NatWest status: access issues and outage reports

Problems in the last 24 hours in Brighton, England

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

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

• 
  Victor Santo Olliver (@VictorOlliver) reported 22 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.

• 
  Victoria Workman (@NanaTorTor) reported 41 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 59 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

NatWest Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  jackduk (@jackduk1) reported 6 minutes ago

  @DebtFreeBy30UK I'm no expert, but it might make sense to pay minimum on your cards, throw everything at Monzo, then MBNA, Barclays then NatWest. Don't bother investing with this much debt. Squeeze some out of your weekly spend, even 30 quid a week will help. Move debt around to 0% early.

• 
  Lorraine Morris (@MLorrM) reported 10 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

• 
  Musa (@mkhankhakwani) reported 13 minutes ago

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

• 
  Mr Brondor (@MrBrondorDeFi) reported 14 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

• 
  C B Campbel (@Tw0pAcPr0) reported 15 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.

• 
  S4mtheM4n (@M4nS4mthe) reported 19 minutes ago

  @THummell39837 I saw a photo of her drunk and haggard some years ago. What she earning off the taxpayers ? At least the NatWest CEO is working for his money at a bank ! Not sucking off the taxpayers of UK !!!!

• 
  Kenne_A (@StMollyBloom) reported 22 minutes ago

  This Cian_UTD bollocks doing the rounds, and I’ve got to say I don’t believe the majority of it, but if true, and Betfred and NatWest are looking at reimbursing and even compensating him, they’re setting themselves up for a real shitstorm. Anyone who’s ever known an addict of anything will know that it’s ultimately up to themselves to help themselves. And what BF and NatWest are seemingly about to do is set up a precedent where any gambler can freeroll the bookies and the banks by Gamstop’ing themselves, working around it, and recouping any losses. Why would you not? If I can deposit £5k to a bookies and go all out to try triple it in an evening knowing they have to refund me if I lose I’d be an idiot not to. Situation here should be as followed. Thorough investigation, apology if in the wrong and a review of their internal flagging system. And instead of a refund, assistance to Cian to get help with his addiction. Cian has been on the timeline for a long while with one grift or the other. If he comes out of this even or ahead he’s learned nothing. And in a few months time he’ll hit one of the other bookies with the same story. And someone help his ******* kid.

• 
  Jumpers For Goalposts (@Anthony86619842) reported 24 minutes ago

  @NatWest_Help 35 years as a NatWest personal and business customer and zero understanding of my business or the support you’d expect from your bank. Utterly aghast…..

• 
  michelle maher (@mmaher70) reported 25 minutes ago

  Call yet again, to cut welfare when 14 million people are in poverty There was £40.5bn paid out in bonuses between May 2013 and April 2014 'NatWest, Barclays, Lloyds and Santander received more than £9 billion in interest on Bank of England reserves in 2023 – a 135% increase on the previous year' This is taxpayer's money At the same time welfare was cut by billions, and we were blamed for economic problems UK #disabilitybenefits #Burnham

• 
  Paul Foster (@OldFozzy) reported 26 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?