We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
We're aware that dates on the Forum are not currently showing correctly. Please bear with us while we get this fixed, and see Site feedback for updates.

Why can't a BT bill be in a joint name?

I have been told by a BT rep today that legally a phone bill can only be in one name, despite my explanation of the term "jointly and severally liable" which seems to exist for any other organisation.

We have an account which is in my husband's name and I am named on that account. BT will therefore speak to me but I am not the a/c holder.

I have recently become a sole trader which means I am working for myself and I use the phone and Broadband extensively.

From an HMRC perspective, it would make sense to be able to pay this bill from an account in my single (maiden) name as this is how I am known in the industry in which I work.

It would appear that we can change the DD to be from my account. However, BT will not allow the bill to be in joint names and to change the bill to my name means cancelling one contract and starting another with all the early cancellation charges etc.

I simply find it incredible. Why can every utility be billed in joint names but not a BT phone line? Is this legally correct?

MSE forum advice would be much appreciated. Otherwise the next step will be to speak to the accountant to check how I stand from a tax perspective. Thanks everyone

Comments

  • macman
    macman Posts: 53,128 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    edited 7 November 2012 am30 10:52AM
    I doubt that HMRC would object to a bill in your wife's name (but at the same address) being used for claiming expenses, assuming that you are claiming only a part of the bill against the business. You do not have to submit the bill anyway, unless there should be a query by HMRC on what your accountant has submitted.
    If you are running a business on a residential line, then technically you are in breach of the T&C's anyway. There is no SLA on a residential contract either, if the service is critical to you.
    If you change the name on the account (which includes adding another person) then a new account is required to be created-you can't take over an account in another name for obvious reasons, because the liability changes.
    The DD can be from any account you like. It doesn't have to be the BT account holder, as it's the account holder who is liable on default, not the person who's bank account it comes from.
    No free lunch, and no free laptop ;)
  • System
    System Posts: 178,227 Community Admin
    10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    Thanks for this helpful advice.

    But I still have do not understand why BT apparently does not allow an account in a joint name.

    I can see the principle of why you cannot change the liability mid way through a contract (although you can go from a single to joint account mid-contract with EDF in my experience without an issue). But it still does not explain why even on a "new" contract it cannot be in joint names with BT.
    This is a system account and does not represent a real person. To contact the Forum Team email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com
  • diamonds
    diamonds Posts: 6,048 Forumite
    Debt-free and Proud!
    I would be asking Ofcom why..Universal obligations and all that.
    SO... now England its the Scots turn to say dont leave the UK, stay in Europe with us in the UK, dont let the tories fool you like they did us with empty lies... You will be leaving the UK aswell as Europe ;)
  • System
    System Posts: 178,227 Community Admin
    10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    edited 7 November 2012 pm30 5:04PM
    As OP rightly states, it is completely legal to have a contract between BT and two persons, who would normally be jointly and severally liable. Once upon a time, someone at BT had heard of this, and offered to change it if one of you died:

    http://bt.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/9845/~/the-bt-account-holder-has-died

    However, it appears that no-one now alive at BT now remembers.
    This is a system account and does not represent a real person. To contact the Forum Team email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com
  • Hulahoop wrote: »
    Thanks for this helpful advice.

    But I still have do not understand why BT apparently does not allow an account in a joint name.

    I can see the principle of why you cannot change the liability mid way through a contract (although you can go from a single to joint account mid-contract with EDF in my experience without an issue). But it still does not explain why even on a "new" contract it cannot be in joint names with BT.


    The reason there can only be one account holder is because the account is a credit agreement between BT and 1 person (the named account holder) if BT allowed 2 account holders and the account fell into default then who would BT chase for debt ? Its possible to have the bill in 2 names and the dd from an account other than the named account account holder.
  • diamonds
    diamonds Posts: 6,048 Forumite
    Debt-free and Proud!
    Its not a credit agreement, its a private contract.

    My parents BT bills were in Mr & Mrs XXX XXXXXXX.
    SO... now England its the Scots turn to say dont leave the UK, stay in Europe with us in the UK, dont let the tories fool you like they did us with empty lies... You will be leaving the UK aswell as Europe ;)
  • brewerdave
    brewerdave Posts: 8,614 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    edited 8 November 2012 am30 8:33AM
    spyhunter wrote: »
    The reason there can only be one account holder is because the account is a credit agreement between BT and 1 person (the named account holder) if BT allowed 2 account holders and the account fell into default then who would BT chase for debt ? Its possible to have the bill in 2 names and the dd from an account other than the named account account holder.

    ...in that case,why do the Utility Companies allow multiple names on accounts???See OP's 1st post re "jointly and severally liable"

    Furthermore, for several years after installation,my BT bill was addressed to Plot 55 - not to me personally --but I bet they would have chased me from any debts - not the builders plot!!:rotfl:
  • System
    System Posts: 178,227 Community Admin
    10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    spyhunter wrote: »
    The reason there can only be one account holder is because the account is a credit agreement between BT and 1 person (the named account holder) if BT allowed 2 account holders and the account fell into default then who would BT chase for debt ?
    As already stated, it's not a credit agreement. Even if it was, it could still be with two persons, as many mortgages are. BT could allow joint account holders and word the contract so that they can chase either or both.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_and_several_liability
    This is a system account and does not represent a real person. To contact the Forum Team email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 348.3K Banking & Borrowing
  • 252.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 452.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 240.9K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 617.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 175.7K Life & Family
  • 254.1K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.