would this irritate you?

Bantex_2

trailingspouse wrote: »

Yes shortcrust - it's names on a bank account.

ColdIron - I am the first applicant. I'm asking to be treated like the first applicant. Seems reasonable to me.

NotRichAtAll - it is my account. Although I see your point. In some contexts I would refer to it as 'our' account, and in some contexts OH would refer to it as his account. It would take more than that to irritate him.

anotheruser - oh dear. The point I'm making is that if society can't manage to treat us equally regarding the little things (like names on a bank account) then what hope is there for the big things.

Ivana - exactly the same thing happened to me!! I wanted to join, OH wasn't bothered one way or the other, I did all the talking, paid with my own credit card - and lo and behold all the correspondence came addressed to him. Way to treat the customer!!

Don't worry your pretty little head over it dear.

Any chance of a cuppa?

NotRichAtAll

I find it quite sad with all that is going on in the world these days, this is the only thing that seems to have got up your nose . Out of curiosity what does your hubby have to say about it..........

It is MY joint account don't you ever forget it.......lol

eskbanker

NotRichAtAll wrote: »

wife and man
mrs and mr
has not quite got the same ring to it....................

Surely the transposed equivalent would be 'woman and husband'?

libra10

trailingspouse wrote: »

Sadly Daneb, it's not quite true that both people on a joint account are treated equally. I was the second named person on a joint account with the Halifax when they de-mutualised - the first named person was issued with shares, I received nothing, despite them having had my main savings account (it was a joint account, but it held all the savings I'd made, as well as all the savings my husband had made) and my mortgage (again, joint) for several years. Just recently, we were called by Lloyds bank regarding our joint account - I took the call, but the person would speak to no-one but my husband, the first named on that account.

If we were truly equal on a joint account, I wouldn't even be slightly miffed, let alone irritated, to be named second. But we're not.

Many people on here are saying that it doesn't matter who is named first, and using that as an argument for the status quo. I would say, if it doesn't matter, then there's no reason why my name shouldn't come first.

A similar thing happened with us regarding Halifax demutualisation shares.

I had just sold my parents' home and put the money in our Halifax joint account. Halifax became a bank and the maximum amount of shares arrived, made out in my husband's name. There were well over 1000 shares issued.

Although we share everything, I did find this a little annoying at the time. As advised, we placed the shares within an ISA wrapper, and ironically, practically lost the lot when the banks collapsed several years ago.

Just goes to show .........

trailingspouse

Well, it's not particularly 'up my nose'. But my post does seem to have got up a lot of other people's noses, which is interesting in itself. When I posted it, I was expecting a few people to say 'Nah, wouldn't bother me', and a few people to say 'Yes, it would irritate me too.' And that would be that. Especially as the bank in question has sorted things out.

Instead, less than 48 hours after my original post, we've got someone posting a vid of gratuitous violence (why?), and someone else suggesting that I have a problem with my husband and we shouldn't have a joint account at all!

All because I have suggested that (horror of horrors) my name should come first on the bank account. To quote shortcrust - Wow. It's names on a bank account.

For the record, my OH is as irritated as I am.

matttye

trailingspouse wrote: »

Sadly Daneb, it's not quite true that both people on a joint account are treated equally. I was the second named person on a joint account with the Halifax when they de-mutualised - the first named person was issued with shares, I received nothing, despite them having had my main savings account (it was a joint account, but it held all the savings I'd made, as well as all the savings my husband had made) and my mortgage (again, joint) for several years. Just recently, we were called by Lloyds bank regarding our joint account - I took the call, but the person would speak to no-one but my husband, the first named on that account.

If we were truly equal on a joint account, I wouldn't even be slightly miffed, let alone irritated, to be named second. But we're not.

Many people on here are saying that it doesn't matter who is named first, and using that as an argument for the status quo. I would say, if it doesn't matter, then there's no reason why my name shouldn't come first.

If people named on the joint account aren't treated equally then it's not really a joint account, is it? I'd be complaining to the bank about that.

I can understand why banks might require authorisation off both account holders sometimes; maybe that's why they asked for your husband rather than because he's named first?

If it is actually the case that the first named is treated as the main account holder and has more power than the second named, then I fully understand the irritation.

My posts have been made on the assumption that it is the naming order ALONE that bothers you (which I still don't get at all, if that is the case).

DevilsAdvocate1

trailingspouse wrote: »

Thanks all.

eskbank - it's ironic.

I admit that I did get irritated. And I admit that in the grand scheme of things worse things could happen.

But I also see it as symptomatic of much bigger issues relating to sexism, and in particular attitudes to married women.

I spoke to the bank in question, and they are in total agreement with me that Applicant 1 should be named first on the correspondence. The first guy I spoke to was genuinely shocked that it had happened. It turns out that an employee has taken it upon themselves to decide that the male named on the account should come first. It was escalated, without me asking, to management level, and (again without me asking) a complaint has been logged and a request for re-training made.

I'm very pleased that this bank is taking the issue seriously.

Maybe it doesn't really matter if I'm not named first (although years ago, when Halifax first issued shares, they were only sent to the first named person on joint accounts, so actually it does matter). Or maybe it matters very much indeed that all human beings are treated equally even when it comes to the little things.

I always organise the house insurance. About 5 years ago the Halifax was coming out as the cheapest but becasue I was a childminder at the time I could not complete the application on the internet and had to ring them instead.

After spending 15 minutes or so on the phone it was all arranged. When the paperwork arrived it was all in my husband's name. There was no mention of me at all! I rang them to complain and was told that they could not speak to me because I was not on the policy :rotfl:

libra10

I had exactly the same experience with Eon.

matttye

DevilsAdvocate1 wrote: »

I always organise the house insurance. About 5 years ago the Halifax was coming out as the cheapest but becasue I was a childminder at the time I could not complete the application on the internet and had to ring them instead.

After spending 15 minutes or so on the phone it was all arranged. When the paperwork arrived it was all in my husband's name. There was no mention of me at all! I rang them to complain and was told that they could not speak to me because I was not on the policy :rotfl:

This, people, is a valid reason to be annoyed about something.

mgdavid

trailingspouse wrote: »

.........Just recently, we were called by Lloyds bank regarding our joint account - I took the call, but the person would speak to no-one but my husband, the first named on that account. ............

I reckon they've got your card marked.....:rotfl: