NatWest status: access issues and outage reports

Problems in the last 24 hours in Hayes, England

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

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

• 
  Tom (@tvercaut) reported 8 minutes ago from Ealing, England

  Who else has been a victim of card fraud at the NatWest Ealing Broadway branch? On Wednesday morning, the NatWest ATM swallowed my debit card, then it stopped working, subsequently my card was used in frauduleus transactions. @NatWest_Help @NatWestGroup @metpoliceuk

• 
  Niamh O'Reilly 😷 (@thatniamh) reported 9 minutes ago from Hammersmith, England

  Under zero circumstances activate biometric approval on the NatWest app you have been warned. It’s ****

• 
  Jack Head (@JackHead95) reported 14 minutes ago from Richmond, England

  ‘You’re suggesting I take out a loan, to deal with a cash flow issue resulting from NatWest’s incompetence?’ ‘No, I didn’t say that. The lending team can do all sorts of things’ Right… 11/

• 
  Josh Whelan (@JoshWhelan) reported 34 minutes ago from Southall, England

  @TicketmasterCS help please! I never received a booking confirmation email or my posted tickets for a show tonight. I booked via NatWest black membership app so they aren’t showing in my ticketmaster account either - how do I get hold of my tickets? Thanks

NatWest Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  Lorraine Morris (@MLorrM) reported 4 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 9 minutes ago

  10 years. 50M+ users. £11M+ revenue impact. Citibank. Mercedes. Sky. Virgin Media. NatWest. I spent a decade fixing conversion problems at companies most startups would kill to work with. what I learned: the same broken patterns show up everywhere - onboarding that loses people in the first 60 seconds, pricing pages that confuse instead of convert, signup flows with friction nobody ever fixed. now I build the same systems for funded startups.

• 
  JustMe (@Marcfasting) reported 10 minutes ago

  @NatWest_Help Not again. The NatWest app still can’t scan my HMRC cheque. I complained about this previously and was told it would be fixed. Another cheque, same problem. How is this still not resolved? I’m tired of raising complaints.

• 
  Le Ref (@LeRef5) reported 10 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

• 
  Cmdr_Green🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇬🇧 1.0 @liilBarcodeliil (@Stg_Gr33nz) reported 11 minutes ago

  Let me guess they are going after there own customers Picking and choosing whom to target and bankrupt there is always a problem, it will be them! causing it Blackout incoming, whats next HSBC, Natwest or the Bank of England collapsing on itself shareholders abandoning ship?

• 
  Its only me (@djhx66) reported 11 minutes ago

  What is this glitch with internet banking ? When will it be sorted, I sent money today, recipients bank told them I requested it back, app now I have to wait five days for the funds to be returned .. when will it be safe to try again!!! #revolut #natwest #bankinkUk

• 
  Magic hat 🎩 (@themagic_tophat) reported 13 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.

• 
  gill pind (@gillpind) reported 15 minutes ago

  @NatWestBusiness Been a NatWest business customer for 25 years my new manager rang me I imagined he was going to visit my premises and get to know me & my company but NO NatWest has stopped mangers visiting business customers!!. Digital meetings😡😡😡 box ticking for them😡👎🏼

• 
  X Finance Bull (@Xfinancebull) reported 16 minutes ago

  🚨 THE INSTITUTIONAL PAYMENT RACE HAS SIX CLEAR FRONT-RUNNERS. 🚨 $XRP $XLM $QNT $LINK $XDC $HBAR I ranked them by something more important than attention: Who is already connected to banks, payment companies, market infrastructure and real settlement activity? 1. $XRP The strongest direct bridge-asset design. XRP can provide temporary liquidity between currencies, helping payment companies avoid keeping money trapped in accounts around the world. Ripple’s full MiCA authorisation now gives its regulated crypto services access across the European Economic Area. 2. $XLM The strongest remittance and stablecoin network. Stellar recorded $5.5 billion in stablecoin payment volume during Q1 2026. MoneyGram also continues connecting Stellar-based digital dollars with cash access, and DTC expects tokenised assets to become available on Stellar in 2027. 3. $QNT The interoperability layer. Quant’s Fusion Rollup connects 74 networks, while UK Finance is testing tokenised bank deposits with Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds, NatWest, Nationwide and Santander. 4. $LINK The institutional connection and data layer. DTCC is integrating Chainlink into its Collateral AppChain for pricing, valuation and near-real-time collateral movement, with production expected in Q4 2026. 5. $XDC The trade-finance specialist. Native USDC and CCTP V2 are live on XDC, strengthening its position for cross-border settlement, receivables and tokenised trade assets. 6. $HBAR The enterprise settlement network. Archax is already using Hedera for tokenised securities whose USDC cash flows automatically follow ownership in near real time. One moves liquidity. One connects money with people. One links banking systems. One delivers trusted data and instructions. One modernises global trade. One supports regulated enterprise assets. Institutions will not choose only one rail. They will need an entire financial stack. These six are already positioning themselves inside it.

• 
  MrBounceBack.com (@Bounce_BackLoan) reported 17 minutes ago

  Today’s @ShabanaMahmood “Don’t Pay We Won’t Take You Away” Award winner is Iftehar Ahmed director of AK Touchstone Limited. The @ukhomeoffice slapped his Company with a £30,000 civil penalty for employing two people with no right to work in the UK. He said **** right off I’m not paying that, so didn’t and didn’t pay a £47,362.00 Bounce Back Loan either, and has just been given a 5 Year Director ban instead. So the Government never got the £30,000 and would have had to pay back NatWest the £47,362.00 for Bounce Back Loan too. Lovely….