NatWest status: access issues and outage reports

Problems in the last 24 hours in Lambeth, England

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

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

• 
  Geoff Whitehouse (@ByGeoffW) reported 9 seconds ago from Croydon, England

  For all the chat about how incumbents are lagging - NatWest is showing how it should be done. Deep Innovation, working with regulators, delivering new services at a scale others can only dream of. Let’s see if that forces some of the laggards to - finally - act.

• 
  Bert (@XBerts) reported 2 minutes ago from Lambeth, England

  @NatWest_Help absolutely appalling service today at NatWest telephone banking. Have been waiting for over one hour to get a replacement card. Get transferred to random people and now cut off! WTF !!

• 
  Joanne Timms (@LdnCinders) reported 9 minutes ago from Croydon, England

  @sainsburys I just said they reported no issues! I literally just messaged natwest themselves. I'll shop elsewhere as every other website is processing payments via visa fine apart from yours. Who knew it this hard to order soap powder and bleach?

• 
  Bert (@XBerts) reported 15 minutes ago from Camberwell, England

  @NatWest_Help getting a replacement card appears to be mission impossible with NatWest. Currently having a conversation in the app and the agent replies after one hour! What is your excuse @NatWest? Worst bank ever

• 
  Maggie - wear a mask 💙🏳️‍🌈🌱 (@maggieinlondon) reported 25 minutes ago from Wandsworth, England

  @carolecadwalla I found a NatWest debit card for Natalie West (thought it was a test card) but took it anyway to a NatWest branch and it turned out she was a real customer!

• 
  💙 Stacey Killon (@beady_stace) reported 47 minutes ago from Worcester Park, England

  Not particularly impressed with my local @NatWest_Help branch today in trying to open a trust fund. “It’s all on the app” - what about actually providing actual customer service? 😩 #natwest

• 
  nadia holmes (@nadiaholmesx) reported 56 minutes ago from Wandsworth, England

  almost two weeks without online banking bc Natwest are **** and dont cater for people who have had their phone stolen ughhhhhh

• 
  Miguel Viegas (@miguelagviegas) reported 59 minutes ago from Wandsworth, England

  @Brightstar have just tried to call you through Natwest to get help to register my phone but instead someone picked up my call and apparently a private call as well, and I was left hanging with no answer tor several minutes until I gave up. Not a great experience

NatWest Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  Its only me (@djhx66) reported 2 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

• 
  Alison (@norallie) reported 4 minutes ago

  @Nora11447402 @bmstewart2004 I hope it ends up a quick and painless experience. My bank was NatWest btw. Very good service from them and they understood my issue straight away. They even backdated it to my cancellation date when the first unauthorized debit resulted in my receiving the product.

• 
  JoeRoot𓃵 (@NO_1TestBatter) reported 5 minutes ago

  @temporary_sw6y Right taking down this post bcz i checked from Espn & it hasn’t mentioned it as bilateral but as Natwest series so got confused.

• 
  Duke of Lambeth (@DukeTinoM) reported 7 minutes ago

  @TheLightish @LloydsBank @WhiteSaiber It's always Llloyds my wife banks with Natwest and she never has this problem

• 
  thea (@th333aaa) reported 8 minutes ago

  I hate Barclays too but at least they don’t make it difficult for me to login when my app plays up bc my app doesn’t play up like NatWest does

• 
  Magic hat 🎩 (@themagic_tophat) reported 9 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.

• 
  Lorraine Morris (@MLorrM) reported 14 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

• 
  Melvyn Newell (@melv66722) reported 17 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).

• 
  Kenne_A (@StMollyBloom) reported 21 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.

• 
  citizens2022committee (@c22cuk) reported 25 minutes ago

  c22cuk COMMENT: State Supported COMPLICITY? BANK CONFIDENTIAL @BankConfidenti1 - An independent report exposing concealed credit-line risk, systemic fraud and regulatory failure across Major Banks shown below. How many unknowingly in the ROI and UK have succumbed to these alleged FRAUDS and remain unaware, do read the Lorraine Morris @MLorrM Bank Confidential attachment in her Post (and her own summary statement contained therein) and if it triggers doubt, suspicion and concern in your mind that you might have been duped, Lorraine will no doubt point you in the direction of possible help - It would appear that these Frauds are still ongoing. The banking misconduct detailed in the Bank Confidential reports primarily occurred in the buildup to, during, and after the global financial crisis, broadly spanning from 2000 to 2017 (with certain related over-charging practices and legal disputes continuing to this day). The primary Banks named are - NatWest Group (formerly Royal Bank of Scotland Group) RBS-Global Restructuring Group (GRG) NatWest Ulster Bank Lloyds Banking Group (including HBOS) Barclays HSBCCoutts (a private banking subsidiary of NatWest Group) “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”.