NatWest status: access issues and outage reports

Problems in the last 24 hours in Saxmundham, England

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

• 
  ryhn24.bsky.social 🦋 #freePalestine🇵🇸✊🫂🕊️🌅 (@rins2pworth) reported 53 seconds ago

  👍 people should have defunded all big 6 since 2008 Barclays HSBC RBS Lloyds NatWest can't think of the 6th one Coop best only bank not investing in arms and abuse of human rights Halifax Maybe nationwide though they pulled dodgy ****

• 
  Naveen | AI • Dharma • Truth (@anaveentalks) reported 2 minutes ago

  @AndrewAndru2012 @VerdeSelvans the phone is still usable while it’s indexing, but expect it to feel a bit slower, warmer, and with higher battery drain for the first few days (sometimes up to a week depending on how much data you have especially photos and messages). It runs in the background.On UK banking apps: so far most people are reporting that Monzo, Barclays, Starling, NatWest, Santander etc. are working fine on iOS 27 beta.Rollback is possible but annoying you’ll need to restore via a computer in recovery mode, and you’ll lose data unless you have a backup from before you installed the beta. Beta backups don’t always restore cleanly to older versions.

• 
  Magic hat 🎩 (@themagic_tophat) reported 2 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.

• 
  NatWest (@NatWest_Help) reported 2 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

• 
  Spencer (@SpencerGambles) reported 2 minutes ago

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

• 
  JoeRoot𓃵 (@NO_1TestBatter) reported 8 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.

• 
  Lady Nikki Tees of Lochaber (@1950sLibrarian) reported 9 minutes ago

  @johntierney73 @NnatMmac @NatWest Natwest refused 2 payment on my account when my card was cloned. They knew I didn’t spend nearly a grand on Amazon or eBay usually. They then cancelled my card, issued a new one, and gave me a temporary overdraft to cover my standing orders & direct debits etc. Good service

• 
  G McAdam (@McAdam146810) reported 10 minutes ago

  @Mickskinz Web: Microsoft sign-in helper - has the option that you’ve forgotten all your sign in details. I had a nightmare with a fraudulent DD on PayPal. I complained, they did FA. Contacted my bank, NatWest, which cancelled DD and refunded me the money that had been taken. Good luck!

• 
  Lorraine Morris (@MLorrM) reported 14 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

• 
  Ian Darbyshire (@Ian_darbyshire) reported 14 minutes ago

  @stevemiddi1 @ArturNadol7566 @LloydsBank I have the internal Natwest interest forecasts and they were all going down at that time.