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?

If it's a joint account as others say they need permission from both. And if one denies such permission then it can get difficult.
It's not misogynistic, they need both parties consent regardless of what sex they are. But yes, it is open to abuse if one won't co-operate.

Are you legally responsible for the payments? Ask them that.

If you are then yes they can jolly well speak with you about the account.

I would ask to speak to a manager and repeat your question about liability.

Persistence is key. So relax and make a day of it.

I think that a joint bank account will mean you have a shared credit rating, it doesn’t necessarily mean that you have a shared utility account. Again, only speaking from experience, but BT/EE do not allow joint names on accounts.

Nope! They don’t require permission from both, they would speak to the husband without the OP being there! Just not vice versa

Hi

If you read what I have put previously, the utility bill comes in our joint names, payment comes from our joint account, it is noted on both our credit records so we are jointly and severally responsible. He can ring and they will tell speak to him about everything, if I ring, they ask for his permission. Surely given the three years we have been raising it, if there was a way around it, they should have mentioned it by now?

@PrettyPickle sorry if I misread. It does sound like they're classing him as the 'lead' account holder, which isn't right. You should need eachothers permission to do any changes to the account, not only one way.
If you Google the CEOs name and send a message to their office you may get a meaningful response.

In my experience as long as the "principle" account holder gave explicit permission for me to also handle everything- then I could.
My Ex husband often worked overseas so it was crucial I could deal with any problems that might occur.

You would think so, he has and they don't! But again, why should I have to get permission for this when its a joint account and we are jointly and severally responsible for the bill. So what if we fall out and he moves out and refuses to speak to them, am I left tied in to that provider for the rest of my natural?

Strange because I’m authorised to speak on my elderly df’s utility account. And it’s not got my name on it.

The point is, why should my husband have to give permission for them to speak with me on OUR joint account? I get why you have to have permission, its not your account but this IS our joint account!

YANBU.

It does not fit in with the way a huge section of society live (i.e. as couples). And it’s sexist (not necessarily misogynistic, probably more chauvinistic) because so many people have, for years, defaulted to putting the man first even when the first person to speak to them is the woman. I had this with my bank when my DH was added to my bank account and they made him the principal (we shut our account down and moved banks over it, I was so furious at them). When selling our jointly owned house I had estate agents and lawyers put my husband first on the forms (meaning he was who they would contact etc.) when I was the one sitting in front of them and giving them all our joint details. I made them change it every time I noticed because I knew it would become a pain. Gas was the most annoying I found. I put it solely in my name because of previous experience, but they put me down as Mr MyLastname and then refused to talk to me about it or change the account. DH and I didn’t share a surname, so there was no Mr MyLastname. I had to threaten to go to the ombudsman before someone saw sense. Once in New York, I made a donation to a charity and they wrote back to me as Mrs DHFirstname DHLastname. I hadn’t put his name on the donation form, but it would have been on the cheque. No real repercussions from the last one, just infuriating (and lead to me making no further donations).

I’m on the older side so remember when this was a bit of a feminist fight. There was an incident a few decades ago where a building society went public and the member accounts all got some of the proceeds - but the money went mainly to the men on joint accounts because the building society had routinely put men first on the accounts and insisted it could only pay one account holder. Millions of pounds funneled towards men because of chauvinistic practice.

Even without the feminist aspect, the practice of having a main account holder and not allowing joint holders with equal authority is not in keeping with our culture and how many people live nowadays. It’s depressing that companies haven’t adjusted to a less patriarchal world.

They can’t see you. Just tell them your name is Dave or Derick or whatever. It would be rude of them to tell you that you don’t sound like a Dave. I had the poor man at Virgin in stitches - he did try to catch me out a couple of times by calling me Madam but I put him straight.
Try it. It’s always worked for me.

Paying from your joint bank account is irrelevant. The issue is that the utility company you are dealing with has a principle account holder and in your case your husband’s name appears first on the accounts. All you need to do is get your husband to agree to you being an authorised person they can speak to on a permanent basis, it gets noted on the account and in future they can speak to you. Irritating to have to do it yes, but will solve your problem. The issue is many utility / service provision company systems are dated and historically only one name was included ( before everyone needed additional ID etc) but is solvable - had to do the same with my DH - but sorted and no problem.

We have been trying for three years but I will try again. But the question still remains, why should I have to get permission for my joint account - if I am financially responsible then I should have equal rights.

Was it National Trust? They are notorious for this. We had a joint membership with me as the first on the list. They would only speak to my husband and all postal correspondence was addressed solely to him. I complained and they said meh, it's their policy to put men as the main and first account member.
It's insane and so ingrained that people (including those on this thread) see it as completely neutral.

It is definitely a pattern with companies. I have had the same bank account since I was 14, now 50. I added my husband to it a few years ago so that it’s now a joint account. Every time the bank calls for something, they want to speak with him only. It was my bloody account! Soooooo frustrating.

The membership incident was indeed with National Trust!

On our credit rating it shows our joint account as we are financially linked via our joint bank account and other numerous joint accounts, i.e utilities, phones. The utility bill comes in our joint names and its paid from the joint bank account. So I am jointly and severally responsible for the any debt with the utility company, i.e. if they can't get it from him, they can get it all from me and vice versa. So why do I have to have my husbands permission to discuss this with them.

This isn't about sexism/misogyny etc, its about why I have to take financial accountability but I am not allowed any control of the account without his say so. Or him getting my permission if I am the principle account holder - what is the point of the joint account?

And going on what many have posted on here (which wasn't my initial point),why does the principal or main account holder frequently get defaulted to the man in many cases. That is old fashioned sexism surely?