So I just tried to change my banking details...

[GotMyGoat]

With Natwest as we've moved house, but they said I'm not allowed to change the address myself as it's a joint account and that DH would need to get in touch with them to do it.

"ok, so we'll come in/call together"

"No, just your DH needs to as he is the primary account holder"

I'm really confused, I thought a joint account was, you know, joint. equal and all that but now I'm very worried that actually what I've done is signed up to an account where DH has authority over our finances - luckily he's a good man who I can trust but I am the one who normally does all the finance and paperwork stuff in the house so am really frustrated that I have to go and ask his permission before sorting anything out with banking now.

Grr! Are all banks like this? Should women refuse to be in joint accounts from now on or what? Just a bit of a moan thread, sorry.

This is absolutely feminist issue. This happens with our joint account too - we did not sk for DH to be primary account holder, but he is. We asked for them to make it me (because he really doesn't care but thinks it's wrong the way they refuse to speak to me when they ring up). They won't do it. For context - I am the sole earner. But they only ever want to talk to him.

With Natwest it is a feminist issue, they place the mans name first automatically it doesn't matter which way round you out the names on the form. The mans name will be listed first and he will be the principal on the account, we have tested this within the last 12 months before anyone says anything, we closed the account.
Lloyds are as bad, I am business with a female business partner, all of our correspondence was address to 'dear Sir' even when we were sitting in front of a female advisor signing up for the account, she couldn't change it.
I get letters from the bank, the generic buy a service type, addressed to dear sir even now and we took our complaint to director level and got a more senior relationship manager. Sexism is endemic in the older high street banks

We wanted to have just our initials on the joint account so that there was no 'mr or mrs' issue. Which they did. They still ask to speak to MR when they phone up and they still write to MR. It makes me furious.

There are plenty of threads here on feminism started by women who have been demoted / removed / had their name changed etc etc by various organisations without asking for it, and then having a hell of a time sorting it out.

It is all anecdotal, obviously, and in our household it's not happened (I do all the finances so am first on everything and that's been no problem) but certainly it does happen which is pretty ridiculous in this day and age, not to mention infuriating & exasperating for those it happens to.

So while it's still happening, clearly it's a feminist issue, and the organisations who do it need to be told off by the people they do it to, and lose their business, until they change their ways

Alexa, why are you so invested in this not being a feminist issue?

I have lots of different relationships with financial institutions and some of them are like you say (will happily treat the woman as primary if she implicitly represents herself as representative of the couple in financial matters, as I do) others will eventually get there after a battle, others will steadfastly refuse to do that no matter how hard you try, which is very inconvenient if you are trying to administer the account or financial product. This is my experience and that of lots of other women.

I notice you dismiss anecdotes when they are other people's but yours count, for some reason.

I am interested in why you have posted about 30 times on something you are insisting is not a problem. why is it?

I like the survey idea too. I'm going to ring my bank tomorrow and get some more info on our account. I am making a bit of an assumption DH is primary account holder because it was his current account originally. There doesn't seem to be anything on their website about joint accounts, their management, control, liability or anything. Which is not good really. Many women might be in the position that GotMyGoat found herself in because of lack of visible information.

Alexa

Fwiw I'm with you on this. Flora May we'll be reluctant to learn but the fact she claims sexism with her credit card shows just how closed she really is. For example.

uk.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/how-to-share-a-credit-card-1375.php

The reason why she is unable to make any administrative changes to her joint credit card is not because of the patriarchy but because there is currently no such thing as a joint credit card in the UK. Either she or her husband can be the primary card holder but they cannot be jointly and servably liable for the debt that is accrued.

If she applied for a credit card and put her husband on the account as a second card holder then the bills would always be in her name. There would never be a case where they would suddenly default to his as he would not be liable for any debt, irrespective of whether he spent to the limit or not. This is really worth bearing in mind as I'm not sure many people are aware of this. Flora clearly isn't.

Hope this helps.

"Either she or her husband can be the primary card holder but they cannot be jointly and servably liable for the debt that is accrued."

Until you are married, at which point you become a single legal entity (although not for information purposes). This perhaps might not become a massive problem you need to get divorced and need to know the extent of your spouses debt, how many credit cards he has or even what address there are registered to. You can however end up with the debt jointly taken into account out of any assets

It becomes a feminist issue as all to often it is women who take a step back from their career, earn less and are therefore the secondary account holder

lots of financial instruments don't work like this, like joint accounts and insurance / assurance policies

Also, you can demonstrate all you like that a particular financial instrument requires a primary and secondary holder, but you can't demonstrate that all financial institutions are willing to make the primary person a woman. Because they aren't. For example: Norwich Building Society will not address letters re. a joint life assurance policy to the woman in a couple. (or refused to in 2009) Nor even both names. One name on the envelope, and it had to be the man.

I do not know what they would do if the holders were both women. I did ask and it was one of the many questions I asked to which they did not have an answer.

So, what is their reasoning for this? Surely it is discrimination to suggest a man must go first? How are they getting away with that?

Oh those are much better questions, Flora.

Is Q7 better expressed as:

7. Did you actively choose which of you and your partner would be the primary account holder?

I think Q5 is really important as well. Given the current losses because of mis-selling, you'd think the banks would be really rather keen to ensure no one walks away with a financial product which isn't what the buyer thought it was.

And I'll have a think, about how best to help people who don't fully understand how their "joint" account works, answer the questions in a meaningful way.

More thoughts very welcome.

Alexa, I wasn't given a reason, other than "it has to be the man, the end". I thought it must be discriminatory too. I don't know whether it is legally, I was 40 weeks pregnant and did not pursue it, I dropped the whole thing and went with a company (Aviva) who would work with me (me personally)

I think we should write to Norwich and ask them

I have been thinking that for about 4 years! Still have all the paperwork for when "I get around to it"

NB just looking into SurveyMonkey now: there'll inevitably be some jiggling to make it fit the number of Qs and format.

I'm .

I've found NatWest's 2013 banking terms and conditions - and nowhere does it even hint at this concept of primary and secondary joint account holders.

In fact, they state on p9:

§3.2 Joint Accounts
3.2.1 If you have a joint account, we will (unless and until instructed otherwise under General Condition 3.2.2) accept instructions from any one of you.

This is all very odd. It's entirely possible no one will know about this primary/secondary stuff unless they've actually been refused service because of it.

No sure how to word Q's to get to the bottom of this.

I wonder if we should separate these out.

GotMyGoat, would you consider writing to NatWest, citing those T&Cs (ideally find the ones for your specific account), and repeating what you were told on the phone, to ask for clarification and written evidence of this primary/secondary structure?

If their practice doesn't match their T&Cs, surely the banking Ombudsman / consumer watchdog journalists are the next port of call?

It may still be worth surveying other joint accounts, inc utility companies, for similar behaviour, but as a separate thing.

Ok so I took the time to write to my bank (First Direct). The following is my query and subsequent response.

-------

Re: Joint Current Account

Dear sir/madam

I have a query regarding the above that I hope you can answer for me.

I have recently read on an internet forum that there is such a thing as a 'primary' and 'secondary' account holder. It has been suggested that the primary holder has greater control over the account even though the account has been opened in joint names.

Can you tell me if there is such a thing with the joint accounts that I hold with you? If there is such a thing, can you tell me what the differences are between the two account holders please?

With our joint account we are both able to make administrative changes e.g. address changes/direct debits, and each of us has complete freedom to spend and move funds as we wish. We both have individual access to the accounts via internet banking and each receive individual mail of your notifications. Therefore I cannot see that either of us has any more/less control, which is just how we wanted to manage our finances. However, is it possible that I am mistaken.

Any information/clarification you could give would be greatly appreciated.

Regards

-------

01/Nov/2013 15:03

To: Xxxxx
Re: Joint 1st Account

Thank you for your message dated 01-Nov-2013.

I can confirm that your joint 1st Account does not have a primary user, both parties are jointly responsible for the 1st Account and both parties have the same access.

The primary user function is related to credit card accounts as we only allow credit cards in sole names. This would mean that one person would be the primary user for a credit card account and has overall responsibility for the running. Additional users can then be added to the credit card accounts and these users will only have restricted access.

Please contact us if you require anything further.

Regards

Scott Lund
Card Services

-----

It may well be the case that banks operate differently but from the above it is clear that a joint account with First Direct means exactly that. Some banks may well have a primary/secondary but to claim that all banks are sexist is completely wrong. If anyone is concerned then it would be advisable to do as I have done ands seek clarification from the horses mouth and not anecdotal evidence from an Internet forum.

You have it from the horse's mouth that your bank operates this policy for credit cards. We can add that to the other information and look at how that operates for men and women. Thanks for that.

Parsing perhaps we should look separately at the banks legal terms and the experience people have dealing with their banks. I'll post later with some thoughts I have on the questions.

Only anecdotal but I have accredit card on which my DH is the secondary name. Recently he rang to query something and they demanded that I came to the phone and say that I had given him authority to speak to them.

Credit cards do have an "owner" and then other secondary account holders - that's just a standard thing - as as there just isn't / has been any "jointness" about it, they couldn't/wouldn't switch it as they have only checked out one person and they have signed to be liable for all other card holders etc.

OP was about a joint bank account though so different. People have also had issues with other types - utility companies, phone providers and so on where "jointness" is something that is offered in a way that it never is for a credit card.

Erm has anyone claimed that "all banks are sexist"?

Nope.

However there are loads of posts and threads on MN feminism where women have had things happen like their name changed without them asking, switched to second named / non primary without instruction, failure to stick to the name that was given etc etc etc.

if you do a search on it on MN you will find stacks of threads started (and joined) by women who this has happened to.

It does happen. Whether people want to believe that or not. (Not sure why people would think women would be keen to lie about something so utterly mundane but there you have it).

I am the person who sets up all financial gubbins in our household. Yet DH's name repeatedly is put first by the company (despite me putting my name first), on the electoral register, the joint bank account, the EH membership account, our mortgage. I actually can't think of any organisation that has put me first! Bloody depressing actually.