Urgent: beat the energy bills rip off! Are joint accounts worth it, and what’s the best?
en
January 16, 2025
TLDR: Martin shares energy-saving tips to lower utility bills and talks about joint accounts for managing household finances. Adrian gets quizzed on flight compensation schemes in Mastermind.

In the recent episode of The Martin Lewis Podcast, host Martin Lewis discussed the pressing matter of rising energy bills affecting households across England, Scotland, and Wales. Key insights include:
- Overpayment: A staggering 80% of households are currently overpaying for their energy, often sticking with standard variable tariffs. Lewis emphasizes that switching can save families money.
- Predicted Price Increases: With energy prices expected to rise between 3% and 5% in April, Lewis recommends reviewing fixed tariffs, as they are currently a more economical option. The cheapest fixed deals available now are around 7% cheaper than the current price cap.
- Action Steps: Lewis advises listeners to compare energy deals actively. If you’re on a standard variable tariff, you’re likely overpaying, so shifting to a fixed tariff can provide financial security and predictability.
Joint Accounts: Worth It or Not?
Transitioning to managing household finances, Lewis explored how couples navigate their money management, particularly through joint accounts. Main points discussed include:
- Joint vs. Separate Accounts: A poll conducted revealed that only 29% of couples share all finances in a joint account, while the majority maintain separate accounts for personal expenses, contributing only to joint bills.
- Pros and Cons: Having one joint account can simplify paying bills but may lead to conflicts if partners have different spending habits. Lewis highlighted that money management disputes are a leading cause of relationship issues.
- Best Practices: Couples should consider having a joint account for bills while maintaining separate accounts for personal spending to foster independence while sharing responsibilities.
Tips for Managing Household Finances
For couples contemplating joint accounts, here are some of Martin's recommendations:
- Open Communication: Discuss financial responsibilities openly to avoid misunderstandings, especially regarding contributions to shared expenses.
- Budget Meetings: Regular meetings to review budgets can help manage expenditures and ensure transparency in financial dealings.
- Utilizing Tools: Take advantage of budgeting tools and apps to maintain clarity in financial contributions and track expenses easily.
The Flight Compensation Mastermind
In this episode, Martin also engaged in a segment called "Mastermind," where he quizzed Adrian on flight compensation rights.
- Compensation Rights: Listeners learned that under UK regulations, passengers can claim compensation for flight delays exceeding three hours, provided it’s the airline’s fault.
- Awareness: It’s crucial for travelers to know their rights, even if flights originate from outside the UK, due to the adoption of EU flight compensation regulations post-Brexit.
Essential Takeaways
- Fixing Energy Tariffs: Act quickly if you're currently on a variable tariff, as fixing your tariff now could save you significantly in the long run.
- Joint Account Options: Carefully evaluate if joint accounts suit your relationship dynamic; consider potential benefits and pitfalls.
- Know Your Rights: Being informed about your compensation rights related to travel can lead to financial recovery in the event of travel disruptions.
This episode serves as a valuable resource for anyone looking to manage their finances better, control energy costs, and understand their rights regarding flight delays.
Was this summary helpful?
This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK. Hello, I'm Martin Lewis and this is the cunningly named The Martin Lewis Podcast. I do wonder what that's going to be about. Now, usually much of it comes from my BBC Radio 5 live show with Adrian Childs, but there's also bonus money saving tips just for you lucky podcast listeners.
In today's pod, energy bills. 80% of people in England, Scotland and Wales are overpaying. It only takes five minutes to sort it out. I'm going to show you how to do that. Plus, I answer many of your questions on what's going to happen to prices. Should you fix Spoila? Yes, absolutely right now. Time of use tariffs. The Octopus Tracker, standing charges the best tariffs if you've got an electric vehicle and more. It's a must listen for anyone who pays energy bills, which is most of you.
Then, how should couples manage their money? Is it worth having a joint account for bills or just one account to rule them all? Or should you keep it separate? And if you aren't going to have a joint account, what are the best ones? I'll be running through that for you too. And finally, when are you entitled to compensation if your flight has been delayed? Play the theme tune, sous!
And that's the sound of lunch money, Lewis. That is the name of the... It's the name of the group who's sung that, yeah. Fantastic. And heralded in Martin Lewis' arrival. So, energy. First question I've got in front of me is, should we be pessimistic or optimistic? I mean, could I widen that generally about our lives on the planet? Or should we narrow it down to
Well, from a practical consumer finance sense, my answer to that question at all times is always, we should plan for the worst and hope for the best. And that is the sensible way to deal with your finances. You didn't mean it. You meant it slightly flippantly, but I'll answer it. I will always remember one of the very early BBC shows I did. It was a BBC television program many years ago, and it was at the start of my career, and it was about debt, and they got me on to be an expert.
and I was very keen and then they told me that the programme about debt was called, should I worry about spending? And it was all on this predicated that debt is because of overspending. And I was really unhappy with it and I told them and I told them, I said, the vast majority of debt crisis, which is what you're talking about, is caused by change of circumstance.
You know, it's caused by people losing their jobs, losing their loved ones, breaking apart, getting ill, you know, mental health breakdown, but oh no, it's, I thought it. These days, I just say, I'm not doing it, change the name and they probably change the name, I'll be honest. But I didn't have that power then. And then we did the program and at the end of that program, this must be 20 years ago or something, at the end of that program, we got a letter and a letter from a man who was furious and who said, I didn't get into debt because of I was overspending. I got into debt because I lost my leg.
And that was just the epitome of me. And that is why, what a pessimistic way to talk about it. But that's why you plan for the worst, you plan to have room in your finances, you plan for income to be potentially to be dropped on what would happen, and you hope for the best. So generally pessimistic, but when we're talking about energy, specifically, pessimism is appropriate because we actually do have some ability to read the future when it comes to this. And the future, the short midterm future is not looking good on energy.
So where are we with the price cap then?
Okay, so let's just talk about what's going on. We saw in October the price cap rise by 10% on the 1st of October. The price cap of course, let's just do the basics, is 80% of homes in England, Scotland and Wales are on a price-capped tariff. Now what that means is you're on the standard tariff, that's you if you've
never done anything. If you've not switched, it's you if you were on a fix and you're fix ended and you've not changed. It's you if you're on a special tariff, you're special ended and you didn't change afterwards. It's only not you if you have actively and deliberately chosen to be on a specific tariff. So, for example, let's just make this really plain because I think this will help people.
If you're with British Gas or EDF or Scottish Power, they call their priced cap tariff the standard variable tariff. If you're with octopus, it's the flexible tariff. If you're with EON, it's the flex tariff. If you're with OVO, it's the simpler energy tariff. If you are on any of those, you're on a price cap tariff. That means your price is dictated by the regulator, because frankly, while it's called a cap, they all price at the maximum.
So, going back to it, 80% of homes are on those. If you're not sure, you're likely on the price cap. It went up 10% in October, having dropped previously. It then went up 1.2% in January. Now, when we last talked about energy on the show in December before the Christmas break, current of the predictions then were, it was going to drop slightly in April, drop a little bit more in July and then be about the same in October. Week after week as the new predictions come out because they're predicated on wholesale prices,
We've seen those predictions rise and rise.
and rise. So here is the situation we are in right now. It is predicted that in April, which is when the next price cap starts, the rise will be between 3% and 5% on top of the 1% rise in January, on top of the 10% rise in October. Prices are going to go up. Now it's important to understand that April's price cap is based on average wholesale. The main underlying metric is average wholesale rates from the
18th of November to the 17th of February. It is the 16th of January today, so we are two thirds through that period. That means for the averaging to work, it's the mean average over the time, you would need a very substantial drop now for it not to be going up in April. You know, something quite cataclysmic for it not to be rising in April. So three to five percent is probably where it's going, but generally it's going up in April. And then the further out you go, the more difficult it is to predict
They're saying it'll be down a smidge in July, 0.2%, an upper smidge, 0.5% in October. But on top, that's on top of the rise that we're having in April. So in July and in October compared to now, it's still predicted to be higher than it is right now. So if you are on a price cap tariff, it is already high. I call it the pants cap. And the very, very strong likelihood is it will be going up
in April and staying up until the end of the year. Right. So how should this inform our decisions? Ben says, I've never fixed because of optimism for a reduction soon.
convince me to fix at this rate. Well hopefully Ben you've heard what I've just said. I mean and the predictions that I'm giving so I you know these days are actually a number of prediction sources I'm using a mix of EDF British gas and Eon who now do their own numbers and these are based by the analysts at those firms who are clearly tracking it very carefully. April, April is going up.
is going up. After that, it is more difficult. So what we know, we're currently in January. We now know the price effectively is going to be at least as high as it is right now until July.
and probably at least as high, or higher, and at least as high or higher likely after that, but lesser than after that. Now, we factor that in. If you look at the cheapest fixed deals at the moment, and there are some complicated solutions, we'll go for fixed solutions. Fixed solutions is where you lock in a rate. You don't lock in a price, the price you pay depends on how much you use. But you lock in a standing charge, and you lock in a unit rate based on how much gas, but for each unit of gas and electricity you use.
The cheapest fix is available anywhere right now. You need to do a comparison. It depends on where you live and how much you use. Make sure it's a whole of market by default comparison service. And there are some exclusive deals that are slightly cheaper on some comparisons at the moment. The cheapest fix available right now if you take everything into account is 7% cheaper than the current price cap.
So if you were to fix right now, you would instantly, on the very cheapest, start saving 7% over the current price cap. But in reality, it's very likely the price cap will be higher in April. So the saving would be even more. And after that, it's a little bit more difficult. But I think it is, you would need a really big seismic shift in worldwide wholesale rates. Probably we're talking sort of world recession type levels.
before it's going to get that much cheaper than the fixes that you're seeing in the price cap over the next year. So for me, it's not just on the balance of probability. I'm about to make up a percentage. I don't want anyone to think this is a calculated figure.
If I were to do a spread on it, I would say your chances of getting the cheapest fix now and it not being cheapest over that period, when you factor the whole time in, because it may be in the very last few months, you might be paying slightly more than the price cut then, but if you factor the whole next 12 or 16 months, depending which fix it is, I would say you're probably 90% chance that it would be cheaper to be on a fix right now, and a fix has the other big benefit of peace of mind.
Right? If you get a fix, you know what you'll pay. You're absolutely protected against price hikes during that time. So Ben, Ben, get in touch. Let us know, has my pessimism managed to convince you you should be on a fix? And that's why I said 80% of people are overpaying. 80% of people are on the price cap. Fixes are cheaper than the price cap. More than the mood music, you know, the big blaring out get a blaster on the tube type music is playing out. Prices are rising, prices are rising. So therefore,
Fixing now on the vast balance of probability seems like it's the most sensible option.
Well, we will take a message. We'll take a written piece of text from your pen. Have I presided you to get on a comparison site, find your cheapest fix and fix now, because price is going to rise where then you can get a fix cheaper than the price cap, and you're protected from those very, very likely to happen future price or height. Kenny wants to know, can you fix if you're not on a smart meter? Yes, in fact, most of the cheapest fixes right now do not require you to be on a smart meter. Now, let me be technical.
They can, firms are allowed outside of their standard tariff, the default tariff, to make it a condition of getting the tariff that you must either have a smart meter or get a smart meter. There's one exemption to that, that if it is not practicable for you to be fitted a smart meter, I they say it's not practicable, you should still be allowed the smart meter tariffs. Now, about a year ago, that was absolutely locked in that all the cheap tariffs required a smart meter.
Now, actually, the top four on the market are on the table. I'm looking in front of me. None of them require you to have a smart meter. They clearly have met their targets because they are punished. They have financial fines if they haven't installed enough smart meters in a year. Most of them have probably met their targets.
You want the people who know from my if you listen to the interview we had with off-gen that came you know a couple of months ago on the show I have been urging the government to change energy firms targets too but it's the number of working smart meters they have rather than number of installs because there are so many installs there's so many smart meters that don't work but all the resources goes to installing new ones even though people don't want new ones and actually it'd be far better to have working smart meters for everyone.
Should Ryan get any credit refunded to him before refixing for 16 months? If you're refixing with the same firm, it's an irrelevant question. If you're fixing elsewhere, any credit that you have in your account with the old firm will be automatically credited to you. It is an irrelevant, but not a bad question. So it's irrelevant because...
Because the fact that you're fixing and the fact that you're in credit don't really matter. Fixing is about the rate that you will pay for energy usage over a period. People often get confused. The vast majority of people pay by monthly direct debit. There's also variable direct debit. Please remind me to come back to that in a second. So monthly direct debit is where
They work out roughly what you're going to use over a year, and then they divide it by 12. That means some companies do it seasonally, but most divide it by 12. And the reason for that is, if not, you would have really big bills in the winter and really bad bills in the summer. And if monthly direct debit didn't exist, I'd probably be campaigning for it because it's a budgeting system that allows people to spread the cost of their energy over the year. The problem with monthly direct debit is overestimating by firms so that they're charging you too much and sitting on too much of your credit.
Now, as we're into the winter right now, we're starting to be in the bit where the credit that you've built up should be being used. But it's important to understand, you're generally at peak credit in November and minimum credit in May. So we're not, you know, we're not even halfway through that yet. So most people should be in or around credit on their monthly direct debit right now because you're going to be using that credit up over the next few months of cold months. So my rule of thumb would be this.
I probably would not be asking for credit back right now, assuming my direct direct debit is the right amount, and assuming you've done a meter reading, because if not, there's no put, you've got to do meter readings and make sure this is all right unless you've got a working smart meter.
unless I had more than two months of direct debit in credit. So if my direct debit is an appropriate direct debit, it's £200 a month. When I had £400 a month in credit, I'd probably leave it. If I had £1,000 in credit, I'd want £600, $600, $700 quick back. So the answer to your question is that doesn't, that applies constantly whether you're changing tariff or not changing tariff if you're sticking with the same firm. So if you are over two months of direct debit in credit,
ask for the credit back. If you're not, I'd probably leave it at the moment because that's your little slush fund in order that you can use it up so that you're not going to pay more. Variable direct debit, I mentioned, didn't I? So this is important. There are a lot of people who get very annoyed about monthly direct debit. I tend to be quite a fan of it, but I understand why. This is outrageous. They're taking too much. It's all gone wrong. I just want to pay for what I've used. That's what they say to me.
Okay. Assign that they've got it right, is that you're at zero in... Right. No, it gets more... Okay, let's not... No, no, but again. Assign that they've got it right is you're not building up too much debt or too much credit. You're just roughly in the right bounds. There is a direct debit calculator tool where people go and check the direct debit. I'm afraid I can't give you where it is. You probably guessed. Yeah. Because some people think direct, where you can check whether your direct debit is roughly right. Yeah.
So, when people say to me they want to move, the big problem with that is what they tend to move to is this system called payment in receipt of bills, which literally means after you've got a bill, you then pay afterwards. If you do that, that is 7-9% more expensive than direct debit. The rates you will pay are 7-9% more expensive than direct debit.
Now, my suggestion, therefore, would be if you don't like monthly direct debit, some firms not all allow you a variable direct debit. It is a different scheme. What that means is you pay based on what you've used each month, but the payment is automatically taken as a direct debit rather than you
orchestrating the payment to then. If you do that, you stay on the cheap direct debit rates. So if you're going to want to opt out of the monthly direct debit, spreading the cost over the year, and you just want to pay each month, the cheaper way to do it, I won't go better because it depends on your viewer direct debits, the cheaper way to do it is variable direct debit. Okay. Mickey asks, what happens if you tie in a fixed term contract?
energy or broadband but move house and the supplier doesn't cover that area. Do you have to pay early termination fee or does the contract get cancelled without any penalties? It depends, okay. So, if you are with British gas EDF EON Octopus
and utility warehouse and you are on a fix, you can usually take the fix with you. Now the vast majority of those major firms cover right across the UK. So I think it would be very unlikely on most major firms now you couldn't take your fix with you and port it.
But if you were to leave those firms because you're moving house, because they allow you to port, the early exit penalties would be charged if you chose not to take it with you.
In the event you are with Ovo or Scottish Power, you cannot port your tariff, port your fix to the new house. You can't move it and therefore they do not charge you early exit penalties if you move house within your fix. So that's the general where it works. Now your question was more specific about
If they didn't supply it, I mean, I've never heard of it happening. It's very rare now with all the major suppliers we've got. I think you would have a very legitimate argument that you cannot take the fix with you and therefore they shouldn't charge it and they would wipe it and if they didn't, I would take them to the energy ombudsman under the fairness terms. How would you mess this up?
In terms of fixing, you know, because sure as anything, I'd try and be too clever. Here's what happened. I'd meet a bloke in a pub who'd tell me he was a gas explorer or something. He said, I know for a fact.
that energy prices are going to grow much more than people are saying. So then I'd try to be clever. I'd then take out an extremely long fix rate at a not particular big discount thinking, I know something which other stuff. I mean, it's a semi-series question because I suppose when I'm asking it, are there fix rate products out there which are a seriously bad idea which you could sign up to? Yes. The first thing we're talking about cheap fixing.
If you're going to lock in, don't lock in on an expensive rate, which is why I suggest you go to a whole-of-market-by-default comparison site, because the exact cheapest fix for you, because rates are regional, depends on your usage, and it depends on where you live. You should go and do that, and not just rely on what your own firm is offering you.
and you should be contrasting it right now what you want to do. It's actually a really good time to compare because if you're going to save over the current price cap, the likelihood is you will save over the next year because the prices are going up. If they're going down that comparison, you can see why I'd be more tricky to do this. I tend to look at fixes going out to 18 months. After that, I'm a bit quiet and I shall be honest with people listening. I'm a bit quiet because it's simply a
of data. There's just nothing. I have nothing. There's nobody making predictions. Nobody knows. Energy prices have been so volatile the last few years. Now, the only time it's worth fixing long. If you were absolutely petrified of prices going up, you couldn't afford any more and you could lock in a long fix with relatively low early exit penalties that no more than the current price gap at a level you were comfortable with.
then that's not a bad decision. It might be a bad decision in hindsight, but you know.
I often get say people often get confused with, it wouldn't be a bad decision in hindsight. They get confused with, it would be a good decision, but you may still have a bad outcome. And people get confused, you can make a good decision, have a bad outcome, doesn't make it a bad decision. Absolutely, in life and football and everything. And marriage and relationships and all these. I often do, let's do it, it's a bit of fun, something like this. Now people often ask me,
I've got a coin in front of me. Adrian will know. I don't actually have a coin in front of me. It's an invisible coin, but we'll go for the coin. I'm about to toss the coin. I'm going to offer you a bet, Adrian. I'm not. But let's take this bet. It's going to be a good bet. Here we go. On the toss of a coin, if you win, you have to give me a quid. Sorry. If I win, you have to give me a quid. If you win, I'll give you 100 pounds, Adrian. Simple as that. On the toss of a coin, we'll pretend it's a real coin. I'm not ready.
It is not legal contract. OK, would you take the bet? Yes, I would. OK, so, uh, call heads. It's tails. Was it a bad bet? Uh, no. No.
Didn't work out. It was a good bet. It was a bad outcome. You had a hundred to one uplift. If it went right, you were only losing a quit if it went wrong. Now, when we do that very simple decision on a 50-50 probability, you had a hundred times return. I mean, it's very obvious. It was a good bet. It was a bad outcome. When people fix their mortgage and interest rates go the other way, when they get a fixed energy and that goes the other way, and they did those decisions because they wanted price surety, but things move against them, they say, I made a terrible decision.
You did not. You made the right decision based on the information you had at the time. You had a bad outcome. And if we confuse decision and outcome, we make worse decisions in future. So that's why I think it's, and again, should I marry him or her? It's just as relevant. We can never know. All the information says, this is the person I'm in love with and it's going to be wonderful.
But you know, some people make the right decision and people change and they end up getting divorced later. It doesn't mean you made a bad decision. It means, unfortunately, you had a bad outcome and we need to be a bit more clinical in recognising the difference between the two. Do you want to speak to Louise in Plymouth? Let's do it. I'd like to. Louise, how are you doing? Hello, Adrian. I'm fine, thank you. Hello, Martin. Hello. Go on. So, what have you got for us? It's about standing charges. Yes, please. So, I know that Martin is campaign hard.
on behalf of people like myself who are very low users, but the standing charges might be unfair. But equally, I understand that people who need to have a life-saving equipment on a lot of the time, it would be unfair to have that changed. I listened to him saying about going for a fixed rate, tariff, but I wondered how confident it is that the standing charges will not be reduced.
to make the bills fairer for very low users like myself. If a great weight is applied to usage rather than standing charge at the next 14 months, then I don't want to fix. How low is very low? Roughly what are you paying a month? I am paying 50 pounds a month.
That's extremely low. So, you're basically 50% of your cost is standing charged, 50% of your cost is energy use. Yeah. Okay. Right. It's extremely low. So, how confident am I?
I'm pretty confident from the information I have and obviously nothing is sure that very little is going to change on the price cap standing charge system until probably November, December.
I think that's roughly when we're looking. So let me just give a, let me just go backwards on this and explain to everybody listening. So I have complained about standing charges, this £330 a year of poll tax that we all pay just for using energy, even if we're just for having the facility of having energy, even if we're not using energy. It's terrible for lower users. It is a real issue.
And it's a moral hazard for lower users to reduce their bills. Now, what we needed to see to get standing charges on the price cap reduced is we needed to see the government say to the regulator, we will put special measures in for vulnerable high users just as you've talked about with medical equipment. And then you can bring standing charges down for everybody, which is what most people want.
The government hasn't yet said that so the regulator isn't bringing standing charges down but it is investigating and hopefully going to bring in a proposal that I need to be honest was mine and my teams which is where you have two price caps. You have one that's the current one with relatively high standing charges and a bit lower unit rates and one because it has to be a zero sum game where you have much lower standing charges but you'll pay higher a higher amount for each user to have energy you use. In your case that would be very substantially cheaper.
I think they would be doing very well to get that in. Well, I would say they'd be doing extremely well to get it in by October's price cap, more likely by next January's price cap. So with that being said, you've got, I mean, certainly a year, even if it were brought in in October, but far more likely in January, then you might have a month
of where you're on a system that doesn't matter. And in the meantime, by getting a fix right now, you're going to protect yourself more. It is worth noting, in your particular case, there is one tariff you know, it's called the EDF in short tariff, which is a £50 cheaper standing charge. And so you can just, you pay the same as you're on the price cap, but it's got standing charges at the £50 cheaper.
So if you just wanted, you could stick on the price gap with a 50 quid lower standing charge but that may be worthwhile for you on such low usage because the saving on the unit rate won't be so great that maybe you just go for that lower standing charge deal in the meantime. You won't like me because I'm going to say I don't want to change my company because I'm with Octopus and very happy with them. Well then you limit your choices.
I know. I realise that. I mean, look, the one advantage is the savings of fixing and the savings of doing anything when you're paying 600 credit year and not that big anyway, because it's a percentage-based saving. So, I mean, I wouldn't be slapping your wrist very hard. I mean, I'd always slap it a little bit because, you know,
to do that. I wouldn't miss that one. I wouldn't miss that one very hard if you stuck where you were. But you know, if you want the question is, let's phrase it another way. Would you be willing, if Octopus said it's going to cost you 50 quid to stay with us, would you pay 50 quid or would you move elsewhere? You'll have to come back to us on that one. I'll leave you to ruminate. Because that's what you're doing by not moving. Yeah.
Okay. Okay. Louise, thanks. Thanks, Louise. Thanks for getting in touch. Thank you Martin. All the best violinists are Louise and Plymouth. And quite a few more of your questions to come on energy that we'll do a little bit later.
Where are we? Oh, yes. Today's tell us. Tell us about the tell us, Martin. So today's tellers was if you're part of a long term couple, how do you manage the finances? Does one do it all for you both? Do you have a joint account for everything or just a joint account for bills? Do you do regular updated budgeting meetings? How does it work and do you feel it works? Well, and I want to talk about joint bank accounts as well, which I'll be going through some of the best of those. But why don't we read a few out? What have you got?
OK, Dave Myring says we've been married for 20 years. We've only ever had one joint account. All our money goes into one pot we pay for everything. We also have a budget and spreadsheet. The Chancellor will be proud of. We've also started using the app Snoop, which really helps. It doesn't sound completely legal, something called Snoop.
It is legal, it's a bit of competitive to me, but it's absolutely legal and it works and they do have some good tools on there. Now.
For this and for the podcast, I did do a special poll to see how people do this. The poll question was, if you're part of a long-term couple, do you have a joint account or keep money separate, which is closest to your situation? On Twitter, which has had 15,000 votes, 8% weren't in a long-term couple, 29% had all their money in a joint account, 35% separate accounts apart from bills, and 28% totally separate accounts.
The minority of people have a joint account for everything these days. On Instagram, which has had 40,000 votes, 4% not in the long term couple, 20% all money in a joint account, 54% separate but with a bills account and 23% totally separate. So it seems that the modern way to do this,
According to those polls, they're not statistically relevant, but it is 50 or 1000 people. The main way now is you have your own separate accounts and you have a joint bills account. Now, that tends to be what I suggest. And the reason for this is when you go back 50 years ago, 60 years ago, let's be honest.
The little woman was at home and the man went out to work and you had one pot of finances and you got married at the age of 20. I mean I'm stereotyping a touch but that was how it worked. Now, thankfully we've moved to, people are independent, they get together later.
They have their own incomes. They work separately. And therefore, one of the biggest causes of marital break-up is actually arguments about money. And, you know, if you have different money personalities, one of you's a saver, one of you's a spender. You've got a joint account, one's saving up for something and the other one spends it. That is absolutely a cause of friction, which is why the independent main accounts for the joint bills account, not in every circumstance, there's some issues where that can be a problem, works well, I think, and it is what most people are doing. Shall I read a couple of these? Alison?
We have separate accounts and have an agreement I pay for certain bills and he pays for others which come out of our separate accounts by direct debits. I'm not in favour of joint accounts, no one should ever question what I spend.
Interesting. I mean, Iggy sounds a bit old school on Twitter. I happily put a roof over my wife's head and pay roughly half the utility bills. I don't ask her am that she earns or who she votes for and she doesn't ask me. Works for us, married 13 years at the end of the month. Yeah, I'm never going to be with whatever works for you as long as it works for both of you.
Susan, I sought out everything and have done for over 30 years. My husband wouldn't even know who our bills, energy or mortgage are with or how much they are. Hasn't a clue. Susan, I'm going to give you a slap risk. I'm sorry, it's my second slap risk law program. I absolutely understand that you are the lead financial management in your relationship. But this is where the 3D's come in. It's not very pleasant. Death, divorce, dementia.
If you do everything and one of those three D's hits and your husband had to take over the finances or vice versa if it were in another relationship, he is not educated to take over. And I have had so many occasions where people have been hit by one of those three who were not the lead financial controller in their house have come and not known where to start, not known how to find the bills. So Susan, you might want to do it all, but I would strongly suggest you do this.
First of all, create a financial fact sheet so that in one easy place where you're not giving away security codes in the same place, you have a list of all the providers that you have, everything that you're going to use. So in the event that something happened to you that you could no longer take over this, heaven forbid or you to lose your faculties, your husband could pick it up and take over and find out where the money was second,
start educating him about what you're doing. Once every two or three months have a budgeting meeting, just tell him what's going on. Just, I'm not saying he should take over, I'm not saying he should do it, but I'm saying, what really scared me was, he wouldn't know who the bills are with and he hasn't a clue. That is not a healthy situation, regardless of which partner is doing it. I love what you're doing for him, but in some ways that is hurting as much as helping if one of those 3D's hit. Forgive me for being a bit, I hope it's not patronising.
What I don't get is if you've got a bills joint account, who puts how much in it? Because one half of the relationship might be earning 10 times more than the other. So do you mean to test the contribution? I absolutely think that's right. And I think that's a discussion. These things should always be overt. So look, first of all,
If you were to work in that situation, in the old school days where you all had one joint account, if one partner earned four times as much as the other, then they'd have 50-50 each. Right, in this modern day where you want your individual accounts, you control of your own money but you have a joint bills account, well there's two things that you could do if you had that disparity of income and it's up to you two to agree it between you,
the first is the the person who earns more could pay the majority of the bills or all of the bills but then you have a joint account so that you both have access to it and you could go further than that there could be an agreement that there was a transfer payment from the one who earns more to the one who earns less because one who earns less or maybe isn't working maybe doing other things in the home may have just as many responsibilities and if you consider you can be a cohesive joint unit without having a joint bank account is what i'm trying to say you can work it and say
Everything is ours. But everything is equally, but we'll have our independent accounts. Therefore, I'll do a transfer payment across to you each month. All of those are legitimate ways to work it. OK, a friend of ours has a joint account with a fiancé to save for their wedding expenses together. He cleared the account all in one go and married somebody else. Elfie on Twitter.
Well, that's just dispiriting. I wanted to get into that. I'm going to move in to read Carrie Ann's because financial abuse is a form of domestic violence by law. Coercive controlling behaviour of our finances is something really important. Whether that falls under this category or just falls into immoral behaviour,
When i talk about joint accounts and i talk about second card holders and you know there are people whose partner pushes them in because they've got a better credit score to getting a loan out for them. Do you have to be in an element of trust and not an element of coercion and you really need to think about it first so let's just read carry on.
When I was married, he controlled everything. He checked the accounts every morning and that's why I'd spent three pounds on something. I did an extra part-time job on a Saturday was paid cash, he would pick me up and I'd have to hand over the cash to him. All of this felt totally normal to me because it was what I'd become used to. I also don't believe he was being deliberately abusive like it may sound. We had different views on money and it made him controlling.
So since we divorced 12 years ago, I vowed to never again merge finances with a man beyond splitting bills 5050 from a joint account if we live together or paying 5050 on dates. I'm 41 now and will never hand my money over to a man like I'm a little girl again.
I will not answer to someone as to why I spent £3 getting a meal deal at work. I will not let anyone take away what I've had to build for myself and my children. Refusing to share finances fully doesn't mean a lack of trust or teamwork as suggested by some. I'm protecting my right to be independent as a woman and I will strongly suggest to both of my daughters that they do the same when they're adults. Thank you, Carrie Anne.
I think reading through these as a whole, it's just clear. It's never, it's clear that it's never sort of entirely clear. There's no kind of right or wrong way. A lot of marriage, if you like, sort of muddling through and you find sort of what works for you. I mean, there's an age thing here. If we were to do the pulse only on the over 70s, you'd find the vast majority had one bank account.
and they work it and they say we're perfectly happy, we've always done it that way. But we are trained, we have, first of all, the world of banking is different, it's online, it's on your phone, it's instant, so it's much easier to have it separate and to have different separate pots. So there is no right or wrong, it's what's right for you, but coercive behaviour is something to watch, don't take a loan out for somebody else. The debts and your money and even if it's not abusive, the use of love of a financial weapon can be very difficult. Just let me read one by Clare, because there's an important point in this one.
We got married in 2022 and haven't been able to get a joint account due to my husband's credit rating. Good. And I'll come on to why I'm saying good, not her. Very annoying now we're married. He pays the rent on our house and I pay all the bills and the food shop. Here's why I say good, Claire.
What dictates whether your credit files are linked is not holding hand, kissing or getting married. That is irrelevant. It is whether you have a joint product, such as a joint bank account, right, or a joint loan.
there isn't such thing as a joint credit card, or a joint mortgage, or in some cases, joint casting electricity bills. In that case, your files are linked. Then when you apply for credit, they can look at the other person. This would work, even if you were flat sharing with a group of mates and you had a joint bills account, they can look at the other people to decide whether to they lend to you. You said we haven't been able to get a joint account due to my husband's credit rating, and we won't go to credit ratings, don't exist, I get the point.
Well, if you did get a joint product, then that could disenfranchise you both from getting credit because they'll be looking at his when you're applying. You are arguably far, far better off to stay separate if one of you has a poor credit rating and the other one doesn't to use the common parlance of credit rating. And more so, an important reminder for those who divorce or are no longer financially linked.
then you need to get in touch with all the credit rating agencies. And I mean genuinely, getting divorced, if you've still got a joint bank account, you're still financially linked. So it's about the financials, it's not about the marital status. If you are, then you need to get in touch with the credit rating agency, or the credit reference agencies, you know, call credit Equifax Experian, and sorry, TransUnion Equifax Experian, and you need to write an ask for a notice of disassociation.
Okay, and that will separate you. And don't worry, I haven't forgot them. I am going to run through the best joint bank accounts a little bit later. Play the mastermind theme tune.
Welcome to Martin's Money Mastermind, Adrian. It is your 14th ever go. The current score, Adrian, on this usually three option multiple choice question, is you have got five right and eight wrong. Adrian, you are now riding very marginally ahead of random chance.
Therefore, we can say you are smarter than a donkey picking lottery numbers with its snout. Yes, you are now finally better than an ass. In other words, congratulations. I'll settle for that being better than an ass. Better than an ass. You can put that in your CV if you like. Yes. Well, my gravestone. Oh, yeah, it could be. I was looking at it just because I, you know, I like credit. Could I just have a dash, Martin Lewis? Of course. Absolutely. So here's the question as people know the format.
You may have seen it reported in the papers, but Adrian has a history of travel litigation. He famously sued when the airline misplaced his baggage containing his favourite West Brom Projamas. Unfortunately, he lost his case. That'll just carry on. Took your second though, didn't it? It did. Because it's that bad. And still, with that experience, I'm sure you'll be able to answer a question about flight delays, Adrian. Are you ready? Yeah.
Your flight from New York to London on Dutch airline KLM arrives four hours late. It is the airline's fault as they had an issue with staff rotors. Under the UK flight delay compensation laws, are you entitled to the usual fixed compensation? Which of these three statements, and it is only one, is correct.
Yes you are because it was over three hours late. That's A. B. No because it was from New York to London, not vice versa. It's only from flights from the UK. C. No because as it was from New York to London, not vice versa, it must be a UK airline to get compensation.
So, New York to London on Dutch airline KLM, four hours late, it was the airline's fault. Is it A, you're entitled to compensation because it was over three hours and that's the key amount. B, no, it was from New York to London. It's only for flights from the UK. C, no, because it's from New York to London. Therefore, it must be a UK airline to get compensation. Well,
It can't only apply to British airlines. So that means it must be down to either starting or finishing in London. And I can't believe if that or ill in the UK. And I can't believe if that. I just want to be very clear. Under the UK flight delay compensation looks. Yeah. Well, it's got to be
I will, I would say, tell you then, I think you are entitled to it. If it begins or originates in the UK, then I would... It didn't, it originates in New York. In New York, sorry, okay, but if it originates or terminates in the UK, then what good are those UK laws if they don't apply? They would not be better than an ass. That law would be an ass if it didn't apply. So I'm going for...
I'm going for a yes, it applies. It's a direct flight, is it? It's direct flight. OK, you're going for a? Yeah. OK, so post-Brexit, the EU Regulation 261 slash 2004 was adopted into UK law in the entirety. And this is about if you are delayed by over three hours on arrival. It's not the takeoff time. It's the arrival time. It's actually the door's opening time.
If that's over three hours late on arrival, you were entitled to a fixed amount of compensation depending on the distance of the flight and the time of the delay. Fixed compensation under this regulation. That was adopted in full into UK law. That rule says it has to be an EU flight or a UK flight.
What is defined as an EU or UK flight? Well, first of all, all flights from a UK or EU destination. So anything leaving London or Manchester, wherever it is or Glasgow, is an EU flight under the regulations and is covered by the regulations. What about the other way round? But it is differently the other way round. So you were wrong to say
that it should be covered both ways. The rules the other way round. I was right to say it should be. You may be right said it should be, but it is not practically. It said all flights to a UK or EU destination provided it is a UK or EU airline. So even though your argument was wrong, we do get to play the hallelujah.
Please. But only briefly. Only briefly. Off, off, off. Because had it been... I should never have shown my working. No. It's your working. So you know... I've just been having my daughter in my home and there's two points. One available for workings. One available for the answer. You get the one point for the answer. You don't get the point for the workings effectively. So...
Had the flight been new, and I almost wrote this in the question, now, Monalia, had it been New York to London on American Airlines, you would not be entitled to the fixed compensation. You'd have to look at whatever the American system is, and it may not. I don't think it's anywhere near as generous as the UK one. So just a couple of other things. This is the passenger, not the ticket buyer. So if you're someone else has bought your ticket, corporate ticket, it's the passenger who is entitled to the fixed amount of compensation. It must be the airline's fault. So airport problems, weather delays are not, you know, there's a lot of things.
Oh yeah, no, it's absolutely massive because it's generally the airline's fault. But the key point is when we had the storms recently and airports were closed for safety, the airline doesn't have to pay for it. Remember, you're always entitled if your flight is cancelled to an alternative flight or a refund. This is about whether you get compensation on top for cancellations or delays. I was just thinking about Adrian's answer later and the point that he missed
was there's a jurisdictional issue here. You have to have limits to UK jurisdiction because if every flight leaving and arriving in the UK were to be governed by the UK rules, they may also be governed by rules of other jurisdictions such as US compensation jurisdiction. And therefore you will have an issue as who is in authority in each case, which is why the rules work the way that they do.
On flight delays, it's worth remembering, by the way, that while I've given you the rule for a current flight delay, you can actually back claim for up to six years in England and Wales, five years in Scotland. So if you've had a flight delay even if it was a year ago, if you have got the data on it and it fulfilled all the criteria I've talked about arriving over three hours late, it being the airline's fault, then you may still be entitled to that fixed compensation. It's worth looking it up.
Right, now that's the bit of the podcast with Adrian over. I have you heard her talked about in the show. I have podcast producer, Soos, who's standing in this week to help me out while Simon's away. Soos, lovely to have you on the show. People will hear now how charming you are and why we thought you'd be able to bag Ben to come and talk on the radio. But you've got some of the remaining energy questions for me, haven't you?
Yeah, with some really great questions. Obviously it's something that's front and center after the cold snap last week. So Jack has this question for you, Martin. What's the rules on fixing? So what have you fixed? And then the price cap goes down. Can you use the cooling off period to change your fix again if the price cap ends up cheaper?
I don't think that's ever going to happen to be honest with you because your calling off period is pretty short and you get the announcement of the next price cap a good few weeks before that price cap comes into place. So you would always know when the price cap is going to move, you would know that in advance. So I think that's very unlikely for it to happen. But if we take the big principle of
If I fix and later prices get cheaper or the price gets cheaper so that I'm paying too much on the fix, what can I do? Well, it wouldn't be a cooling off period. It would be an early exit penalties issue. When you are in a fix, most, not all firms will levy early exit penalties if you leave before the end of the fix. Now, the first thing to understand
is they are not legally allowed to levy those penalties in the last 50 days. So from day 49 to go, and until the fix ends, you are free to leave without penalties. They may not tell you that, but that's the rules. They can't do it. So I would always put in my diary if I'm on a fix 50 days before the fix is due to end, because that's the point at which you're free to move without any early exit penalties.
If we look at the penalties that are on most of the cheap fixes at the moment, most of them right now are £50 per fuel, so £50 per gas, £50 electricity, so £100 if you are dual fuel. If we look at that for somebody on typical use, which is around £1,700 a year,
That means the exit penalties are equivalent to a round of 5% of what you pay a year. Now clearly, if you're a very high user and you're paying £10,000 a year, the exit penalties are trivial. So effectively, you're free to ditch and switch because it won't really have any bearing. If you could save 5% on £10,000, well, you'd be saving 500 quid, so the 50 quid or 100 quid exit penalties are neither hitherto.
But for most people, it's around 5% of your bill. So you would need prices to be dropping very substantially before it was worth paying the exit penalties. And what I would remind people, what people find difficult here conceptually is you have to think of your fix as it's a piece of mind play over a set period.
If you're fixing for a year, and you're saving in the first three months, and you're saving in the second lot of three months, and you're saving in the third lot of three months, but because it's a bit further out and things change, the price cap drops are actually paying slightly more than the price cap in the last three months.
People sit there and go, oh, I'm paying too much now. You have to think of it over the year. In total, you will have paid less over the year. You have benefited from it. Yes, of course, in that last three months, you would be weighing up, should I ditch? Well, to make it worth it for, because in the last three months, remember, you can leave with 49 days to go, which means effectively you've only got 41 days in which you're locked in, to pay to get out a few days early, 100 quid just wouldn't be worth it.
have to be so much cheaper for the saving over those extra days to be worth it to move early, I wouldn't bother. So in most cases, when you're going for a fix, you should be thinking, is this going to save me money on average over the fix period? And if it is, you know,
I'll live with it. If you're on a much longer fix, then I think the early exit penalties come into play. And if you're worried, I wouldn't be locking myself into a very long fix, which has big early exit penalties. Some of them in over recent years have been up there in the two, three hundred pounds per fuel. And that really does prohibit you from fixing. But on a longer fix, if it were two or three years, then the 50 quid isn't that much over how much you'd pay over two, three years, so it may be worth doing it. I went on a bit long. That was a long fix and a long answer.
What have you got next? Okay, quite a few people asking this question. So, we've got listeners who are on octopus track and tariffs, more than one, otherwise we wouldn't be asking the questions. I've had this maybe from four or five different people, a version of this question. Martin says, Pauline, what are your thoughts on tracker for both electricity and gas? I'm on octopus and just renewed. Roly also says, I'm quite happy with it so far. Is it worth fixing?
Okay, so Octopus has two innovative tariffs, the tracker and the agile. The tracker is gas and electricity, the agile is electricity only. There's also a firm tomato that has something very similar to the agile that has come out. The tracker tariff is a tariff where the price that you pay changes every day depends, depending roughly on current wholesale rates. So over the last couple of years, it has been substantially cheaper than the price cap.
But in the last couple of months, the benefit has diminished somewhat, and there have certainly been some days where you're paying more than the price cap, and that's because wholesale rates are rising. So in a period where wholesale rates are rising, the tracker is a less attractive deal than it is at other times.
But overall, it is still a pretty good deal and has been for most. I'm going to come onto my problem with it in a moment. I should also say that the agile tariff is where the price of electricity you pay changes every half hour based on wholesale rates. Now generally, that means overnight it's very, very cheap.
And during the day, it's expensive and at peak times it can be way more expensive than the price cap. So it's a very good tariff for those people who can shift all their usage or have batteries, for example, that they can store power in and then use the battery power at the expensive peak times because sometimes overnight you can actually be paid for using electricity because there's such an excess in the system that you actually get paid to use it. So if you could then charge up your batteries and use them during the day or you could get all your storage heaters on or whatever it is overnight, it can be incredibly effective. So these offer sophisticated users.
the Agile tariff, track a less so, but still you have to be prepared to deal with the volatility. Now, I'm going to give you my issue with these time of use tariffs. See, I've answered a podcast and I can go into detail in probably a bit more than I would normally. My issue, and I've raised this with the government, I've raised this with the Secretary of State for Energy, and I've raised this with Ofcon. Here's a problem on time of use tariffs.
The government is keen for us to move to more of more time of use tariffs, where you're paid based on the wholesale rates at the time, and especially these agile tariffs. Because of course the ultimate goal is to shift people's uses out of peak time. If we do that, we need less generating capacity in the country, which would bring down bills for everyone. That's one of the reasons they want smart meters in, so that they can do this. The problem for me from a consumer perspective,
is how do you compare and how do you know if you've got competition? The only data I have on Octopus Agile and Tracker prices is past data. I don't have future data. So now let's fast forward two or three years' time. And suddenly we have 10 of these time-of-use tariffs. We now have two, Tomato and Octopus, coming out who are trying to push it mainstream. But we have 10, 15, and most of the big companies are having them and trying to shift people to them. And all you can do is look at their retrospective pricing.
So how do you compare who's going to be cheapest? That's bad for consumers. So what I have asked the government to do is I think firms should be forced to publish their pricing algorithms. So how do they decide what they are going to charge based to the wholesale rates at that moment?
If they published their pricing algorithms, it would probably be in a way that consumers couldn't understand because they would be really be complicated. But it would mean that trusted intermediaries could build tools that enable you to put in your usage over the past year and then play out a number of scenarios, compare all the different 10 time of use tariffs based on their pricing algorithm in those scenarios and tell you which would be cheaper.
So people ask me about the track of tariff and all I can say is it has been pretty good over the last year but I don't know the price in going forward because we don't know the pricing algorithm. I suspect it would still be good but I don't know the pricing algorithm. So I think there is a consumer issue to be looked at in these time of use tariffs.
as to how we make them truly transparent. None of that is knocking what Octopus has done. It's been innovative. It's saved a lot of people money by doing these tariffs. But I think as we move into a more widespread time of use system, where you're having to choose between different time of use tariffs, we're going to need a level of transparency to allow people to compare and choose what is right for them.
OK, let's talk electric vehicles. So this text came in while we were on air. We've just come off air and hopped into the studio. And Andy and Cheshire says, can I fix if I have an electric car tariff and also Catherine on Facebook was asking you what are the best deals for people with EVs? OK, there are two types of electric vehicle tariff.
The first type, which is generally offered by over unscottish power, are add-on tariffs. Now what that means is you can get any of their normal tariffs, including fixes, and then you can add on a much cheaper rate, very substantially cheaper rate, you know, less than half the cost.
which you pay only for charging your vehicle, you need the right equipment to do it, so that your electric vehicle is paying a much lower rate for charging as an add-on to whatever its normal tariff is, and that's over in Scottish Power. The alternative type of EV tariff, so that's very useful for those people who want to fix. As long as you can get a decent fix at over Scottish Power, they're not that cheap at the moment, but sometimes they are, sometimes they have cheap fixes, then you can lock in, you can get a fix, and then for your electric vehicle, you pay a lower rate anyway.
The other rate is two-rate tariffs, which give you cheaper electricity overnight. They offer between five and seven hours off-peak a day, typically midnight to five AM, and they're charging and paying around seven to ten per kilowatt hour rather than the price cap of 23 per kilowatt hour. The benefit with these is if you've got other appliances, you're getting that cheap overnight rate too, and you can use them on other appliances where the add-on type is only for the
for the electric vehicle, the dis-benefit of this is you're not getting a fix, you're reliant on whatever they're pricing during the day. And that's what most other firms offer. So the add-on tariff is good if you've got an electric vehicle and just normal usage, then go get a normal fix and do an add-on.
The electric vehicle tariff is good if your electric vehicle is a very large portion of your energy or a large portion of your energy bills and there's other energy uses that you can shift to those off peak hours as well. You've got storage heaters and you've got a way of putting on your washing machine overnight. I'm slightly nervous of drying machines because they can be a fire risk of putting them on overnight or other things that use electricity overnight. So that's the choice that's going there.
And there are some good articles online about the various EV tariffs out there. It's very difficult to do in the comparison site because it depends on your personal usage and comparison sites simply aren't up to that yet. Can you bear one more cheeky little question on energy? This is from at Undertwock. That's his name. He is on Twitter. I don't even know actually who's male. I'm going to call him Twock. OK, great. And they say, is it time to start taking a heat the person rather than a heat the home approach?
Well my word is heat the human not the home and many people will be aware when we got to the really big energy crisis a couple of years ago I worked on a heat the human not the home guide and I didn't do that with relish I did it with gritted teeth
Because it isn't the way that we in our modern world, we should be looking. It's bad for the fabric of your house, heating the human, not the home. It can cause damage to the house. It's not a particularly pleasant situation to be in, but absolutely for those people who are really struggling on their bills and have no other choice.
Things such as USB heated because USB is very cheap to run, USB heated jillays or soles of your shoes or gloves, wearing layering, clothing, piling everything up, making sure you're being clever with your tactical curtains, you know, you have your curtains open during the day when the sun comes in to generate heat, you make sure you close them as soon as it gets dark.
I'm changing the heating temperature in your boilers to bring that down. There's money-savingboilerchallenge.com. I think is a website. I'd have to double-check that. It's something like that. It's nothing to do with me, even though it's got money-saving in there. I mean, all of those things are relevant, and our Heat the Human Guide has been very popular amongst people who are struggling. But is it time? Well, my answer is no. I hope it isn't, but for some it is.
Now let's nip back for a final few tellers, and then I'm going to go into those best joint accounts for you. The tellers, of course, if you're part of a couple, how do you manage the finances? Soos, you've got a few there. You've got the ones from X, and I've got the ones from Facebook. Why don't you stop?
OK, I think this one is mildly controversial. So it's sort of simmer. It's on simmering away. Emma says this, one specific account for bills, which everyone seems to do, then we cover the cost, pro-routed to our respective salaries, as I earn significantly more. So we each contribute the same relative percentage of earnings, live together six years, works fine.
I don't think it's that controversial at all, I think that's absolutely fine. She earns more, therefore she contributes more, because it's done on earnings. Again, if we go back, if we travel back in time,
Hello. It's 1952. I'm a man. I go out to work and earn a large amount of income. I'm married to the little lady who stays at home to look after the house, do the cooking and look after the children. We have one joint account. We both spend from it. She's in charge of the budgeting, of course, because that's a household chore.
I mean, that was a proper stereotype of how it often worked. And therefore, there was one joint account. It was pro-rata to earnings because one earned to 100% of the income and the other had none of the income. And to do it in a way that you still keep charge of your independent finances, but you pro-rata the bills based on earnings, especially if there's a really big differential, seems pretty fair to me. I mean, you are a couple. And you've made that declaration that you're shared. I mean, let's just remember,
If you get divorced, I mean, you work how you work in your marriage, but if you get divorced, the general principles are things are shared 50 50. So the argument that you shouldn't be doing that within your marriage, I'm not sure how controversial it is. Fascinating. Here's one. Malcolm on Twitter. No joint account. I've always paid for big items and utilities. My other half for food. Never asked how much she earns. And she's never asked how much iron haven't done any budgeting since we paid off the mortgage. So it's clearly working. Okay.
I find this fascinating whether you know how much your partner earns or not. Because I talk about money all the time, so I think money is a really interesting subject, but I know some people find it taboo. I do find that fascinating. Let me do one from Sophie. Shared bank account for everything with separate pots for different budgets, well done, including our own personal spending pots, which we call pocket money. A spreadsheet budgeting tool used that we got from CAP, Christian Skenspoverty, that is, years ago, and a budget meeting on the day we get pay slips.
from me for the budgeting meeting, works most of the time. We recently decided to make sure everything was joined on both on names and everything, as when my friend's dad died, her mum had zero idea about the finances and couldn't access anything just in his name, lost lots of money. Well, there are ways to sort that we talked about earlier, but whatever works for you. I mean, some of this all depends on the trusted nature of the relationship. And in a way,
I mentioned divorce before but what it's actually the situation is more difficult for those who aren't married or in civil partnerships than those who are because if you're not married you have less legal rights if you have a joint account to whose money is whom if you are married then the argument is when you get divorced things are split and there's a there's a way of deciding who gets what beforehand there's no contractual obligation between the two of you and it is somewhat tougher if you got more I've got a couple more to read
I have got a couple more actually. So this one says, main current and savings account is joint, but I have separate other savings. My husband used to be the financial whiz and I was terrible. But after 35 years together, somewhere along the line, the roles have reversed. I deal with all of the finances now.
Yeah, and as long as you both understand that, that's good. Let me do Michelle. My partner earns four times my wage. He pays all the household bills, cars, shopping, and I give him a small contribution per month. He keeps an Excel spreadsheet of all incomeings and outgoings. I work part-time and study part-time. What I have after my contribution is mine to do with what I want. I will often pay for holidays, days out, weekends away. We have joint savings.
There are ultimately no right or wrongs here. It's about how you work it together in a trusted, loving relationship, whatever you want to do is right. The issues come if there's no trust or there's no love or the relationship ends. And that's where the problems come, which is about having a formula you're both properly happy with is so important. Whatever it is, I would never think to dictate to people.
Now it's time for me to run through the top joint bank accounts, which no surprise are the same bank accounts that are just top general accounts because all main bank accounts allow you to open an account jointly as well as singly. Now it's worth noting I'm going to be talking about the free cash bonuses for switching.
If you switch a joint bank account, you only get one lot of free cash bonus. If you switch a single bank account and move it to be a joint bank account, you only get one lot of free cash bonus. If you both have independent bank accounts and your newbies to the bank, then you and you switch them and they stay independent bank accounts, you get two lots of free cash bonus. So it is worth factoring that in into how you do it.
So what we've got available at the moment at the beginning of the year, there are three accounts that will give you free money for switching. You've got First Direct, which its first account pays you £175 for new switches. It's always had top service, 91% great service. It's got a 7% regular saver, a maximum of 300 quid a month, you can put in that. It's got a top debit card for spending overseas, so you get near perfect exchange rates, and most people get a 0% overdraft up to 250 quid.
The nationwide flex direct is also 175 pounds for free. I'd call it a good all-rounder. You get 5% interest on up to 1500 quid put in there so it's easy access savings if you like. 1% cashback for a year and there's a maximum of 5 quid a month on your spending on the debit card and a 6.5% regular savings account but there's a lower maximum in there than first direct so you get less interest over the year at 200 pounds a month.
And then there's a really interesting account for people who have a joint bills account which we know is very common. It is the Santander edge. I'm pausing because my New Year's resolution is to say Santander correctly rather than Santander. I think I got it. Okay, you get a 150 quid for switching to that but you pay £3 a month. However,
It gives you cashback on the bills you pay from that account via direct debit. So you get 1% cashback on the bills that you pay up to a maximum £10 a month. For someone with typical bills, that will easily cover the £3 a month fee and more. You also get £1 cashback on your grocery and travel spend on the debit card up to a £10 a month again. Those are two separate £10 a month, so it could be a maximum £20 a month of cashback.
It also has a top debit card for spending overseas and you get 6% easy access savings, which is better than the top easy access savings account up to a maximum £4,000. So if you have a joint bills account, you may as well have one that is giving you 1% cash back on the bills that you're paying from it. So the bills strong fan of Santander Edge there. Just the other thing I would mention when we're talking joint bank accounts is there are a number of packaged bank accounts out there.
Now, a package bank account is where you pay a proper monthly fee, you know, £12.50, £15.17.50 a month, but it includes insurance. I tend to think of it in a way as a way of paying for insurance and you get a bank account as well. So, for example, you've got the Virgin Money Club M,
which gives you family, mobile phone and gadget cover, worldwide family travel insurance up to age 74 and UK and European breakdown cover for the account holders. You pay £12.50 a month, 150 quid a year. Well, family mobile phone cover, if you've all got smartphones and worldwide family travel insurance, if you're going to go abroad and breakdown cover would cost you more than 150 quid a year. So as long as you're actually would be paying for those insurances separately, that is a very good deal.
You've got similar at the co-op and nationwide, though they cost a little bit more. Worth noting this one. Club Lloyd Silver account is slightly cheaper. It's £11.50 a month. The UK roadside breakdown cover is for account holders and eligible family members.
But clearly, if you get a joint account, even if it's only one of your accounts, but you're a trusting relationship, so let's say it's my account, Sue's, and we're normally Mary Adrian, I'm marrying you today. It's my account, Sue's, you're not going to use it, but I might just put you on it if we're in a trusted, loving relationship, because then you get the account holder benefits as well.
for when you want to do. So you've got Europe at UK Roadside Breakdown Cover, you've got Europe and UK Family Travel Cover, you've got mobile phone cover for the account holder. So obviously if we're in the joint account and we were a couple, the others are family policies, then if I put you on the account, you also get your mobile phone cover, even if you're not really using the account, and you get to choose an annual reward like 12 months Disney Plus.
All of those are worth looking at. Absolutely make sure you're choosing your bank account based on your situation. These all have minimum pay-ins. Some of those I've talked about. They've all got eligibility criteria. I'm not dotting the eyes and crossing the teas. See it as a here's something you should go and do a little bit more research on rather than the definitely do this on the back of what I've said because I haven't given absolutely every detail. But I hope that takes you there just a little bit.
That's it for this week. If you've enjoyed it, please tell your friends you've been listening to the Martin Lewis podcast. We tend to put a new episode out every Thursday. Subscribe to keep up to date and then your pockets will be pleased with you. And if you haven't enjoyed it, I have zero sympathy. You know, this has been over an hour. You've listened for all that time. You're at the end of the podcast. You have an off button, you know. Just press it next time. Well, don't. I'll try and be better. I'm sorry.
Martin Lewis is the founder of moneysavingexpert.com. But of course, other consumer and price comparison websites are available. You can get in touch with Martin's podcast team by emailing martinluispodcast at bbc.co.uk The offers and rates mentioned in the podcast are correct at the time of recording. However, if you're listening on demand, it's worth double checking as the details can date.
BBC sounds, music, radio, podcasts.
Yoga is more than just exercise. It's the spiritual practice that millions swear by. And in 2017, Miranda, a university tutor from London, joins a yoga school that promises profound transformation. It felt a really safe and welcoming space. After the yoga classes, I felt amazing.
But soon, that calm, welcoming atmosphere leads to something far darker, a journey that leads to allegations of grooming, trafficking and exploitation across international borders. I don't have my passport, I don't have my phone, I don't have my bank cards, I have nothing. The passport being taken, the being in a house and not feeling like they can leave.
World of Secrets is where untold stories are unveiled and hidden realities are exposed. In this new series, we're confronting the dark side of the wellness industry with the hope of a spiritual breakthrough gives way to disturbing accusations. You just get sucked in so gradually.
and it's done so skillfully that you don't realise. And it's like this, the secret that's there. I wanted to believe that, you know, that
Whatever they were doing, even if it seemed gross to me, was for some spiritual reason that I couldn't yet understand. Revealing the hidden secrets of a global yoga network, I feel that I have no other choice. The only thing I can do is to speak about this and to put my reputation and everything else on the line. I want truth and justice.
and further people to not be hurt for things to be different in the future. To bring it into the light and almost alchemise some of that evil stuff that went on and take back the power. World of Secrets Season 6, the Bad Guru. Listen wherever you get your podcasts.
Was this transcript helpful?
Recent Episodes
Car Insurance Prices DROPPING… a perverse warning | Base rate cut help

The Martin Lewis Podcast
Martin explains why you should still shop around for the best deal, even if your car insurance renewal is lower than last year. Plus reaction to the interest rates cut, the latest on April's energy cap price change and you tell us what your job has taught you about money. To get in touch with the podcast email martinlewispodcast@bbc.co.uk.
February 06, 2025
Holiday hacks: cheapest way to spend abroad, car hire, insurance, 18 days off for 9 days leave, passports, GHIC…

The Martin Lewis Podcast
Martin shares holiday tips, including ways to save on foreign transactions and annual leave maximization. He also discusses how children misunderstand money concepts, explains credit rating fundamentals, suggests techniques for reducing water bills, and offers a method to reduce energy standing charges by £100.
January 30, 2025
Banned: Mobile & broadband mid-contract inflation price hikes, yet many’ll still pay more!

The Martin Lewis Podcast
Martin and Adrian discuss rules against surprise price hikes mid-contract for broadband and mobile deals, provide tips on getting the best prices, and let listeners share budgeting advice.
January 23, 2025
Get travel insurance ASAP or it can be disastrous: when to get it, how to choose, pre-existing conditions & more

The Martin Lewis Podcast
Martin discusses travel insurance, legality of cats vs dogs, energy bill increases, LISAs for retirement, no-fault car insurance claims, and car hire abroad.
January 09, 2025

Ask this episodeAI Anything

Hi! You're chatting with The Martin Lewis Podcast AI.
I can answer your questions from this episode and play episode clips relevant to your question.
You can ask a direct question or get started with below questions -
What was the main topic of the podcast episode?
Summarise the key points discussed in the episode?
Were there any notable quotes or insights from the speakers?
Which popular books were mentioned in this episode?
Were there any points particularly controversial or thought-provoking discussed in the episode?
Were any current events or trending topics addressed in the episode?
Sign In to save message history