NatWest status: access issues and outage reports

Problems in the last 24 hours in Prees, England

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

• 
  Lorraine Morris (@MLorrM) reported 2 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

• 
  Earnings Prism (@earnings_prism) reported 3 minutes ago

  NatWest Group $NWG completed the acquisition of Evelyn Partners with an enterprise value of £2.7 billion on 30 June 2026. The acquisition transforms NatWest Group's financial planning and investment management capabilities, and it is expected to generate pre-revenue synergies of 20%, increasing fee income and boosting exposure to the structurally higher growth UK wealth market. Evelyn Partners had £69 billion of Assets Under Management and Administration at the end of 2025, which combined with NatWest Group's £59 billion, would have brought total AUMA to £127 billion and total Customer Assets and Liabilities to £188 billion, or c.20% of NatWest Group's CAL.

• 
  Ali@Makely (@MakelyStudio) reported 5 minutes ago

  I've designed products used by 50M+ people across Sky, Virgin Media, NatWest and Citibank. AI didn't make that experience less valuable. it made the gap between good judgment and no judgment impossible to ignore. here's what's actually changed in 2026...

• 
  John Lundstram (@Lundstrams_peg) reported 6 minutes ago

  @JonnyLavn @ScotlandSky Have a wee read of the crown prosecution service website. Also stops you looking like a right ******* idiot on here Copernicus. Alternatively speak with natwest a company which was famously criminally prosecuted recently. Want it in words of one syllable or less next?

• 
  Sumanyu Sharma 🍫 (@sumanyu) reported 7 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 (@Sparky2504) reported 10 minutes ago

  @AskNationwide This is exactly why I’ve now taken my 3 accounts to NatWest. Nationwide are so behind with the times with their procedures & systems. NatWest can usually fix everything online without having to call them. People don’t have time to call companies & wait on hold for ages anymore!

• 
  michelle maher (@mmaher70) reported 14 minutes ago

  Call yet again, to cut welfare when 14 million people are in poverty There was £40.5bn paid out in bonuses between May 2013 and April 2014 'NatWest, Barclays, Lloyds and Santander received more than £9 billion in interest on Bank of England reserves in 2023 – a 135% increase on the previous year' This is taxpayer's money At the same time welfare was cut by billions, and we were blamed for economic problems UK #disabilitybenefits #Burnham

• 
  citizens2022committee (@c22cuk) reported 14 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 HSBCCoutts (a private banking subsidiary of NatWest Group) “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”.

• 
  Cricketopia (@CricketopiaCom) reported 15 minutes ago

  “How can a gora hit me?” A heated dressing-room clash between Sehwag & John Wright during the 2002 NatWest Series. “I had been dismissed playing big shots in the last three-four outings. John Wright told me to ‘just play and bat 40 overs and score a fifty, I don’t want to lose you’. I didn’t know much English back then and didn’t realise he was referring to me getting dropped from the side.” Sehwag still played his natural game and was dismissed attempting a big shot. “When I came back to the dressing room, he grabbed me by the collar and pushed me towards a chair.” “I got so angry, I went straight to Rajeev Shukla ji and told him I’m heading back home. He asked me what happened. I told him, ‘that gora hit me. How can a gora hit me?’” Rajeev Shukla later intervened to calm the situation (with the help of Sachin Tendulkar) with Sehwag insisting on an apology before reconciling.

• 
  Magic hat 🎩 (@themagic_tophat) reported 16 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.