Is my partner an "immediate family member"

ernie-money

I have just called Santander, trying to add my partner as a second card holder on my 123 credit card. The terms for adding a second card holder state that they need to be over 18, reside at the same address, and also be an immediate family member.
We're not married, but I still consider him my immediate family - we've lived like a married couple for a long time, just we haven't yet tied the knot.
The customer advisor told me that to qualify as immediate family, we would have to be married, or blood related, ie sister, brother, mother or son etc.

I found this really odd - I've had several credit card accounts with him as a second card holder before and never had any problems. I've never heard this before, and feel like they are discriminating against people who aren't married. Perhaps you're legally responsible for your spouses finances, in a way which you aren't if you're not married, but it shouldn't really matter, because it's my credit card, and I'm responsible for repayments, so can't understand why they'd need us to be married..?

We've been together longer than some people who have been married and divorced, I really don't get it...?

gglaze

Wouldn't this meet the definition of a "common law marriage" in the UK?

lazer

gglaze wrote: »

Wouldn't this meet the definition of a "common law marriage" in the UK?

No such thing in the UK

And OP - as much as you consider your partner to be your immeadiate family member, in the law he isn't - you are not related.

gglaze

Interesting...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage#United_Kingdom

The term "common law marriage" has been used in England and Wales since the 1960s to refer to unmarried, cohabiting heterosexual relationships. However, this is merely a social usage. The term does not confer on cohabiting parties any of the rights or obligations enjoyed by spouses or civil partners.

Thomas_Hardy

gglaze wrote: »

Interesting...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage#United_Kingdom

Which confirms what lazer said

gglaze

Yup, read a few more links on google, looks like there had been a push in the last few years to give more rights to common law partners, maybe even some financial rights...but looks like so far most of that has not come to fruition.

StuC75

Suppose it 'could' vary by lender, afterall its there Terms & Conditions. Personally never had any issues MBNA \ Virgin when got Ex-partner a card on my account (First thing I did after splitting was get that back\cancelled).

Even if you requested one, what can they do to check? request Marriage Certificate? after all married couples may not always have the same surname anyway..

ernie-money

lazer wrote: »

No such thing in the UK

And OP - as much as you consider your partner to be your immeadiate family member, in the law he isn't - you are not related.

But that's just the thing-their definition of who I can get a card for doesn't say that we have to be related, but that it has to be an immediate family member. 50 years ago maybe that would've meant your spouse and children, but surely not in this day and age...

ernie-money

StuC75 wrote: »

Suppose it 'could' vary by lender, afterall its there Terms & Conditions. Personally never had any issues MBNA \ Virgin when got Ex-partner a card on my account (First thing I did after splitting was get that back\cancelled).

Even if you requested one, what can they do to check? request Marriage Certificate? after all married couples may not always have the same surname anyway..

It definitely varies by lender! Got him an Amex card on my account today and MBNA fine as well.
Unfortunately I've already told them we're not married now, otherwise I'd have tried that...

ernie-money

gglaze wrote: »

Yup, read a few more links on google, looks like there had been a push in the last few years to give more rights to common law partners, maybe even some financial rights...but looks like so far most of that has not come to fruition.

I did know about all that, but still don't see the issue. It's not like he'd ever be liable to pay the account or anything anyway-my account & my responsibility to repay, so what difference does it make whether we're married or not? And what about gay couples, would they never be able to get their partner a card?

zerog

ernie-money wrote: »

I did know about all that, but still don't see the issue. It's not like he'd ever be liable to pay the account or anything anyway-my account & my responsibility to repay, so what difference does it make whether we're married or not? And what about gay couples, would they never be able to get their partner a card?

If they have a civil partnership that is equivalent to marriage (although it will just be called a marriage soon)

They are the card issuer so they can create whatever T&Cs they like.