IIf its a joint account with my name included, why does he have to give permission?

[PrettyPickle]

When me and my husband moved to this house, we moved utility supplier and we opened a joint utility account with payment from our joint bank account but every time the bill came, it was in his name only. I deal with the practical financial matters and if I rang the utility company, they would not speak to me as I wasn't the principal account holder, yet its a joint account. I also need accounts in my name for ID purposes etc. I argued and after a few years demanded my name was put on the bill, and it was, but they still initially insist they get my husbands permission when I ring, until I push it and they relent.

Last week we were on holiday, we have joint membership on a certain activity, there was an issue with the membership and they would not allow us in without paying. I rang the company and they said they had to speak with my husband, again I repeated that it was joint membership and that it came from our joint bank account. They would not relent so my husband spoke to them. The blip was at their end, and they sent an email to my husbands email address and told him to show it to reception and they would let us in. Unfortunately, we were in the countryside and he didn't have connectivity on his phone, whilst I did, but they would not send the email to me. I had to pass the phone to reception so they could instruct them by phone.

I said I felt this was misogynistic and they said it was simply that my husbands name had been put down on the form first rather than me but surely if its a joint account, we should both be able to talk to them.

Basically both would speak to my husband without my permission but won't speak to me without his permission!

Vote I am being unreasonable if you think it is OK to require the other persons permission and vote you do NOT think I am being unreasonable if you think that on a joint account they should speak to either of us?

They spoke to your DH because they'd already spoken to you, so therefore speaking to both people. It's not misogynistic, it's that they are just stupid in the way they've set joint accounts up but needing permission from both. Absolutely nothing about that is misogynistic.

Ok so they would not speak to me without my husbands permission and I clearly said that on both accounts they will speak to my husband without my permission but they will not speak to me, without my husbands permission. I also clarified that I stated this sounded misogynistic and I was advised that it was because he was held as the main account holder, despite both being joint accounts in our joint names, coming from our joint bank account. The question is....do you think it is OK that they will talk to him without my permission but won't talk to me without his? I'm interested in what others think?

So basically, if I attempt to visit one of the membership sites on my own and there is a problem, they will not resolve it with me, without my husbands consent, but if he turns up and there is a problem, they do not have to ask for my consent? So OK it may not be misogynistic as I state they clarified, but if its a joint account, why does it matter who is the first on the form, why do they only need his permission and not mine. What is the point of the joint account?

i agree with you up to a point. They (banks etc) always have a principal account holder even for a joint account. I’m not sure ‘principal ‘ is the correct term but I’m sure you get the jist.
It seems entirely counter-intuitive to me to have a principal at all - is it a joint account or not. Why must there be a first amongst equals.
I guess they have their reasons.
I also do all of the money stuff here but for reasons that are not clear to me my husband always seems to be the principal so I always have to get him to speak to them first simply to authorise them to speak to me. Why that preference can’t permanently by noted on the account is a mystery to me.
I’m not aware of ever having being asked who our preferred principal would be.
If it is just that his name has been listed first on any application form then it may have been my fault as I would have completed the form.
Also have the same think with utility companies.

Id love to know if there’s a way around it for future reference.

Thank you, and this is what I have experienced and think too. If its a joint account, why does there have to be a principal account holder and it certainly wasn't explained to us how this would affect the account.

I can conceive that the principal account holder maybe the person that is nominated for them to contact first in case of an issue but surely as a "joint account holder" the 2nd named person (male or female) should be able to make enquiries without the other persons permission if it works vice versa?

So whichever person is named as the "principal person" on the account has all the control and the 2nd named has no control but 50/50 (or more) of the legal responsibility - how does that work!

I hear you OP and it's incredibly frustrating.

Can you get your name as principal on all the joint accounts? If they refuse then perhaps cancel the accounts and go elsewhere/rejoin a month later, but put your name down first on all applications. I would go so far as to photograph/copy those applications as proof.

It’s because although these are joint accounts, they do have AN account holder. Our gas & electric yes it’s from our joint bank account but you cannot set it up in 2 names, so the “account holder” is me. My husband is an authorised person so he can also speak on the accounts.

If this bothers you just start putting your name as the account holder. The staff are literally doing their job and ensuring that only the named account holder is able to access and amend your info.

That's not the case. If he were to call over a change, they wouldn't ring her, as she didn't set it up. It's happened to me and it's frustrating. For British Gas, DH had to call them and tell them to deal with both of us, or we would withdraw.

I did threaten this to the Utility provider but basically, if you accept this is not misogynistic and it is simply that my husbands name was entered first without us realising the implications, if I register with my name as lead, I will simply be placing my husband in the same position.

Surely besides the frustrations this causes the 2nd named person, this can be used abusively! My husband can close the account, I cannot, my husband can change the membership details without my permission, I cannot!

I just don't get the rationale behind it.

All you have to do is get the principal account holder to register you as someone who can operate the account. Then they'll talk to both of you.

This is how joint accounts etc have always been. I can remember calling the electricity and gas people twenty years ago and putting my DH on the line so they could speak to him and get his permission to add me as a contact.

It's not misogynist, it's just the first person named on the account. And it turns out that a lot of the time people fill in the form as Mr and then Mrs. Which clearly we had done when we registered.

He didn't need to threaten them. They'll do that straight away as soon as the account holder asks. But they need you to initiate it.

I'd suggest changing your bank, if the bank is doing this. My partner and I have a joint account with First Direct and either of us can ring up about it and use the app. It's ridiculous to say that one of you is the 'main' account holder in this situation. For utilities, maybe you need to change suppliers and check first that both of you can operate the account. Quite infuriating for you.

It's very simple OP.

You phone and give your husbands details.

You are Mr h Smith or whatever, they can't say " you don't sound like him " can they.

I've done this with my utility bill as my husband wasn't available and I needed to get the issue sorted.

As I knew all the details they had to accept I was Mr h Smith.

My husband and I did initiate it and it took us three years of constantly requesting it to get the utility company to put my name on the bill (it was already a joint account) and they still only speak to me without my husbands permission as I kick off!

Thanks, its not a bank account, we can both make enquiries on our joint bank account but not our individual bank accounts which is how it should be in my opinion.

You mean sexist not misogynist.

Let's not over use a word that there's already plenty of use for!

Oh I agree with you, I know changing you to principle doesn't really solve your problem for DH, however you said you did all the practical side of managing all the accounts/bills.

It will be easier if you were principle because quite honestly, how often would DH have to deal/need permission? If he's anything like my DH it would be once in twenty years.

i think you misunderstand. Its a joint utility account being paid from our joint bank account. But they will not allow the 2nd person to be authorised, they have to seek permission from the principal account holder on each occasion, so if I become the principal account holder, I put my husband in the same position, I am now in.

Who is this with? We used several different utilities companies but never had any problem arranging for them to talk to us both.

100% with you OP. But a practical solution is to ask if they can set a password on the account. Virgin Media do this I think. So if I quote the password I can make changes even if account is in husband’s name.

I believe that if the utility company uses a credit reference agency then there can only be one account holder. With BT/EE, for example, only one person can be the account holder, other named people can be added, but for certain issues, only the account holder can be spoken to.
It is for credit reference/fraud protection.
If companies don’t use a CRA, they may allow joint account holders.

Thank you, that is very helpful but when I raised my concern with the membership organisation, I asked if he could just give permission for them to speak with me OR him going forward and the answer was no! Only the principal account holder can make account specific enquiries but maybe that would work with the Utility company - I will give it a go!

I see the rationale behind this but the utility provider appears on both of our credit records and we are jointly and severally responsible for any debt arising from the utility services provided.

Thankfully I’ve always been the main account holder as I was the one setting up the bills… however my exH set up the internet, when he left I couldn’t discuss issues with the internet connection or phone line.. even though because he removed himself from the joint bank account I was paying the bills!! I said I’d just cancel the DD & they responded I would be fined for leaving the service early.. it’s a joke!!! In the end I completed the contract and had a reminder set to change supplier … when they called to change my mind I literally told them they couldn’t possibly speak to me about the account as my exH wasn’t here to give permission 😂

Internet company by any chance? I had this with onestream. Worst internet supplier in the world.

How frustrating, and this is why its open to abuse. I'm not sure what the answer is but it does see biased in the favour of the principal account holder. In the case of the Utility company, the management of our joint utility account affects both our credit records but they only take instructions from him!