My wife and I hold our savings and current accounts jointly. The only accounts we keep separately are our cash Isas and stocks and shares Isas.
Whenever we invest in our stocks and shares Isas with J.P. Morgan Personal Investing, we put exactly the same amount into each account.
In August, I transferred £5,000 from our joint savings account into both Isas.
The money reached my Isa the next day, but several days passed and the payment to my wife’s Isa had still not arrived.
When we contacted the provider to ask why the payments had been returned, we were told that my wife’s Isa had been ‘blocked’.
I made another attempt in September. The payment failed at first, then appeared to go through, which was a relief. However, a few days later the £5,000 was sent back to our joint savings account.
We have been trying to establish why these payments are being stopped, but so far we have been unable to get a clear explanation.
Why has this block been placed on the account? We are simply trying to invest money in my wife’s Isa. D.B., Hemel Hempstead.
A reader has struggled to transfer £5,000 into his wife’s Isa after the payments were repeatedly rejected
Lucy Evans, of This is Money, replies: You and your wife have been married for 53 years and have managed your finances together throughout your marriage.
The reason you have separate Isas is simply that the Government does not permit couples to hold a joint Isa.
Each person has an annual Isa allowance of £20,000, which can be used for saving or investing within these tax-efficient accounts. Because the allowance belongs to the individual, allowing joint Isas could create complications over who was entitled to the tax benefits.
You had been happy with the returns from your stocks and shares Isa with J.P. Morgan Personal Investing, previously known as Nutmeg, and wanted to continue investing through the platform.
However, when you attempted to make a further £5,000 contribution, the transfer was unexpectedly blocked.
You also explained that your wife has Alzheimer’s disease and that you have a formal arrangement allowing you to help manage her financial affairs.
Despite this, the firm insisted on discussing the blocked payments with your wife by telephone. This left her confused, upset and uncomfortable.
Transferring money into an Isa should not have become such a difficult process, so I contacted the provider on your behalf.
A spokesman for J.P. Morgan Personal Investing told me that the payments had been rejected because they came from a bank account showing your initials rather than your wife’s name.
You maintain, however, that the transfers were made from an account held jointly by both of you.
The spokesman also said the bank had previously warned that restrictions could be applied if further payments were made from an account that was not held in your wife’s name.
It means that payments into the Isa were blocked earlier this year, so your two attempts to make a £5,000 payment bounced.
A spokesman says: ‘We tried on a number of occasions to explain to our client about the need to use a bank account for the payment that was in the account holder’s name.
‘However, in this case our communications could have been clearer when our teams tried to help the couple resolve the payments issue.
‘We have checks in place to help ensure that payments into our customers’ accounts are made correctly.
‘These measures are designed to protect our clients and make sure that money paid into an account comes from a legitimate source.
‘We recognise that customers in vulnerable circumstances may need additional support when managing their personal finances.
‘We apologise for any distress these interactions might have caused.’
An employee told you that the issue lay in you having joint savings and current accounts, as the firm has difficulty processing money from these clients.
You are delighted that the block has now been removed from the account and you’ve managed to pay in £5,000.
A £150 goodwill gesture has also been added to your wife’s Isa.
You add: ‘It’s not expected, but hopefully they will now change their procedures to prevent a similar reoccurrence.’
