Marcus Savings Account: shared access?

7yop_NO

My dad is about to inherit quite a bit of money and will be looking to use it in the coming months to move house.  He therefore doesn't want to lock it away for a fixed period of time.  With the NSI cuts, that Option is now also closed.  Marcus is closed to new applications but we have an account with plenty of 'headspace' to let him put a chunk in & avail of the 1.04% interest.  Apart from the trust issue between us, is there anything legally wrong with this or are we entitled to do this so he gets the best interest possible? 

eskbanker

Nothing unlawful about doing that, but money in an account in your name is legally yours rather than his, so that would increase your assets in case of, for example, means-tested benefits or your estate should the worse happen while it's there.

xylophone

He might open the new Coventry account in his own name?
https://www.coventrybuildingsociety.co.uk/content/cbs/consumer/en/product/savings/easy_access/double-access-saver-online.html

https://www.fscs.org.uk/how-we-work/claims-process/temporary-high-balances/   

FSCS protects temporary high balances in your bank account of up to £1million for up to twelve months. Certain life events could have caused a temporary high balance in your bank account, including:

• Inheritance.

7yop_NO

Thanks both....

NottinghamKnight

If the money is in your account it is assumed to be yours and you would be liable to pay tax on it of course.

soulsaver

And if YOU didn't inherit it, and it's in your account it may put legal doubt into the temporary high balance cover. 

wmb194

If the money will be used in the short term why even bother with this sort of aggravation? NS&I's rates aren't dropping for another two months anyway.

Chino

soulsaver said:

it may put legal doubt into the temporary high balance cover.

Why is this relevant? The OP hasn't suggested that he or she was intending to take advantage of this temporary protection. The OP's reference to "headspace" suggests that the standard £85,000 protection on balances is sufficient.

soulsaver

Chino said:

soulsaver said:

it may put legal doubt into the temporary high balance cover.

Why is this relevant? The OP hasn't suggested that he or she was intending to take advantage of this temporary protection. The OP's reference to "headspace" suggests that the standard £85,000 protection on balances is sufficient. 

Well it's relevant because:
a) Another poster mentioned temporary high balance FSCS cover
b) Even if it wasn't relevant to the OP, it's relevant to the subject.
c) When did relevance start to have any relevance on MSE?
d) When did you decide you were the arbiter of what's relevant?

soulsaver

Chino said:

soulsaver said:

it may put legal doubt into the temporary high balance cover.

Why is this relevant? The OP hasn't suggested that he or she was intending to take advantage of this temporary protection. The OP's reference to "headspace" suggests that the standard £85,000 protection on balances is sufficient.

It doesn't. S/he says Marcus can accommodate 'a chunk' of it, which implies not all.