NatWest status: access issues and outage reports

Problems in the last 24 hours in Kingston upon Hull, England

The chart below shows the number of NatWest reports we have received in the last 24 hours from users in Kingston upon Hull, 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 8 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

• 
  JoeRoot𓃵 (@NO_1TestBatter) reported 13 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.

• 
  Helen Macdonald 🇺🇦🖤💜🖤 (@alpacapower) reported 13 minutes ago

  @MartinSLewis @DrFionaCares I am leaving NatWest after 40 yrs because my nearest branch is now over 7 miles away, there are no cash points & they can’t explain why my second set of 2 debit cards refuse to work in card machines. And don’t get me started on bloody Cora… Customer service is dead.

• 
  Kev (@suffolkev) reported 18 minutes ago

  @NatWest_Help my son is in America trying to use his NatWest card but you keep declining payments. Your app says you don’t need to tell you if abroad and your useless chatbot is no help. The “emergency” number is just an endless Voice menu with no option to speak to someone! 🤬

• 
  Sports Geeez (@Sportsgeeez) reported 18 minutes ago

  England finishes at 387/3 126 runs in the last 10 overs Highest total at the Lord's. Except for that 2002 Natwest Final, 300+ target never chased down here. Joe Root remains unbeaten throughout the series. Gurnoor Brar bowled the 3rd expensive spell for India in ODIs. #ENGvIND

• 
  paul herriot (@TruthSentinel1) reported 20 minutes ago

  @Bankersbonus1 @ADavies61517 @afneil During the 2008 financial crisis, the UK government stepped in to rescue major banks including Royal Bank of Scotland, Lloyds Banking Group, Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley. The state directly spent around £137 billion in capital injections and emergency support, while offering over £1 trillion in guarantees to stop the banking system collapsing. Most of the money was eventually recovered, but taxpayers are still estimated to have lost around £30–35 billion overall, with the biggest losses coming from the RBS/NatWest bailout. Worth remembering the next time someone says the banks “were fine”.

• 
  Halal&Tayyib Organics 🍃 (@NaturezFynest) reported 20 minutes ago

  @grok Ofcourse not! Why would they leave an Internet trail. Bank of England funds Natwest, HSBC, Barclays etc. An overnight shut down of all their accounts for unproven allegations.... no link, yeah okay! 👍

• 
  Magic hat 🎩 (@themagic_tophat) reported 21 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.

• 
  el деньги (@CokenOlivesV3) reported 23 minutes ago

  @_dobbsey And those working for NatWest in their shittier branches… as I experienced today when I heard a staff member practically yelling somebody’s address.

• 
  Jim Waltzon (@wa1tz3r1) reported 23 minutes ago

  @Apple how can I tell my cards apart in Apple Pay? I have 4 @NatWest cards, all frustratingly identical. Learning the numbers is not an option, as at leat one card number will change every six months! Help me please!? There must be a better way!