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 40 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:

• 
  Proper Memes 〓〓 (@Proper_Memes) reported 3 minutes ago

  @Blokeonabike2 @RupertLowe10 I quit Natwest years ago for their atrocious service. Took me years to close an empty ISA despite contacting them several time. I opened a personal account with Starling so I could have a business account with them. Comes with free, simple invoicing/bookkeeping system too.

• 
  Web3Alert (@theweb3alert) reported 5 minutes ago

  Most people know Gilbert Verdian as "the Quant CEO" Founder, CEO, the face of $QNT Fewer people actually know what he was doing before Quant existed. 20+ years in cybersecurity across 3+ governments before he ever touched crypto • Downing St • HM Treasury • Bank of England • Ministry of Justice • US Federal Reserve • NSW Health in Aus And of course there's everything on the private sector side with Vocalink and standards with ISO. That's NOT a typical crypto founder resume. That's someone who spent 2 decades inside the exact institutions Quant's now offering interoperability infrastructure to. And the idea for Overledger didn't come from a whitepaper brainstorm either... It came directly out of his work on ISO TC307, the international blockchain standards committee, back in 2016. He kept running into the same problem across every government and bank he worked with None of these systems could talk to each other. Quant was built to solve that specific problem Fast forward to today and that same TC307 work is still active Quant remains one of the core voices shaping ISO standards across 53 countries. The UK picked Quant to build the infrastructure for GBTD, tokenised sterling deposits, with Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds, NatWest, Nationwide and Santander all on board. Overledger sits inside Project Rosalind with the Bank of England and BIS. Inside the ECB's work. Inside the UK's Regulated Liability Network. Inside of UK Finance's GBTD which has received approval by the likes of UK Chancellor & Bank of England. None of that happens by accident. It happens because the guy building it spent two decades inside the rooms where these decisions actually get made.

• 
  I L (@iluyimbazi) reported 6 minutes ago

  @isabelrosesss This is NatWest/RBS/Ulster. Most annoying login among banks

• 
  Tariff Turnip (@MetaverseGamma) reported 8 minutes ago

  @mrsDugskullery @p0Intyhead @LBC What exactly is that you think happens when a bank collapses? It’s certainly not just the shareholders that lose out, if Brown had let Natwest collapse they would have had to insure £2 trillion of customer deposits, something tells me that might have cost more than a bailout.

• 
  Musa (@mkhankhakwani) reported 11 minutes ago

  NatWest is a **** bank they stole my money as well

• 
  Magic hat 🎩 (@themagic_tophat) reported 17 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.

• 
  dom 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇫🇴 (@domgtfc) reported 22 minutes ago

  3 hour queue for NatWest support, I have college in 5 hours, kms

• 
  Lorraine Morris (@MLorrM) reported 23 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

• 
  Teds (@Tedtalks13) reported 24 minutes ago

  @SecGenNATO in these @s that aren’t to be declared in another function. 1. What date did that energy firm sign a declaration that has specific requirements to be a NATO partner 2. What date did the cpr 7 become crown stamped sealed. 3. What dates did the directors change in uk versus eu main AGM board I have a list of merger acquisitions across uk in the pensions, insurances (including my business insurance tapped up of falcon yet the banking direct into HCC international that remained in place all through partial legal drafting while the initial public sector money was positioned for the demo of my software prototype The banks tsb no reason in their divorce with Lloyd’s; Lloyd’s business 2017 not notifying closure of account; of three partnership managers inside the bank of three different companies; my start up handed defined beyond the “risk assessment of the innovation. Partnering to further develop on the point of rejecting 100k of additional public sector money” (I rejected with ******* good reason) 2017/2018 there was a positioning error and error transfer of Lower court into not civil was positioned for intellectual court. 2018 had discussion re moving the asset of the house I rented (that had first entry in March 2015 while I was in cork for three days and my tsb banking removed off my desk in how I visually place materials in what is suppose to of been a secure save private letting). My dog was safe that short period as it was with a female and her dog. IN THAT period I was in business courts Northampton on written using Supreme Court high seat colour and symbols on documents; more than 13 case numbers (while others thought I was in some kind of gym bet! Get a life idiots) In that period I had also processed beyond the origin start of the system restructure; before I changed from virgin media WiFi domestic to ee business broadband; The click on inotes of the demo was clicked on the iPhone 6 that became a dispute in the old bullring of apple upstairs and VM downstairs where I asked for them to collect the phone after apple technical stated the cloud photos had been breached; (deleting the beginning of my work and my personal pictures of my not a pet.) apple Provided myself a new phone based on that. I then purchased an iPhone OFF AMAZON; where the ip of that and serial is on the box. these boxes and phones have gone missing however the iCloud records all that;; including the signalling through VM platforms (that lease from Bt ) ee platforms ( that became owned byBT and not a matter of bribery to use “all claims) and then the BT business that I kept running post eviction for the reason of security before they developed after many emails And calls from me (sound headset ) the vulnerable protection function they have developed. In these is another service level agreements that’s appearing in text words in NhS and charity banners. I recieved an email recent from NatWest claiming on the 1st of October 2026 to the October of 2025 that they can close an account if they choose fo no reason; Within these dates is Covid two credit ref agencies and three brokerage platforms Pre being procured into the comp house and dwp integration of proof and verifications. In all this period there is no social life, yet a lot of documents wrote and attachments in emails. I am aware that in uk some platforms that claim to contact manage can clone a companies email or persons and respond while the origin never receives the origin; I am being beyond mentally abused over the efficiency in the reason of enhanced . I have a legal right to be recompensed to live in a hotel be near my doctors and do small amounts that become and can become global work tasks What’s the issue; as the local aspect caused damages for everyone a small handle of people

• 
  Duke of Lambeth (@DukeTinoM) reported 24 minutes ago

  @TheLightish @LloydsBank @WhiteSaiber It's always Llloyds my wife banks with Natwest and she never has this problem