NatWest status: access issues and outage reports

Problems in the last 24 hours in Stevenage, England

The chart below shows the number of NatWest reports we have received in the last 24 hours from users in Stevenage, 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 Stevenage, England

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

• 
  Gavin Wrigley (@pheauteau) reported 25 minutes ago from Buntingford, England

  @NatWest_Help just updated to iOS 14.6, the NatWest app no longer allows log in, still works on 14.5, so needs to be looked at by the app developers. Have done all the usual delete and reinstall etc.

• 
  GAIL WOOD (@GAILWOOD10) reported 29 minutes ago from Stevenage District, England

  @Tesco I took it to nationwide, which technically isn’t a bank, I’m going to NatWest today, hopefully they will take it, if not I will do what you suggest with my club card, thank you for your help, I will let you know how I get on .

• 
  Gavin Wrigley (@pheauteau) reported 29 minutes ago from Buntingford, England

  @RealTranswoman @NatWest_Help As long as it takes, our options to try beta software, not NatWest’s issue.

• 
  Ila (@crazyzombienerd) reported 43 minutes ago from Broxbourne District, England

  Finally closing all my accounts with Natwest as extremely poor service & 99% of staff very rude. @NatWest

• 
  Ila (@crazyzombienerd) reported 47 minutes ago from Broxbourne District, England

  Ginally going to close my accounts with Natwest. Worst customer service & 99% of staff very rude. @NatWest

NatWest Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  Mr Brondor (@MrBrondorDeFi) reported 5 minutes ago

  PRICES GOING DOWN AND YOU’RE PANICKING? This is nothing compared to what’s coming G ethereum:0x4a220e6096b25eadb88358cb44068a3248254675 - ECB Digital Euro pioneer. HSBC Barclays Lloyds NatWest all using Quant tech. Bank of Japan collaboration. SWIFT integration. Down 80% from ATH while connecting the entire financial system to blockchain. bittensor:native - NVIDIA dropped $420M. Jensen Huang endorsed it publicly. Grayscale ETF filed. $43M Q1 revenue. The CEO of the most valuable company on Earth validated your bags. And you’re scared of a red week? solana:rndrizKT3MK1iimdxRdWabcF7Zg7AR5T4nud4EkHBof - Apple featured them at WWDC. NVIDIA partnership. 45K+ GPU nodes. Powering the infrastructure AI needs to run. These aren’t memecoins hoping for a tweet G These are the protocols institutions are building on RIGHT NOW while you consider selling at the bottom. Red candles are the entrance fee. Conviction is the ticket to generational wealth. The ones who sell here will buy back 3x higher and call you lucky. You’re not lucky. You’re early. You’re informed. You’re positioned. Zoom out. Lock in. Let the weak hands exit. We’ve seen this movie before. We know how it ends. Not ******* selling Tribe -Brondor

• 
  Magic hat 🎩 (@themagic_tophat) reported 5 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.

• 
  Teds (@Tedtalks13) reported 5 minutes ago

  Sorry also lloyds BAU NatWest BAU HSBC uk bau With foi of all collaborations or service agreements in IT

• 
  Jennifer Thetford-Kay (@JenKteach) reported 6 minutes ago

  BEACON ALERT | MISSING VETERAN We need your help locating Stephen Blackburn who is missing with concerns for his welfare. LAST SEEN: Monday, 17 August, in Liverpool city centre, near NatWest on Lord Street/Whitechapel. Stephen had previously attended a charity football event at The Pitz, Liverpool, and is known to have links to both Liverpool and Preston. If you have seen Stephen, or have any information that could help locate him, please contact the police. Police Reference: LC-20260816-1486 Please share, particularly across Liverpool, Preston and surrounding areas. #BeaconAlert #MissingPerson

• 
  Vince (@Xray_Vince) reported 7 minutes ago

  @Voyager4IR @NoBullCryptoBen @matttttt187 Chainlink isn't working with central banks yet. They have multiple BIS/Central bank projects, Murex, Natwest Euroclear, Oracle...... That's just ignorant 🤷 ... We all know Central banks are going to be the slowest movers.

• 
  Ali@Makely (@MakelyStudio) reported 8 minutes ago

  10 years. 50M+ users. £11M+ revenue impact. Mercedes. Citibank. Sky. Virgin Media. NatWest. I spent a decade fixing conversion problems at some of the world's most recognised brands. what I learned: the same broken patterns show up everywhere - onboarding that loses people in the first 60 seconds, pricing pages that confuse instead of convert, signup flows with friction nobody ever fixed. Now I build the same systems for funded startups.

• 
  NatWest (@NatWest_Help) reported 8 minutes ago

  @SpensGraem11427 Okay Graeme - if you're not a customer with NatWest, I'm afraid we'd have to direct you back to Northern Assist for further support with this! Please try getting in touch with them via phone and they'll hopefully be able to help. - Rachel

• 
  Atil00503 (@atil00503) reported 9 minutes ago

  Elon Musk, shall I tell you what else those NatWest employees—who scammed me out of 300 pounds—did? They kept blocking my contactless payments; and they send me a message asking me to reply "yes" if I try to make the payment or "no" if I didn't. I reply "yes," confirming I try to make the payment, and they send a follow-up message saying I could use my card—yet my card remained blocked. I called NatWest customer service and explained the situation to the representative: I replied "yes" to the message and was told I could use my card again, but I still couldn't use it because it was blocked. The representative was surprised, said they didn't know why this had happened, and reactivated my card. Elon Musk, they kept blocking my contactless payments—and let me put this in a way you'd understand: they didn't do it for security reasons. In fact, I hadn't made a single payment with that card yet; I tried to make a contactless payment somewhere but couldn't because they had blocked it. The shop assistant even told me, "They probably blocked it because you made too many contactless payments today"—even though I hadn't used the card anywhere before that.

• 
  ADEBAYO101 (@ADEBAYO1018) reported 10 minutes ago

  @grok I want you help me build NatWest debit card exactly and the name on it shod be Nicholas baker

• 
  Lorraine Morris (@MLorrM) reported 10 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