NatWest status: access issues and outage reports

Problems in the last 24 hours in Seaton, England

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

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  Jennifer Thetford-Kay (@JenKteach) reported 14 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

• 
  TRAXXAS58 (@TRAXXAS58) reported 15 minutes ago

  How tf can #Natwest reject my driving licence for being too blurry when their website automatically takes the picture for you once the card is in focus & in the correct position. Just waited an hour to be verified to be told no because they chose to apparently take a blurry pic.

• 
  Mando (@AcFanatic2020) reported 17 minutes ago

  @johntierney73 @NnatMmac @NatWest NatWest are still **** like this

• 
  Magic hat 🎩 (@themagic_tophat) reported 18 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.

• 
  Maurice Andrews (@maurice_an63983) reported 19 minutes ago

  @trussliz Liz Does that include fighting the corrupt fraudulent disease ridden HBOS Lloyds Banking Group RBS Natwest Unicredit Barclays also their legal support UK government?

• 
  Connie (@ConnieSherge) reported 21 minutes ago

  @12beattiestp @PedeJo__ @isabelrosesss this is correct. the bank is natwest (rbs) nobody has access to anything and everything is scrambled outside of production. i dont think theres even a fat unix wizard who has access to read production, from what i remember working there

• 
  Alex ******* (@socialPolly) reported 22 minutes ago

  @NatWest_Help I did that, and they said I needed to speak to NatWest bank not the investment line. They transferred me through to an automated service that didnt understand what it was I was trying to get through to. So I gave up.

• 
  X Finance Bull (@Xfinancebull) reported 23 minutes ago

  🚨 THE INSTITUTIONAL PAYMENT RACE HAS SIX CLEAR FRONT-RUNNERS. 🚨 $XRP $XLM $QNT $LINK $XDC $HBAR I ranked them by something more important than attention: Who is already connected to banks, payment companies, market infrastructure and real settlement activity? 1. $XRP The strongest direct bridge-asset design. XRP can provide temporary liquidity between currencies, helping payment companies avoid keeping money trapped in accounts around the world. Ripple’s full MiCA authorisation now gives its regulated crypto services access across the European Economic Area. 2. $XLM The strongest remittance and stablecoin network. Stellar recorded $5.5 billion in stablecoin payment volume during Q1 2026. MoneyGram also continues connecting Stellar-based digital dollars with cash access, and DTC expects tokenised assets to become available on Stellar in 2027. 3. $QNT The interoperability layer. Quant’s Fusion Rollup connects 74 networks, while UK Finance is testing tokenised bank deposits with Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds, NatWest, Nationwide and Santander. 4. $LINK The institutional connection and data layer. DTCC is integrating Chainlink into its Collateral AppChain for pricing, valuation and near-real-time collateral movement, with production expected in Q4 2026. 5. $XDC The trade-finance specialist. Native USDC and CCTP V2 are live on XDC, strengthening its position for cross-border settlement, receivables and tokenised trade assets. 6. $HBAR The enterprise settlement network. Archax is already using Hedera for tokenised securities whose USDC cash flows automatically follow ownership in near real time. One moves liquidity. One connects money with people. One links banking systems. One delivers trusted data and instructions. One modernises global trade. One supports regulated enterprise assets. Institutions will not choose only one rail. They will need an entire financial stack. These six are already positioning themselves inside it.

• 
  citizens2022committee (@c22cuk) reported 23 minutes ago

  c22cuk COMMENT: State Supported COMPLICITY? BANK CONFIDENTIAL @BankConfidenti1 - An independent report exposing concealed credit-line risk, systemic fraud and regulatory failure across Major Banks shown below. How many unknowingly in the ROI and UK have succumbed to these alleged FRAUDS and remain unaware, do read the Lorraine Morris @MLorrM Bank Confidential attachment in her Post (and her own summary statement contained therein) and if it triggers doubt, suspicion and concern in your mind that you might have been duped, Lorraine will no doubt point you in the direction of possible help - It would appear that these Frauds are still ongoing. The banking misconduct detailed in the Bank Confidential reports primarily occurred in the buildup to, during, and after the global financial crisis, broadly spanning from 2000 to 2017 (with certain related over-charging practices and legal disputes continuing to this day). The primary Banks named are - NatWest Group (formerly Royal Bank of Scotland Group) RBS-Global Restructuring Group (GRG) NatWest Ulster Bank Lloyds Banking Group (including HBOS) Barclays HSBC Coutts (a private banking subsidiary of NatWest Group) “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”.

• 
  Lorraine Morris (@MLorrM) reported 24 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