Ex wont close joint account

smashinglynaive

Daliah said:

smashinglynaive said:

Daliah said:

cx6 said:

To close it, they require JOINT instructions. You can't blame Lloyds - the clue is in the meaning of the word 'joint'.

No they don't. The T&Cs expressly state that the account can be closed on the instruction of any of the account holders.

Which is presumably overridden by

16.3 If we become aware of a dispute between you, we may take steps to prevent any of you giving instructions or using the account individually until the dispute ends.

we've been round this one already. See my earlier response to it.

You've not addressed it though, merely offered your opinion that you don't like it.

What is the point of freezing an account, which stops one party screwing the other over, if you leave a massive gaping hole by allowing one party to screw the other over by closing the account?

Daliah

smashinglynaive said:

Daliah said:

smashinglynaive said:

Daliah said:

cx6 said:

To close it, they require JOINT instructions. You can't blame Lloyds - the clue is in the meaning of the word 'joint'.

No they don't. The T&Cs expressly state that the account can be closed on the instruction of any of the account holders.

Which is presumably overridden by

16.3 If we become aware of a dispute between you, we may take steps to prevent any of you giving instructions or using the account individually until the dispute ends.

we've been round this one already. See my earlier response to it.

You've not addressed it though, merely offered your opinion that you don't like it.

What is the point of freezing an account, which stops one party screwing the other over, if you leave a massive gaping hole by allowing one party to screw the other over by closing the account?

Exactly how is the uncooperative party screwed over? Even if the account isn't closed, it would be suspended, so either way it is unusable.

The only advantage they might lose is the financial connection, if that's favourable to them. However, they have absolutely no legal or moral right to that.

I am amazed how many people in this thread seem to defend unreasonable bank policies, and unreasonable ex-partners. 

smashinglynaive

Daliah said:

smashinglynaive said:

Daliah said:

smashinglynaive said:

Daliah said:

cx6 said:

To close it, they require JOINT instructions. You can't blame Lloyds - the clue is in the meaning of the word 'joint'.

No they don't. The T&Cs expressly state that the account can be closed on the instruction of any of the account holders.

Which is presumably overridden by

16.3 If we become aware of a dispute between you, we may take steps to prevent any of you giving instructions or using the account individually until the dispute ends.

we've been round this one already. See my earlier response to it.

You've not addressed it though, merely offered your opinion that you don't like it.

What is the point of freezing an account, which stops one party screwing the other over, if you leave a massive gaping hole by allowing one party to screw the other over by closing the account?

Exactly how is the uncooperative party screwed over? Even if the account isn't closed, it would be suspended, so either way it is unusable.

The only advantage they might lose is the financial connection, if that's favourable to them. However, they have absolutely no legal or moral right to that.

I am amazed how many people in this thread seem to defend unreasonable bank policies, and unreasonable ex-partners. 

Let's say I'm the jilted ex who leaves the house but all the household bills are on the joint account...

Hmm, I can't see how THAT would be an avenue for one party to screw the other one over...

The point that you're spectacularly failing to grasp is that the dispute process is intended to ensure no action happens without everyone agreeing with it.  By allowing one party to take unilateral action you're making the entire process moot.

Daliah

smashinglynaive said:

Daliah said:

smashinglynaive said:

Daliah said:

smashinglynaive said:

Daliah said:

cx6 said:

To close it, they require JOINT instructions. You can't blame Lloyds - the clue is in the meaning of the word 'joint'.

No they don't. The T&Cs expressly state that the account can be closed on the instruction of any of the account holders.

Which is presumably overridden by

16.3 If we become aware of a dispute between you, we may take steps to prevent any of you giving instructions or using the account individually until the dispute ends.

we've been round this one already. See my earlier response to it.

You've not addressed it though, merely offered your opinion that you don't like it.

What is the point of freezing an account, which stops one party screwing the other over, if you leave a massive gaping hole by allowing one party to screw the other over by closing the account?

Exactly how is the uncooperative party screwed over? Even if the account isn't closed, it would be suspended, so either way it is unusable.

The only advantage they might lose is the financial connection, if that's favourable to them. However, they have absolutely no legal or moral right to that.

I am amazed how many people in this thread seem to defend unreasonable bank policies, and unreasonable ex-partners. 

Let's say I'm the jilted ex who leaves the house but all the household bills are on the joint account...

Hmm, I can't see how THAT would be an avenue for one party to screw the other one over...

The point that you're spectacularly failing to grasp is that the dispute process is intended to ensure no action happens without everyone agreeing with it.  By allowing one party to take unilateral action you're making the entire process moot.

Again: exactly how will a blocked account help with household bills?

It is not the job of a bank to determine whether there is a jilted party, and then to proceed to protect them.

If there is a zero balance on the account, there is absolutely no reason for a bank to insist on keeping the account open, for the reasons I have already described.

If there is a positive balance, either party can make it zero before asking for closure.

If there is a negative balance, either party has the option to settle the debt before asking for closure.

Luckily, there are progressive banks which do allow the closure of joint accounts by either party.

cx6

"If there is a positive balance, either party can make it zero before asking for closure.
If there is a negative balance, either party has the option to settle the debt before asking for closure."

Once again, this is untrue if the account has been frozen (as in this case). These things can only happen if BOTH parties agree. 

Section62

Daliah said:

Again: exactly how will a blocked account help with household bills?

Freezing is only temporary.  Once the dispute is resolved the account can be unfrozen and used, saving the potential victim from having to set up a new current account and make arrangements to transfer all their payments to the new account.

There are some pretty evil people in this world, causing aggravation to an ex by closing what might be their only banking facility is exactly the kind of thing some spiteful people would want to do for 'revenge'.  IMV putting a barrier in place to stop people like this causing unnecessary aggravation is completely justified.  The approach is not foolproof, but anything which helps dissuade unpleasant people from causing harm to others can't be a bad thing.

Daliah said:

It is not the job of a bank to determine whether there is a jilted party, and then to proceed to protect them.

I believe the FCA would disagree with you....

https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/fca-launches-guidance-firms-fair-treatment-vulnerable-customers

smashinglynaive

Daliah said:

smashinglynaive said:

Daliah said:

smashinglynaive said:

Daliah said:

smashinglynaive said:

Daliah said:

cx6 said:

To close it, they require JOINT instructions. You can't blame Lloyds - the clue is in the meaning of the word 'joint'.

No they don't. The T&Cs expressly state that the account can be closed on the instruction of any of the account holders.

Which is presumably overridden by

16.3 If we become aware of a dispute between you, we may take steps to prevent any of you giving instructions or using the account individually until the dispute ends.

we've been round this one already. See my earlier response to it.

You've not addressed it though, merely offered your opinion that you don't like it.

What is the point of freezing an account, which stops one party screwing the other over, if you leave a massive gaping hole by allowing one party to screw the other over by closing the account?

Exactly how is the uncooperative party screwed over? Even if the account isn't closed, it would be suspended, so either way it is unusable.

The only advantage they might lose is the financial connection, if that's favourable to them. However, they have absolutely no legal or moral right to that.

I am amazed how many people in this thread seem to defend unreasonable bank policies, and unreasonable ex-partners. 

Let's say I'm the jilted ex who leaves the house but all the household bills are on the joint account...

Hmm, I can't see how THAT would be an avenue for one party to screw the other one over...

The point that you're spectacularly failing to grasp is that the dispute process is intended to ensure no action happens without everyone agreeing with it.  By allowing one party to take unilateral action you're making the entire process moot.

Again: exactly how will a blocked account help with household bills?

It is not the job of a bank to determine whether there is a jilted party, and then to proceed to protect them.

If there is a zero balance on the account, there is absolutely no reason for a bank to insist on keeping the account open, for the reasons I have already described.

If there is a positive balance, either party can make it zero before asking for closure.

If there is a negative balance, either party has the option to settle the debt before asking for closure.

Luckily, there are progressive banks which do allow the closure of joint accounts by either party.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

What you feel about Lloyds dispute process is irrelevant.  Your argument was that the T&C's allow either party to close the account was shot down by the other term that allows Lloyds to limit what instructions they will take from an individual party in the case of a dispute.

We all get it, you don't like it, but that was never the question.  It's also entirely irrelevant what other banks do (although I very much doubt they will allow unilateral closure requests either) as you were falling over yourself to point out when I had the audacity to point out HSBC's rules on joint account disputes yesterday...

Daliah

Section62 said:

There are some pretty evil people in this world, causing aggravation to an ex by closing what might be their only banking facility is exactly the kind of thing some spiteful people would want to do for 'revenge'. 

For several years now, it has been dead straight forward for everyone, even people with the most terrible credit worthiness, to get at least a Basic account, at almost the drop of hat.


Though I agree with you, there are some pretty evil people in this world. Some will even insist on their ex-partners having to live with a financial association they do not wish to have.

Section62 said:

Daliah said:

It is not the job of a bank to determine whether there is a jilted party, and then to proceed to protect them.

I believe the FCA would disagree with you....

https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/fca-launches-guidance-firms-fair-treatment-vulnerable-customers

I very much doubt the FCA would insist that a vulnerable person can just willy-nilly force a continued financial association on anyone. If a bank has reason to believe that the obstructive partner is vulnerable, they can just give them a different, sole, account. It is absolutely not the role of any bank to force anyone into a continued financial association against their will.

Daliah

smashinglynaive said:

Daliah said:

smashinglynaive said:

Daliah said:

smashinglynaive said:

Daliah said:

smashinglynaive said:

Daliah said:

cx6 said:

To close it, they require JOINT instructions. You can't blame Lloyds - the clue is in the meaning of the word 'joint'.

No they don't. The T&Cs expressly state that the account can be closed on the instruction of any of the account holders.

Which is presumably overridden by

16.3 If we become aware of a dispute between you, we may take steps to prevent any of you giving instructions or using the account individually until the dispute ends.

we've been round this one already. See my earlier response to it.

You've not addressed it though, merely offered your opinion that you don't like it.

What is the point of freezing an account, which stops one party screwing the other over, if you leave a massive gaping hole by allowing one party to screw the other over by closing the account?

Exactly how is the uncooperative party screwed over? Even if the account isn't closed, it would be suspended, so either way it is unusable.

The only advantage they might lose is the financial connection, if that's favourable to them. However, they have absolutely no legal or moral right to that.

I am amazed how many people in this thread seem to defend unreasonable bank policies, and unreasonable ex-partners. 

Let's say I'm the jilted ex who leaves the house but all the household bills are on the joint account...

Hmm, I can't see how THAT would be an avenue for one party to screw the other one over...

The point that you're spectacularly failing to grasp is that the dispute process is intended to ensure no action happens without everyone agreeing with it.  By allowing one party to take unilateral action you're making the entire process moot.

Again: exactly how will a blocked account help with household bills?

It is not the job of a bank to determine whether there is a jilted party, and then to proceed to protect them.

If there is a zero balance on the account, there is absolutely no reason for a bank to insist on keeping the account open, for the reasons I have already described.

If there is a positive balance, either party can make it zero before asking for closure.

If there is a negative balance, either party has the option to settle the debt before asking for closure.

Luckily, there are progressive banks which do allow the closure of joint accounts by either party.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

What you feel about Lloyds dispute process is irrelevant.  Your argument was that the T&C's allow either party to close the account was shot down by the other term that allows Lloyds to limit what instructions they will take from an individual party in the case of a dispute.

We all get it, you don't like it, but that was never the question.  It's also entirely irrelevant what other banks do (although I very much doubt they will allow unilateral closure requests either) as you were falling over yourself to point out when I had the audacity to point out HSBC's rules on joint account disputes yesterday...

@smashinglynaive

BPPete

Thank you so much for your comments and advice. 
- The account is in positive balance, around £30. Honestly, they can donate that money to charity if they wish. 
- We were not married, although we owned a house together. 
- The relationship broke down in spectacular fashion when the Police arrived at the house to say that the partner of her long term affair had threatened to kill her. 
- Once the initial shock wore off, I checked the joint account and she had withdrawn all funds. 
- I went to my local Lloyds branch and spoke with the branch manager asking to close the account. I was advised that this could cause some Direct Debits to bounce and so I was better to transfer funds to pay off the immediate DD's and freeze the account.
- The comments about the financial association were spot on. It's horrific to be financial tied to someone after half a decade of trying to close this account.
- I haven't had communication with the ex for probably 3 years now and I am very reticent to try to reach her after all this time. 

The guidance on the T&C's for Lloyds was very interesting, thank you. This seems to contradict what Lloyds have told me over the phone. 

I believe this is now with the financial abuse team at Lloyds. I argued that there actions didn't comply with the Financial Abuse Code of Practice. They have a meeting in a few weeks and this case will be discussed. I keep my fingers crossed. 

Thank you all again