NatWest status: access issues and outage reports

Problems in the last 24 hours in Southam, England

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

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

• 
  Retired Yoruba Demon (@iam_tomilade) reported 28 minutes ago from Coventry, England

  @natwest I've been trying to make a crypto payment with my debit card without success. Is visa card down?

NatWest Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  Lorraine Morris (@MLorrM) reported 7 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

• 
  Lucy Dorrington (@TheParentGame) reported 7 minutes ago

  @santanderuk @TSB Why have you blocked access to online banking unless various ID demands and proof of earnings are met? You say it's the law, but I bank with Barclays and NatWest and haven't had to do this? I don't see how it's only necessary for you?

• 
  Magic hat 🎩 (@themagic_tophat) reported 7 minutes ago

  @BlueCityBrain Was going to do a post on it soon. I very much doubt an initial decision is still pending. 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. Chancellor of the High Court absolutely blasted it. 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. A hearing on sanctions and final award should be quick too. So no excuses. Only 2 possibilities I see: 1) Final Award is coming imminently. By end of July. 2) They have it but they’re waiting for the end of the World Cup (they shouldn’t be and could open themselves up to damages) 3) City launched an appeal after the decision on liability was issued and before the hearing on Sanctions

• 
  Sumanyu Sharma 🍫 (@sumanyu) reported 9 minutes ago

  @ElevenLabs @LDNTechWeek @CosineAI launches Lumen Sovereign, Britain's first sovereign frontier model. Co-designed with BT, Lloyds, NatWest, LSEG, PwC, BAE Systems, Leonardo UK, Babcock, Thales UK, and Telefónica Tech UK&I. Runs entirely inside customer infrastructure with no external data transfer.

• 
  Chris Owen (@cwo1983) reported 10 minutes ago

  @tescomobile Upgraded in Feb 2026 with ZERO issues + NatWest Direct Debits paid monthly since July 2023. Yet @TescoMobile blames ME after their IT corrupted my file back to an old Lloyds record?! Blaming customers for internal database rollbacks violates UK GDPR Art 5(1)(d). Embarrassing.

• 
  Alan Crispman (@cheeseandbunion) reported 13 minutes ago

  @NatWest_Help hey can you help with missing amount of money that was sent to a closed NatWest account? I switched with CASS and the money hasn’t followed

• 
  Kenne_A (@StMollyBloom) reported 14 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.

• 
  Spencer (@SpencerGambles) reported 14 minutes ago

  **** happened with natwest but with around 20x more… absolute shitbags they are

• 
  X Finance Bull (@Xfinancebull) reported 17 minutes ago

  🚨 $QNT holders, seven major UK banks are testing programmable bank money on infrastructure provided by Quant. Read those names again: Barclays. HSBC. Lloyds Banking Group. NatWest. Santander. Monzo. Nationwide. Led by UK Finance, the Great British Tokenised Deposit initiative is delivering live pilot transactions involving digital versions of normal sterling bank deposits. The easiest way to understand it is this: Your money remains bank money. But instead of sending it blindly and trusting every person in the process, rules can be attached before it moves. Payment releases when the buyer receives the product. Mortgage funds transfer when every document and condition is ready. Money and a tokenised asset settle together, so neither participant is left waiting and exposed. Quant’s Overledger provides the orchestration and interoperability connecting participating banks with RTGS, Faster Payments, Open Banking and tokenised-deposit platforms. That is why this matters more than another blockchain demonstration. The institutions are testing real financial activity across multiple banks, with fraud protection, settlement efficiency and programmability at the centre. GBTD also follows Quant’s involvement in the UK Regulated Liability Network, while its acceptance into the Bank of England Synchronisation Lab places the project beside the UK’s work on atomic central-bank-money settlement. Does this guarantee every bank will buy QNT? No. But it gives Quant institutional validation that most interoperability projects spend years trying to earn. If GBTD succeeds, the opportunity will extend far beyond one UK pilot. Other countries are also exploring tokenised deposits, digital securities and connected payment systems. QNT is sitting behind infrastructure the largest banks will need to make those separate systems work together. Many people will study QNT after adoption becomes obvious. I would rather understand why seven banks selected Quant before everyone else notices. My conviction in $QNT came before the headlines. Now the adoption is becoming impossible to ignore.

• 
  Maurice Andrews (@maurice_an63983) reported 22 minutes ago

  @Neccccy No because he at the moment doesn't support HBOS Lloyds Banking Group Barclays RBS Natwest Unicredit Private Equity Vulture Funds serious criminal activities fraud forgery perjury false declaration to courts