or just ordinary fixed-rate loans, facilitating the burying of the misrepresentations under layers of legal process - is a further scandal - akin to that whereby the lawyers who managed to lock up innocent sub-postmasters on foot of unsound evidence. 🔹The result for Irish SMEs duped by theses practices was a systematic extraction of value from those SMEs - while the guilty institution and its lawyers ensured that accountability remained permanently out of reach. @ArturNadol7566 @Wftproof

• 
  Tariff Turnip (@MetaverseGamma) reported 8 minutes ago

  @mrsDugskullery @p0Intyhead @LBC What exactly is that you think happens when a bank collapses? It’s certainly not just the shareholders that lose out, if Brown had let Natwest collapse they would have had to insure £2 trillion of customer deposits, something tells me that might have cost more than a bailout.

• 
  AbolishHolyrood (@exilejock) reported 13 minutes ago

  @SigniusNetworks @PippaCrerar @Annaisaac Except he did meet the criteria. NatWest CEO Alison Rose had to resign due to her serious error after discussing Ferage's bank details with the BBC. The NatWest will have learned their lesson.

• 
  tmjohnson (@the_cs_book) reported 16 minutes ago

  @SebJohnsonUK @CosineAI Genuine question how is NatWest going to help design a frontier model?

• 
  Kenne_A (@StMollyBloom) reported 17 minutes ago

  This Cian_UTD bollocks doing the rounds, and I’ve got to say I don’t believe the majority of it, but if true, and Betfred and NatWest are looking at reimbursing and even compensating him, they’re setting themselves up for a real shitstorm. Anyone who’s ever known an addict of anything will know that it’s ultimately up to themselves to help themselves. And what BF and NatWest are seemingly about to do is set up a precedent where any gambler can freeroll the bookies and the banks by Gamstop’ing themselves, working around it, and recouping any losses. Why would you not? If I can deposit £5k to a bookies and go all out to try triple it in an evening knowing they have to refund me if I lose I’d be an idiot not to. Situation here should be as followed. Thorough investigation, apology if in the wrong and a review of their internal flagging system. And instead of a refund, assistance to Cian to get help with his addiction. Cian has been on the timeline for a long while with one grift or the other. If he comes out of this even or ahead he’s learned nothing. And in a few months time he’ll hit one of the other bookies with the same story. And someone help his ******* kid.

• 
  Linda Pennock🙂 (@LindaPennock1) reported 18 minutes ago

  @bsd_junkie @DamianLow3 No, the bank did not back Alison Rose over Nigel Farage; instead, Rose resigned as CEO of NatWest after admitting she leaked private customer details to a journalist.

• 
  puristini (@jurisdoctrine) reported 21 minutes ago

  Emails included Wells Fargo Bank ING Direct HSBC Bank NatWest Capital One Citibank Chase Bank Dubai Abu Dhabi London Nigeria I opened accounts with login access as well. I went into both Chase and Citibank to deposit cheques sent by FedEx and UPS delivery service.

• 
  Magic hat 🎩 (@themagic_tophat) reported 24 minutes ago

  𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝗮𝗻 𝗖𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝟭𝟭𝟱 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻? I know a certain commentator on the case (who claims insider knowledge) asserts there’s been no decision as of 2 weeks ago. But I very much doubt an initial decision is still pending - I believe it’s been issued to parties. There’s no reason why we would hear if it had. Initial decisions have never been published or leaked prior to the Final Award before. Why do I think it’s been issued? Because it’s been more than 19 months since the hearing concluded. A delay as long as 19 months for an initial decision on liability would put the integrity of the decision at risk and would raise questions over the arbitrators’ intentions (did they delay on purpose to damage it). I just can’t see them having done that. For context, NatWest Markets plc v Bilta (UK) Ltd [2021] was ordered a retrial when its decision was still waiting after 19 months at the High Court. The Master of Rolls at the Court of Appeal absolutely blasted the delay. He said decisions like these should need a good reason to take over 3 months in the courts and if they do, they get closely monitored. For it to take this long in private arbitration when there’s a requirement in the rules for a decision as soon as practicable… and the arbitrators have been working on other cases… totally inexcusable if it weren’t already out. Career enders for the arbitrators. A hearing on sanctions and final award should be quick too. So no excuses. Only 3 possibilities I see: 1) Initial decision was already issued to parties and a Final Award is coming imminently. Before the season starts. 2) They have the Final Award already but they’re waiting for the end of the World Cup before publishing it (they shouldn’t do this and it could even open themselves up to damages if this were the case) 3) City launched an appeal after the decision on liability was issued but before the hearing on sanctions, thereby delaying a Final Award Number 3) would be novel (i.e., never done before) but the rules do not explicitly prohibit it. I’ve hypothesised it as a possibility for a while. If so, we might not hear anything until 2027. The longer it goes without a Final Award, the more likely I believe that’s what’s happened.