NatWest status: access issues and outage reports

Problems in the last 24 hours in Bishop Auckland, England

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

• 
  Vince (@Xray_Vince) reported 9 minutes ago

  @Voyager4IR @NoBullCryptoBen @matttttt187 Chainlink isn't working with central banks yet. They have multiple BIS/Central bank projects, Murex, Natwest Euroclear, Oracle...... That's just ignorant 🤷 ... We all know Central banks are going to be the slowest movers.

• 
  Tushar Motwani (@Bombay_71) reported 9 minutes ago

  @RaoSumukh the thing is this pose and everything around it feels good creatively only in that moment when India chased down England’s formidable target of 325/5 to win the 2002 NatWest Series Final at Lord's.

• 
  Kath (@KathsSpace) reported 9 minutes ago

  Got told off when I got on the 51 bus in Yeovil today. I got on at NatWest and was told the stop is only for dropping off not picking up. Can’t find this info on the Buses Of Somerset website or the bustimes website. But at least now I know I suppose.

• 
  Le Ref (@LeRef5) reported 12 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

• 
  daz (@MetamateDaz) reported 15 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."

• 
  Melvyn Newell (@melv66722) reported 18 minutes ago

  @Londonist @DCBMEP “…began in 1971. ..nine years to realise.” (Working closely with Seiferts from 1975, as PQS for the now the Sea Containers Hotel, I was told that the delay in the NatWest Tower was as a result of a redesign for the tower footprint to match the new NatWest logo).

• 
  Magic hat 🎩 (@themagic_tophat) reported 18 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.

• 
  Tariff Turnip (@MetaverseGamma) reported 19 minutes ago

  @mrsDugskullery @p0Intyhead @LBC What exactly is that you think happens when a bank collapses? It’s certainly not just the shareholders that lose out, if Brown had let Natwest collapse they would have had to insure £2 trillion of customer deposits, something tells me that might have cost more than a bailout.

• 
  ParteekNotPrateek (@randomcricfacts) reported 23 minutes ago

  @Weirdgripping84 159 gave him a good run but Natwest **** show should have been the end of him. The fact that Laxman also kept failing in 2002 is what helped pip it in Mongia’s favor coz he bowled.

• 
  Paul Foster (@OldFozzy) reported 23 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?