Credit Card which allows Joint Access

DullGreyGuy

born_again said:

DullGreyGuy said:

born_again said:

Only Amex as far as I know.

But there is no Joint credit card accounts. Only one account holder. So no joint liability. In fact you are liable for ALL additional card holders spending.

AmEx is only half the way there... the additional cardholders can only see their own spend not the total for the account

That is my take on what the Op wants.

They said it was a minimum requirement which would suggest that they may be bigger requirements that haven't been articulated

prettyandfluffy said:

This is only a guess but I think the reason there always has to be one main cardholder is because in the event of default it could be complicated to pursue multiple parties, therefore it's easier to have one person responsible (liable) for the account.

How is that any different to a joint loan? An overdraft on a joint account? 

For all other classes of credit you are made jointly and severally liable meaning there is no complication, the bank simply has more chance of getting its money back given it has more people it can chase for 100% of the debt.

born_again

DullGreyGuy said:

prettyandfluffy said:

This is only a guess but I think the reason there always has to be one main cardholder is because in the event of default it could be complicated to pursue multiple parties, therefore it's easier to have one person responsible (liable) for the account.

How is that any different to a joint loan? An overdraft on a joint account? 

For all other classes of credit you are made jointly and severally liable meaning there is no complication, the bank simply has more chance of getting its money back given it has more people it can chase for 100% of the debt.

But that rules out people giving a additional card to their younger family members who are not old enough to apply for credit or have no credit history due to their age.
Which is a large % of additional card holders.

Olinda99

Why would you have to give the login details? just set it up on her phone without revealing the login details. Enable fingerprint and she can look at the app and not have a clue what the password etc was.

grumbler

born_again said:

DullGreyGuy said:

prettyandfluffy said:

This is only a guess but I think the reason there always has to be one main cardholder is because in the event of default it could be complicated to pursue multiple parties, therefore it's easier to have one person responsible (liable) for the account.

How is that any different to a joint loan? An overdraft on a joint account? 

For all other classes of credit you are made jointly and severally liable meaning there is no complication, the bank simply has more chance of getting its money back given it has more people it can chase for 100% of the debt.

But that rules out people giving a additional card to their younger family members who are not old enough to apply for credit or have no credit history due to their age.

Firstly, an additional cardholder has to be 18+, at least for Barclaycard.
Secondly, if it's a joint application, the CC company can hold the applicant with the best history solely liable for the debt and pay little attention to other applicant(s). In this respect this is no different from the existing system where  it's the 'best' applicant's problem, not the company's.
More serious problem is that their credit histories get linked together, that isn't the case for  the existing system and is its advantage

grumbler

Olinda99 said:

Why would you have to give the login details? just set it up on her phone without revealing the login details. Enable fingerprint and she can look at the app and not have a clue what the password etc was.

How is this different from giving login details? Essentially, this is allowing full access to your account with full functionality and THIS is against the T&C. Generally, nothing extra the second person can gain by having the login details, although sometimes banks ask you to re-enter the password for some important transactions.

Fozzie_Bear

Many thanks to all who have responded. I appear to have dropped a very large pebble in the pond :-). It is clear to me that for some reason there has to be a primary card holder but I still cannot understand the security risk behind a secondary card holder seeing their own transactions related to their card?
My wife does have the Barclays App on her phone but that is what started this question. She can see all of our Barclays accounts but not the Barclaycard one whereas I can. I did not ask for it but it just appeared one day. She also has a credit card in her name (Sainsburys) but for budgeting purposes we only put food shopping on her card and all other expenditure on the Barclaycard. I will write to Barclaycard as I would genuinely like to know what the security risk is but I guess they will just come back with a general Security Threat response.
Thanks again to all respondents

DullGreyGuy

born_again said:

DullGreyGuy said:

prettyandfluffy said:

This is only a guess but I think the reason there always has to be one main cardholder is because in the event of default it could be complicated to pursue multiple parties, therefore it's easier to have one person responsible (liable) for the account.

How is that any different to a joint loan? An overdraft on a joint account? 

For all other classes of credit you are made jointly and severally liable meaning there is no complication, the bank simply has more chance of getting its money back given it has more people it can chase for 100% of the debt.

But that rules out people giving a additional card to their younger family members who are not old enough to apply for credit or have no credit history due to their age.
Which is a large % of additional card holders.

That assumes you then drop the additional cardholder concept... in the US you have both, joint accounts and secondary cardholders. So Husband and Wife (or Husband and Husband or Wife and Wife or whatever combinations are available) are joint account holders and give their adult child a secondary card for emergencies when at uni. All three now have cards but only two are liable for the debt

grumbler

Fozzie_Bear said:

...I still cannot understand the security risk behind a secondary card holder seeing their own transactions related to their card?
...I will write to Barclaycard as I would genuinely like to know what the security risk is but I guess they will just come back with a general Security Threat response.

There is no any security risk behind seeing their own transactions and there is no point in wasting your and their time by asking. For what you want a more sophisticated app is needed where additional cardholders have separate access to the account with restricted privileges. As simple as that. For most CCs you can't even see by what cardholder a transaction was made. I even remember a CC where both cards were identical except the name. So, even the CC company couldn't see which cardholder made a purchase.

Fozzie_Bear said:

My wife does have the Barclays App on her phone but that is what started this question. She can see all of our Barclays accounts but not the Barclaycard one whereas I can. I did not ask for it but it just appeared one day. 

This is natural. You both see your joint accounts. Barclaycard account isn't joint, that's why only you can see it.
Install Barclaycard app on her phone and register it on your name. She will be able to see the same what you can see  in your app - both her and your transactions. But she will also be able to manage the DD and the credit limit, to add a new cardholder, and even request a balance/money transfer, i.e. to transfer money from your Barclaycard to some other CC or to a current account. And the resulting balance will be your sole liability, not hers.

lr1277

@Fozzie_Bear are you aware under the credit card model here in the UK that only you get S75 protection? Anything your wife buys for herself that requires S75 protection can't be claimed or will at least be rejected by the card company. Basically anything bought on a supplementary card has to be for the principal card holder's benefit.

If your wife wants S75 protection on anything she buys, she has to buy it with a card where she is the principal account holder.

Pure speculation but is it possible that other countries that allow joint cards don't have the equivalent of S75 protection?

DullGreyGuy

lr1277 said:
Basically anything bought on a supplementary card has to be for the principal card holder's benefit.

This one really gets boring...

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/75

The above is the full wording of S75 @IR1277, its only 5 clauses so not a big or long read... please point out which clause says anything about who benefits from the purchase?

For S75 to apply the debtor must be in contract with the supplier, it doesn't matter who the beneficiary of the contract is. The FOS is full of cases where a parent has paid for a wedding venue for a child and then made a S75 claim... for those cases where the parent was named as the contracting party the complaint was upheld, where the child is named the complaint was declined but in all cases the child was the beneficiary.

Most contracts aren't written but that doesn't mean they don't have terms, the assumed term is that the payer is the contracting party unless there is good reason or evidence to the contrary and that's where secondary cardholders get into problems because they are not the debtor and so fail to meet the debtor supplier agreement requirement even if its a b/day present for the debtor and so to their benefit.