Fuming with the bank

Name and shame!

That's absolutely ridiculous. Just read your post to H and he said, "If you weren't already wanting to cancel, you would be after that!" They're back in the dark ages!

Joint policies/accounts as a rule are Mr then Mrs.

But I would say your equal with dealing with a policy changes etc... Household does not have a named secondry like motor insurance.

Please tell me it's not Halifax?

It's Egg.

I'm hoping that the woman just didn't know what she was talking about and got it wrong.

They are perfectly within their rights to refuse to cancel the policy. We never cancel a policy unless it is the main policy holder requesting this. I know you are the joint policy holder and will be able to make changes/amendments.

There are a lot of spiteful ex-spouses out there and a lot of joint policy holders call up to cancel without the knowledge of the policy holder when they have split up. We often get named drivers/spouses/partner calling to cancel the policy (mainly car insurance) just because they have fallen out or split up with the main PH.

Ofcourse we can go into the ins and outs of 'how would they know the main policy is really calling' etc but if say, a man calls up and confirms all Data Protection then we have the call recorded so we can go ahead with the cancellation but if it comes to light that it was not originally the PH then we would reinstate/set up a new one as the previous one may have been canx without their consent.

They are just following the rules and I don't think you can grumble about it tbh. It's just one phonecall that your husband has to make which may take, what? 3 minutes out of his day?

It's fair enough that they won't cancel without the permission of the policyholder, but clearly completely ridiculous that the man automatically comes first without tham even asking you. There's no reason for it to be that way at all and the assumption is clearly offensive.

When we opened our accounts with Lloyds they asked us whose name should come first on letters (and that's for a joint account, so there's no legal significance of one person coming first). Either they are particularly enlightened or it's just because his title isn't Mr and mine isn't Mrs.

I would be as annoyed as you are.

Am I the only one who doesn't find it offensive?.

Someone's name has to come first and I don't really care if it is my husband or mine.

Perhaps I am not liberated enough LOL!!

So what stops him cancelling any of her insurance becuase when she sets it up they automatically make him the main policy holder? I'd be fuming if I was permitted to change/cancel a policy that I had set up

No Bobbly, you aren't on your own.

View quoted message

Yes I agree someone's name has to come first, and my H's being on it first wouldn't annoy me, but a statement that he was "head of the household" bloody well would!

The reason why I would be offended is that it assumes that the man is the main person in charge of the finances and decision-making in the house, which is an unwarranted and belittling assumption (also generally inaccurate)

View quoted message

WZS

I also get a bit confused by the insistance that they speak to the policy holder when half the time they don't ask any questions to confirm who they are (except address and policy number which any partner would know anyway). So how on earth do they know who it is? It could be any male couldn't it?

I had that with BT last week. The DD is from my personal bank account despite the account being in Mr Noras name. BT increased the DD and didn't tell us so when I rang to query it, they wouldn't continue the conversation unless Mr Nora confirmed it was ok for me to speak to them. I put him on the phone, the BT man said "do you agree permission for me to speak to your wife about the account", he grunted yes and passed the phone back to me. It was madness. I could grunted on his behalf and they'd never have known the difference ?

Sorry, went off on a slight tangent there

?

Sorry but do people really believe that the mans name comes first? I can assure you that this is not the case (in my experience anyway). There is a name for the main PH and then the joint PH.

Maybe when it was set up Mr XXX name was given first?

View quoted message

When a DD is set up, if the PH is the account holder then we can set it up via TSU (telephone sign up) the call is recorded. When the bank account is in a different name, a signature would have been required so a Direct Debit mandate would have been sent for you (the AC holder) to sign. If the Payer (the AC Holder) calls up and tries to discuss the policy/account, unless they are named on the policy or the PH has given authorisation, we cannot speak to the account holder.

The account holder has signed a mandate giving permission for their bank details to be used but they have no rights to amend/discuss policy or account.

Yes, it may sound like madness to some but they have the Data Protection Act in place for a reason.

ETA that they should have sent a new credit agreement and notified Mr FN that they were changing the amount. If they never did this then they are in breach of the Direct Debit Guarantee. The DD Guarantee states:

If the amounts to be paid or the payment dates change, the organisation collecting the payment will notify you normally 10 working days in advance of your account being debited or as otherwise agreed

I would make a complaint to the Financial services Authority if I was seriously narked off with anything to do with my financial affairs.

View quoted message

His name would not have been given first. I am the only one of us that has an account with egg and set up up online going through my account login. I would have added his name on if it asked for it but I certainly wouldn't have put his name first, because I deal with the bills, etc and he doesn't. So I can only assume that this assumption has at some point happened at the bank. The letters have always come to Mr and Dr but I assumed that was just the way they were addressed and not that there was anything to do with a joint policy holder.

I can understand what you said about vengeful spouses cancelling insurances, etc, but in that case he could do that to me!

It doesn't matter (to me) whose name comes first but I would also be fuming to be told that on a joint policy, one person can cancel it and the other one can't.

I deal with our finances and I occassionally get asked if I have permission to give details of my H but they take my word that I do.

View quoted message

I find it offensive that they not only made the assumption that H would be the main policy holder, although it is the 'the male is the head of the household' statement that really infuriated me. I wouldn't mind if it was just his name first on the policy but the idea that I can't cancel the policy I set up purely because I am female is bloody well annoying.

View quoted message

I think you've missed the point slightly bobbly. It's not about whose name appears first. I wouldn't be offended at them putting his name first - this always happens. I deal with everything financial in our household yet everything that is in joint names (electric, council tax, banks, etc.) comes with his name first. That doesn't bother me at all.

What's offensive is that the OP set up the policy and should therefore be the main policy holder. Instead, the bank have taken it upon themselves to make her H the main policy holder, just because he is the man. Because of their decision, she is not authorised to make changes or to say they don't want to renew the policy. That's like getting car insurance for a car you own, where you are the main driver and your H only drives it occasionally, and the insurance company deciding he is the policy holder because he's the man and you therefore cannot make changes to the policy or even build up a no claims discount. If a company did that to me, they'd lose my business. Depending on how grouchy I was on that day, I might even start looking into the law regarding sexual discrimination.

Exactly WMelancholieS!

View quoted message

I understand all that TT (? btw) but how does a random male grunting one word on the phone equal to giving permission. It really could have been anyone. That was the point I was trying to make.

Anyways, it was just me on a tangent as they had charged me for something I didn't order and that had increased the DD, but they've apologised and refunded me so its all good.

Trimmed, WSS.

Absolutely astounding if that really is the case, and no amount of "they have to speak to the main policy holder" comment is going to make me think the above situation is acceptable. Of course it's entirely understandable that a company needs to speak to "the" male or female policy holder re: an account. But the above explains well enough why that isn't what some people find offensive.

SA.