NatWest status: access issues and outage reports

Problems in the last 24 hours in Lutterworth, England

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

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

• 
  Ben Wells (@benwells77) reported 42 minutes ago from Lutterworth, England

  Checked with NatWest, they said everything now fine their end. Does the website have issues? Thanks

NatWest Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  Hector McNeil (@Hector_McNeil) reported 3 minutes ago

  @stephenpollard Think you made a big error here. NatWest got bailed out in the financial crisis so think that is a counter to your argument without the state it wouldnt exist and shareholders would have got nothing. Also industries like rail and water just can’t be made competitive. I can’t get Scot’s rail when I want to get a train in london or use Thames water in Leeds cos I don’t want to use Yorkshire water. I am 100% capitalist and set up multiple companies from scratch and employed a bunch of people but it doesn’t work for everything. Also the best rail companies in the world are state owned and many state owned foreign companies bought up many of the companies thatcher sold off. So that makes no sense anyway

• 
  Lorraine Morris (@MLorrM) reported 3 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

• 
  Fordy (@Andyfor03298768) reported 5 minutes ago

  @NatwestB @TunnelGuruVPN Time to close our accounts and take all our money elsewhere! NatWest bull ****

• 
  Daniella (@JupitorsL) reported 6 minutes ago

  @ZackPolanski Never mind me just down voting the community notes that are willfully ignoring the very valid point. It you got arrested for running into NatWest and smashing up their display, charged for it, then got done for robbing the bank later with no jury or due process you'd kick off.

• 
  Kenne_A (@StMollyBloom) reported 10 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.

• 
  Matt Connolly (@MattCon90191238) reported 11 minutes ago

  @ikeijeh @MetroUK Until quite recently the City had done a good job of resisting ugly modern towers (with the exception of Natwest Tower). And then suddenly in the early 00s the gloves were off and it became a free for all. Was this down to any one individual?

• 
  Jumpers For Goalposts (@Anthony86619842) reported 21 minutes ago

  @NatWest_Help 35 years as a NatWest personal and business customer and zero understanding of my business or the support you’d expect from your bank. Utterly aghast…..

• 
  Joanne Fowler (@jofowler38) reported 23 minutes ago

  @birdman2 This post promotes a known scam using AI deepfakes of Emily Maitlis and NatWest CEO Paul Thwaite to advertise the fake Garlenix trading app. The linked site is part of an affiliate fraud scheme that tricks users into depositing money on bogus investment platforms. Please do your own due diligence. Reported as spam and deceptive content.

• 
  Mark (@MTrad25) reported 27 minutes ago

  Friday 31 July — what’s moving The week ends with the cleanest illustration of the new rule anyone could ask for. Apple beat on almost everything. Revenue $109.4bn, +16%. iPhone $54.25bn, +22% — its best ever June quarter. EPS $2.02 against $1.89 expected. The stock fell after hours, on guidance. Amazon raised full-year capex to $220bn — a number that would have been punished a fortnight ago — and jumped ~8%, because AWS grew 36.7%, its fastest in over four years. Microsoft up, Meta down, Amazon up, Apple down. The market is neither rewarding AI spending nor punishing it. It’s grading proof. Note the casualty: for two weeks Apple was the hedge, capex at 1.8% of revenue making it the place to hide from spending anxiety. On the night the spenders got paid, abstaining stopped earning a premium. Asia took the same message and amplified it violently. The KOSPI rose as much as 17% — its best day on record. Samsung and SK Hynix up near 30%. Taiwan +7%, Nikkei +5%. Now the number that matters: the KOSPI is still down ~25% for July, its worst month since 1997. A 17% day inside that is not recovery. It’s a market with the leverage stripped out of it — Korean authorities spent the week reining in leveraged products that had wiped out retail savings. And the FX story is the week’s thesis in miniature. Japan and Korea intervened jointly on Thursday — unprecedented, with the yen near a 40-year low. Then the BoJ held rates on Friday and the yen went straight back to 160.69. Coordinated intervention by two states bought roughly one session. Nothing about the rate differential changed, so nothing about the yen did. Which rhymes with the central banks. The Fed’s statement was near-identical to June’s — one verb and three dissenters — and Warsh signalled a step back from forward guidance. The BoE held 3.75% on a 6-3 vote, three hawks where two were expected, then Bailey immediately told reporters not to read it as edging towards a hike. September hike odds fell to 40% from above 50%. The bond market’s answer: long-end US yields near 19-year highs while the short end eased. A steepener built on doubt that anyone can anchor inflation. In London: the FTSE 100 touched a record 10,979.60 intra-day then closed down 0.1%. Rolls-Royce led, +6%, on H1 operating profit up 17% to £2.42bn. Today: NatWest, Taylor Wimpey, ITV, plus Exxon and Chevron. FTSE futures +0.4%. This was the week guidance died. Warsh won’t give it. Bailey disowned his own committee’s. Two governments spent reserves defending currencies and got a day. And Apple’s forecast cost it more than a record quarter earned. Everyone is being marked on evidence now.

• 
  cj (@cjhmode) reported 28 minutes ago

  @AlvinMutyaba @augusteprompt Every bank lets you on and off ramp but for on ramp it’s limited as I say above. Some banks may be friendlier than others and allow slightly higher limits or open a discussion with you based on your personal circumstances (for example, Barclays will, NatWest won’t). I was able to off ramp with no limits and use the proceeds to buy my house, after strict due diligence around source of funds of course. Hence I no longer own or trade any crypto in this difficult market and with this unfriendly regime personally. Regarding leverage trading, I’m not sure. I imagine you could use Hyperliquid with a VPN, not sure if that will become impossible when the new restrictions land. Personally I’ve never traded leverage, that’s too much of a casino for me. I only ever traded spot. And obviously there’s lots of avenues for that. Hence I think it’s an exaggeration to say it’s dead here, but it will certainly become hard to justify once CGT is upped (circling back to my original point).