NatWest status: access issues and outage reports

Problems in the last 24 hours in Lyme Regis, England

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

• 
  Rt Hon Prof Lord Andrew GCVO KHP FRCS FTSE MSCI (@PrivateIncome) reported 8 minutes ago

  @DustyBo80599309 @SophieP25397 £23bn from “9 years ago”? Mate, the bailouts were 2007-09. That’s not “9 years ago”. Your £23bn figure was a 2018 OBR snapshot, not a live invoice. We’ve fully exited every single intervention — final NatWest shares sold May 2025. No ring-fenced ‘bailout debt’ still sitting there waiting for your PAYE. Debt is aggregate. Interest is paid on the total stock. Treating it like a personal loan you’re still ‘funding’ is pure fantasy accounting. And spare us the ‘hitting the vulnerable while ignoring tax dodgers’ sermon. Legal tax avoidance isn’t theft, and the alternative to those bailouts was depositors queuing outside branches and the entire system melting down. You’d have been first in the queue complaining about that too. Next.

• 
  Jerome De Spencer (@clusterfeck) reported 9 minutes ago

  Click the pic for a full report especially if you are a NATWEST customer.

• 
  Funmi (@Funminz) reported 11 minutes ago

  Joint borrowers earning £150,000+ can now borrow up to 6.5× their income. NatWest will lend at 6.5× for higher earners, but only if they’re borrowing 75% LTV or less. Pros Higher borrowing power — High income earners can access larger mortgages, which helps in expensive markets like London where property prices are high. More competitive offering — NatWest becomes more attractive to wealthy buyers who might otherwise go to specialist lenders. Useful for joint high earners — Couples earning £150k+ combined can stretch further to buy homes in premium areas. Potentially better rates — The article notes NatWest often has best buy rates, so borrowers may get both a high LTI and a good interest rate. Cons Higher financial risk — Borrowing 6.5x income is a big commitment. If interest rates rise or income drops, repayments can become stressful. Lower LTV allowed — To borrow at 6.5x, you must have at least a 25% deposit. That’s a huge barrier for many people. Only for high earners — This doesn’t help average income buyers struggling with affordability. It widens the gap between who can and can’t buy. Could push prices up — Allowing people to borrow more can fuel higher property prices, especially in already expensive areas. This move is good for wealthy buyers who want bigger loans, but it does nothing for regular earners and may even increase market pressure. It’s a strategic play by NatWest to attract high income clients, not a broad affordability solution.

• 
  theVARdict (@theVARdict) reported 11 minutes ago

  @Nigel_Farage ****. This hounding is absolutely horrendous! It's almost like they spend more than 1 minute knocking on the door. Is the same apology you wanted from Coutts because they rejected you for your dealings with criminals? If I were NatWest, I'd be asking for my settlement back.

• 
  Le Ref (@LeRef5) reported 13 minutes ago

  @Feargal_Sharkey @NatWestGroup It was the public authorities that delayed it that long you halfwit. The plans were formed in 1940s (public control) The land was bought in 1975 (public control) Plans were dropped in 1976 after a Public Inquiry on the back of NIMBYism (public ownership) Plans were revised in the mid 90s and not pursued as there was not sufficient identified demand. Mid West water only merged with SE water in 2007 so the history has nothing to do with them. Nat West's Pension Fund owns a 25% stake, not NatWest. Plans were revised in 2013 and hit the usual barrier - locals, NIMBYs and organised groups have been campaigning against it for decades. So sure, it's all down to the evil privatised companies

• 
  Teds (@Tedtalks13) reported 15 minutes ago

  I’ll go through the hole list of **** again Monday. Hmcts re the complaint of case file empty. (Wasn’t me on that hearing @Experian don’t care if she threatens to slit her wrists) Lloyds (and its energy company ) HSBC (and its estate agent and energy company) NatWest (just so you know did you birmingham wood fraud) Companies house (IT error) IPO office (reference your reference is one efficiency companies house) Ovo energy and its tupe (2p) sse notice transfer audit issue with eon Then a list of those law firms that agreed in 2018 to the bent bet that I found out about; that in those law firms they were involved in the house court case that moved even though stayed in any application existed @HMCTSgovuk has the walsal court Brough the police in yet and when can I see the hybrid video to show it wasn’t me

• 
  Ian Darbyshire (@Ian_darbyshire) reported 18 minutes ago

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

• 
  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.

• 
  Srijan (@ImSrijanG) reported 21 minutes ago

  @prasannalara algorithm podunga sir. Any chance of India chasing this down? Giving Natwest Final 2002 vibes

• 
  Alison (@norallie) reported 24 minutes ago

  @Nora11447402 @bmstewart2004 I hope it ends up a quick and painless experience. My bank was NatWest btw. Very good service from them and they understood my issue straight away. They even backdated it to my cancellation date when the first unauthorized debit resulted in my receiving the product.