NatWest status: access issues and outage reports

Problems in the last 24 hours in Coalville, England

The chart below shows the number of NatWest reports we have received in the last 24 hours from users in Coalville, England and surrounding areas. An outage is declared when the number of reports exceeds the baseline, represented by the red line.

Live Outage Map Near Coalville, England

The most recent NatWest outage reports came from the following cities: Leicester.

City	Problem Type	Report Time
Leicester	Mobile App	2 months ago
Leicester	Transactions	2 months ago
Barlestone	Transactions	6 months ago
Leicester	Transactions	7 months ago
Leicester	Mobile App	1 year ago
Leicester	Mobile App	1 year ago

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 Coalville, England

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

• 
  Serge Alain Nana (@Nanaserge1979) reported 8 minutes ago from City of Leicester, England

  @NatWest_Help hello NatWest. Was sent some cash this morning. 4 hours later still hasn't reached my account. Can someone support please? Thanks

NatWest Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  Paul Foster (@OldFozzy) reported 2 minutes ago

  @TiceRichard More likely the bankers, Couts & Natwest. Couts CEO in cahoots with the BBC shut down Nigels account a while ago, remember? and had to make a settlement with him because "his views being considered incompatible with the bank's "values or purpose". Revenge or what?

• 
  Ali@Makely (@MakelyStudio) reported 2 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.

• 
  Mr Brondor (@MrBrondorDeFi) reported 7 minutes ago

  🔮BRONDOR ANALYSIS - ethereum:0x4a220e6096b25eadb88358cb44068a3248254675 WILL MAKE A NEW WAVE OF MILLIONAIRES Everyone wants the next 100x memecoin Meanwhile the real money is hiding in the most boring chart in crypto Let me explain why $QNT is set up different and how it actually makes people rich next run THE SETUP NOBODY SEES 🧿 Quant has a max supply of 14.88 million tokens. Not billion. MILLION. For context most coins have billions in supply. QNT has less tokens than some people have Twitter followers. Low supply plus institutional demand equals violent price moves when capital flows in. THE CONTROVERSIAL PART Quant won’t 100x because of hype. It’ll moon because banks are forced to use it. ECB Digital Euro. HSBC. Barclays. Lloyds. NatWest. Bank of England. SWIFT integration. These aren’t partnerships for marketing G. These are live pilots going into production mid-2026. When tokenized deposits go live in the UK the demand for QNT to access Overledger isn’t optional. It’s structural. HOW IT MAKES MILLIONAIRES Here’s the math nobody runs: QNT did $428 ATH in 2021 on pure speculation with zero real adoption. Now it has actual bank integrations and sits at $81. If it just returns to ATH that’s a 5x from here. If institutional adoption pushes it past ATH into price discovery? That’s where generational wealth happens. 14.88M supply means it doesn’t take much capital to send it parabolic. THE UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTH Most people won’t hold it long enough. It’s boring. It moves sideways for months. It doesn’t pump on Twitter hype. It tests your patience until you capitulate right before the move. The millionaires won’t be the traders. They’ll be the ones who understood the thesis and sat on their hands while everyone called them stupid. Low supply. Real adoption. Institutional demand. Patience. That’s the recipe G Not financial advice but the setup is right there for anyone willing to see it DYOR Tribe -Brondor

• 
  Curious Gazelle (@CuriousGazelle) reported 9 minutes ago

  @RenovatioFurius @OwenBenjamin One of my relatives in Pakistan does “Islamic” microfinance. Microfinance being loans for the poor. Their “legal system” allows them to scam a person with a banana stand in a slum. It’s more moral that a country allow NatWest for a working-class person to inflate their lifestyle.

• 
  Halal&Tayyib Organics 🍃 (@NaturezFynest) reported 11 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! 👍

• 
  helimopp (@helimopp) reported 11 minutes ago

  @friend_candid @AgniTachyon @TheIshikawaRin Oh yeah it asks in so confirms when I want to buy smth on a website like steam, god bless NatWest

• 
  C B Campbel (@Tw0pAcPr0) reported 16 minutes ago

  @NatWest_Help dear natwest bot, your phone app has an issue. Unfortunately it doesn't know how many hours in a daily reset. Ive want to move funds but it keeps telling ive reached my daily amount. I moved money Sunday its now Tuesday.

• 
  Atil00503 (@atil00503) reported 17 minutes ago

  Elon Musk, shall I tell you what else those NatWest employees—who scammed me out of 300 pounds—did? They kept blocking my contactless payments; and they send me a message asking me to reply "yes" if I try to make the payment or "no" if I didn't. I reply "yes," confirming I try to make the payment, and they send a follow-up message saying I could use my card—yet my card remained blocked. I called NatWest customer service and explained the situation to the representative: I replied "yes" to the message and was told I could use my card again, but I still couldn't use it because it was blocked. The representative was surprised, said they didn't know why this had happened, and reactivated my card. Elon Musk, they kept blocking my contactless payments—and let me put this in a way you'd understand: they didn't do it for security reasons. In fact, I hadn't made a single payment with that card yet; I tried to make a contactless payment somewhere but couldn't because they had blocked it. The shop assistant even told me, "They probably blocked it because you made too many contactless payments today"—even though I hadn't used the card anywhere before that.

• 
  Vin @ Vintuitive ⚡🌐 (@Vintuitive) reported 18 minutes ago

  @Gold_Phishy @troyhunt @haveibeenpwned His bank, NatWest, told him that it is blocking payments to PayPal accounts for his protection. He has used the same account for years to pay me via PayPal without any problems, until now.

• 
  Lorraine Morris (@MLorrM) reported 18 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