NatWest status: access issues and outage reports

Problems in the last 24 hours in Braunton, England

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

• 
  daz (@MetamateDaz) reported 5 minutes ago

  Andrew Tate explains how they hit one button and erased his ENTIRE life just because he was put on a terror list "Went to click Twitter. Twitter signed out. Clicked WhatsApp. Your WhatsApp's been deleted. Clicked Instagram. Of course, signed out. Clicked Gmail. Signed out. They pressed a button, Jack, and wiped every single thing from my phone. The Apple ID itself, so I couldn't download apps, and every single application was logged out. Uber, Airbnb, Skype, any app on my phone, all of them were gone. Coinbase? Everything. Every single app. All of my bank accounts.Coinbase. I had a NatWest and a HSBC bank in England. They seized all that money. Talk about that soon. Everything was frozen. Everything was gone. My entire phone just became a brick. And I called a friend of mine from my girlfriend's phone. I said, how ******** can they do this? And he said, they put you on a terror watch list. They can only do that if you're on a terror watch list."

• 
  Linda Pennock🙂 (@LindaPennock1) reported 5 minutes ago

  @bsd_junkie @DamianLow3 She stepped down after admitting she was the source who discussed Farage’s relationship with Coutts with a BBC journalist. NatWest said the disclosure of confidential customer information was unacceptable.

• 
  Phony Bliar (@phoneybliar) reported 7 minutes ago

  @guinevere_86157 19% is high by historical standards, and compares favourably with other Retail Banks e.g. RBS was down at 4% before the financial crisis, and NatWest is currently 14%. The economic impact of 30% should also be considered as this is capital that can't be used to support lending.

• 
  WealthLog | Isa Journey (@UKWealthLog) reported 10 minutes ago

  Just moved another £3,000 into my NS&I Premium Bonds. It came from money sitting in my NatWest account that I kept dipping into whenever I needed it. I’ve now only got around £1,000 left in that account, with another £2,000 salary due tomorrow. The idea is simple: if the money isn’t sat in my current account, I’m less tempted to transfer it back and spend it. Sometimes the best financial decisions aren’t about earning a higher return-they’re about making it harder to spend. Has anyone else changed the way they organise their money to help them save more?

• 
  Lorraine Morris (@MLorrM) reported 13 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

• 
  Hector McNeil (@Hector_McNeil) reported 16 minutes ago

  @stephenpollard Think you made a big error here. NatWest got bailed out in the financial crisis so think that is a counter to your argument without the state it wouldnt exist and shareholders would have got nothing. Also industries like rail and water just can’t be made competitive. I can’t get Scot’s rail when I want to get a train in london or use Thames water in Leeds cos I don’t want to use Yorkshire water. I am 100% capitalist and set up multiple companies from scratch and employed a bunch of people but it doesn’t work for everything. Also the best rail companies in the world are state owned and many state owned foreign companies bought up many of the companies thatcher sold off. So that makes no sense anyway

• 
  Blue Heart Papi 💙💙💙 (@ElPap1Chu1o) reported 17 minutes ago

  @GreekTheNic @NotFarLeftAtAll I guess it’s a case of iykyk. I’m a NatWest customer so I can tell

• 
  Magic hat 🎩 (@themagic_tophat) reported 17 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.

• 
  Srijan (@ImSrijanG) reported 17 minutes ago

  @prasannalara algorithm podunga sir. Any chance of India chasing this down? Giving Natwest Final 2002 vibes

• 
  ADEBAYO101 (@ADEBAYO1018) reported 19 minutes ago

  @groke I want to help template how reviving sort from NatWest bank with sum of 1.2 million pounds in to Barclay sms