NatWest status: access issues and outage reports

Problems in the last 24 hours in Hove, England

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

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

• 
  Victoria Workman (@NanaTorTor) reported 12 minutes ago from Worthing, England

  @NatWest_Help Please will someone from NatWest help with a major issue? Not getting anywhere and my anxious family members are becoming Ill with worry!!

• 
  Cheryl #JohnsonOut 💙 (@buzyizzy21) reported 34 minutes ago from Uckfield, England

  Has NatWest app crashed? I keep getting connection issues and can't get to speak to anyone on Customer Services. Blooming nightmare, no money in the middle of Tesco, had to run home and sort it out on their website, then run back and collect shopping. FML

• 
  Victor Santo Olliver (@VictorOlliver) reported 46 minutes ago from Sompting, England

  @essiefox I left for Homeserve after NatWest, went to Churchill, now better offer from British Gas home insurance. Homeserve years back were slow.

NatWest Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  Butterknife Operator (@Butterknifeopr8) reported 10 minutes ago

  NatWest customer service is some of the shittiest I have ever come across.

• 
  The Morangutan (@MorangutanMan) reported 11 minutes ago

  @Jenny_1884 I was thinking about the little things from back then that nobody remembers these days. People stopping you in the street to ask if you know what time it is. Those plastic guards that went up and down over the Natwest/Midland bank ATM. Silly things like that.. Yes take me back.

• 
  Lorraine Morris (@MLorrM) reported 11 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

• 
  Ali@Makely (@MakelyStudio) reported 11 minutes ago

  the thing AI has never once been able to do is walk into a room, understand the real problem before anyone's articulated it, and make a call that changes the direction of the product. I've done that at Sky, Virgin Media, NatWest and Citibank. that's still the job. and it always will be.

• 
  Ian Darbyshire (@Ian_darbyshire) reported 12 minutes ago

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

• 
  Jim Waltzon (@wa1tz3r1) reported 14 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!

• 
  Teds (@Tedtalks13) reported 15 minutes ago

  Sorry also lloyds BAU NatWest BAU HSBC uk bau With foi of all collaborations or service agreements in IT

• 
  Mark (@MTrad25) reported 23 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.

• 
  Magic hat 🎩 (@themagic_tophat) reported 32 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.

• 
  ADEBAYO101 (@ADEBAYO1018) reported 33 minutes ago

  @grok I want you help me build NatWest debit card exactly and the name on it shod be Nicholas baker