NatWest status: access issues and outage reports

Problems in the last 24 hours in Stroud, England

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

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 Stroud, England

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

• 
  LCF Bondholder supporter (@34albertbbb) reported 3 minutes ago from Stroud, England

  NatWest is very frustrating! Trying to sort out an issue online or by phone and it isn’t working. Thinking of switching banks @NatWestGroup

NatWest Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  Lorraine Morris (@MLorrM) reported 3 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

• 
  Kenne_A (@StMollyBloom) reported 6 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.

• 
  Rt Hon Prof Lord Andrew GCVO KHP FRCS FTSE MSCI (@PrivateIncome) reported 7 minutes ago

  @DustyBo80599309 @SophieP25397 £23bn from “9 years ago”? Mate, the bailouts were 2007-09. That’s not “9 years ago”. Your £23bn figure was a 2018 OBR snapshot, not a live invoice. We’ve fully exited every single intervention — final NatWest shares sold May 2025. No ring-fenced ‘bailout debt’ still sitting there waiting for your PAYE. Debt is aggregate. Interest is paid on the total stock. Treating it like a personal loan you’re still ‘funding’ is pure fantasy accounting. And spare us the ‘hitting the vulnerable while ignoring tax dodgers’ sermon. Legal tax avoidance isn’t theft, and the alternative to those bailouts was depositors queuing outside branches and the entire system melting down. You’d have been first in the queue complaining about that too. Next.

• 
  Paul Foster (@OldFozzy) reported 8 minutes ago

  @TiceRichard More likely the bankers, Couts & Natwest. Couts CEO in cahoots with the BBC shut down Nigels account a while ago, remember? and had to make a settlement with him because "his views being considered incompatible with the bank's "values or purpose". Revenge or what?

• 
  Madhur Kapoor (@MadhurKapoor12) reported 9 minutes ago

  I haven't seen number 7 or 8 - but rest looks a very fair list.. I might need sometime to dig more.. but will get back to u for sure Ind v England Natwest Final 2002 Lords will also be in my list - especially India were down n out after 143/5 chasing 326

• 
  WealthLog | Isa Journey (@UKWealthLog) reported 11 minutes ago

  Just moved another £3,000 into my NS&I Premium Bonds. It came from money sitting in my NatWest account that I kept dipping into whenever I needed it. I’ve now only got around £1,000 left in that account, with another £2,000 salary due tomorrow. The idea is simple: if the money isn’t sat in my current account, I’m less tempted to transfer it back and spend it. Sometimes the best financial decisions aren’t about earning a higher return-they’re about making it harder to spend. Has anyone else changed the way they organise their money to help them save more?

• 
  jackduk (@jackduk1) reported 11 minutes ago

  @DebtFreeBy30UK I'm no expert, but it might make sense to pay minimum on your cards, throw everything at Monzo, then MBNA, Barclays then NatWest. Don't bother investing with this much debt. Squeeze some out of your weekly spend, even 30 quid a week will help. Move debt around to 0% early.

• 
  AFRICA IS HOME GLOBAL (@AfricaisHOME2) reported 13 minutes ago

  Chancellor John Healey has declined to rule out a higher tax on banks in his first budget under Prime Minister Andy Burnham, due on October 28. In letters to cabinet ministers this week, Healey said there was no new money available for spending commitments and that all announcements must be funded from within existing budgets, while also warning that Britain’s rising welfare bill must be controlled. He did not explicitly target banks, but the Treasury is under pressure after the TUC called for higher levies on the sector to help fund energy bill relief, and after a year of strong profits. Barclays reported half year profits up 17 percent to 6.1 billion pounds, Lloyds up 23 percent to 4.3 billion pounds and NatWest also up 20 percent to 4.3 billion pounds, figures that make lenders an obvious target for a cash strapped chancellor looking to meet fiscal rules. The debate comes as Burnham settles into Downing Street and sticks to the borrowing rules inherited from Rachel Reeves, requiring day to day spending to be matched by revenue within three years. Healey and Burnham have written that each department has a responsibility to manage within its budget and help bring inflation down. Burnham himself has said he may need to ask people to pay a little more, and has refused to rule out a wealth tax, though he has committed to the manifesto pledge not to raise VAT, income tax or National Insurance rates. The OECD warned this month that Britain’s tax burden is already at its highest since 1948 and urged spending cuts instead of new revenue measures. Banks are lobbying hard against any new levy, arguing UK lenders already pay significantly higher tax than peers in New York and other European capitals, and that competitiveness would suffer. With defence spending, social care and technical education all competing for funds, Healey’s budget will test how far the government is willing to go on sector specific taxes before leaning on broader reprioritisation. - World Business News.

• 
  King Oseary (@LACitiz4n) reported 13 minutes ago

  £200 Billion GBP just left my account to pay for everyone university debt from 1999 up until 2026 in both the UK and America. It’s fine, I’ve been making some wise investments lately and NatWest are paying me well, and I earnt quite a bit by selling Barclays back to the Baron’s. So I’m good for it, plus on top of the tour and then the vegas shows, I’ll be able to support both Elle, I and our daughter from my income. So, I’m good for it. Lot’s of changes, as this earth spins, everyday, and let’s just make the spins count. - King Oseary - @AP

• 
  Polsia (@polsia) reported 16 minutes ago

  Most banks can't afford a $1bn AI transformation. BankrAI gives them the same thing for a fraction of the cost. Autonomous agent runs fraud monitoring, loan management, compliance, and customer escalation 24/7. Built by someone who watched NatWest do it.