Pod Insights The Martin Lewis Podcast Urgent: beat the energy bills rip off! Are joint accounts worth it, and what’s the best? About this episode After last week’s cold snap, Martin shares his best tips on how to save money on your energy bills, including whether or not it’s worth fixing. In “Tell Us” this week, Martin finds out how people are managing their household finances as well as recommending the best joint accounts. And it’s another round of Mastermind for Adrian, quizzing his knowledge on flight compensation schemes.
Transcript 14,209 words · 7 speakers
Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.
0:00 Martin Lewis? This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK.
0:05 Speaker 01 Hosts Thanksgiving with industry-leading quality standards from Whole Foods Market. There are no antibiotics in their meat department, ever, so carve up turkey and spiral cut ham with peace of mind. Shop organic sides like stuffing mix and cranberry sauce from 365 brand. And guess what? All their delectable pies are made with no high fructose corn syrup. Gourmet Thanksgiving flavours with the quality you want, only at Whole Foods Market.
0:34 Speaker 02 Sometimes we all need an extra help in hand, especially with the tricky business problem you've been putting off. Claude is an AI for just that. It's the collaborator that understands your entire workflow and thinks with you, not for you. And Claude isn't just for quick questions. Hand it a whole task like turning a folder of scattered notes into a report, and it does the work and hands back something finished that you can open and edit. Claude can now draft a doc or deck right in front of you, and Claude Design now lives right inside Claude. Describe the website or prototype you're picturing, attach your design system, and it comes back in your own design language, ready to edit right on the canvas. It works with your files and the tools you already use, like Gmail and Slack.
1:18 Speaker 02 And whether you're debugging code at midnight, building a financial model, or strategising your next business move, Claude extends your thinking to tackle the problems that matter. For problems worth solving, get started with Claude at claude.ai/solve. That's claude.ai/solve. And check out Claude Pro, which includes access to all of the features mentioned in today's episode. Claude.ai/solve.
1:47 Speaker 03 BBC Sounds, music, radio, podcasts.
1:50 Martin Lewis? 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 Charles, but there's also bonus money-saving tips just for you lucky, lucky podcast listeners. In today's pod, energy bills.
2:10 Martin Lewis? Eighty percent 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? Spoiler: 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.
2:51 Martin Lewis? And finally, when are you entitled to compensation if your flight has been delayed? Play the theme tune, Suze.
3:17 Speaker 04 That's the sound of Lunch Money Lewis. That is the name of the...
3:23 Martin Lewis? It's the name of the group who sung that, yeah.
3:25 Speaker 04 Fantastic. And heralding Martin Lewis's 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 and the planet? Or should we narrow it down to...
3:42 Martin Lewis? 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.
3:57 Martin Lewis? You didn't mean it, you meant it slightly flippantly, but I'll answer it. I will always, I always remember one of the very early BBC shows I did. It was a BBC television programme 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, you know, 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, and I fought it.
4:42 Martin Lewis? These days, I just say, I'm not doing it. Change the name. And they probably changed the name. 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, 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, and you know, 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 dropping, 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
5:24 Martin Lewis? it comes to this. And the future, the short midterm future is not looking good on energy.
5:29 Speaker 04 So where are we with the, where are we with the price cap then?
5:34 Martin Lewis? Okay, so let's just talk about what's going on. We saw in October, the price cap rise by 10% on the first 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 your fix ended and you've not changed. It's you if you're on a special tariff, your special tariff ended and you didn't change afterwards. It's only not you if you have actively and deliberately chosen
6:16 Martin Lewis? 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 price cap tariff the standard variable tariff. If you're with Octopus, it's the flexible tariff. If you're with E.ON, 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.
7:01 Martin Lewis? Now, when we last talked about energy on the show in December, before the Christmas break, 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.
7:42 Martin Lewis? 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 3% to 5% 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.
8:23 Martin Lewis? They're saying it'll be down a smidge in July, 0.2%, and up a smidge, 0.5% in October. But on top, that's on top of the rise that we're having in April. So in, you know, 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.
8:54 Speaker 04 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."
9:08 Martin Lewis? 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 E.ON, who now do their own numbers, and these are based by the analysts at those firms who are clearly tracking it very carefully. The 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 as it, or higher, and at least as high or higher likely after that, but less certain after that. Now, we factor that in.
9:52 Martin Lewis? 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, you know, 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.
10:37 Martin Lewis? 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.
10:58 Martin Lewis? Before it's gonna get that much cheaper than the fixes that you're seeing in the price cap over the next year. So for me, on the, 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 cap then. But if you factor the whole next 12 or 16 months in, 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
11:39 Martin Lewis? 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 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 getter 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.
12:12 Speaker 04 We've had our sweetest talking producer trying to woo him to come on air.
12:17 Martin Lewis? Sue's.
12:18 Speaker 04 And he's, he's.
12:20 Martin Lewis? I mean, if you can say no to Sue's.
12:22 Speaker 04 Yes, he's resisting. Come on, Ben.
12:24 Martin Lewis? We will take, we'll 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 you can get a cheap, a fix cheaper than the price cap, and you're protected from those very, very likely to happen future price hikes.
12:41 Speaker 04 Kenny wants to know, can you fix if you're not on a smart meter?
12:44 Martin Lewis? 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 to smart meter, i.e. 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, on the table I'm looking at in front of me, none of them require you
13:24 Martin Lewis? 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. People will know from, if you listen to the interview we had with Ofgem that came, you know, a couple of months ago on the show, I have been urging the government to change energy firms' targets to, it's the number of working smart meters they have, rather than the 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.
14:00 Speaker 04 Should Ryan get any credit refunded to him before refixing for 16 months?
14:07 Martin Lewis? It's an irrelevant, 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. But 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. I mean, some companies do it seasonally, but most divide it by 12. And the reason for that is if not,
14:52 Martin Lewis? you would have really big bills in the winter and really bad bills in the summer. And if they that if 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 is 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.
15:38 Martin Lewis? So my rule of thumb would be this, I probably would not be asking for credit back right now, assuming my direct debit's the right amount and assuming you've done a meter reading because if not, there's no point. 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. And I had £400 a month in credit, I'd probably leave it. If I had a thousand pound in credit, I'd want 600, 700 quid 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,
16:22 Martin Lewis? ask for the credit back. If you're not, I'd probably leave it at the moment because that, you know, that that's your little slush fund in order to 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. You know, 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.
16:47 Speaker 04 Okay. And a sign that they've got it right is that you're at zero in May.
16:52 Martin Lewis? But no, it gets more. No, no. But again, a sign that they've got it right is you're not building, 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 their 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.
17:12 Speaker 04 Yeah.
17:13 Martin Lewis? And 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 got a bill, you then pay afterwards. If you do that, that is seven to nine percent more expensive than direct debit. The rates you will pay are seven to nine percent 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 them. If you do that, you stay on the cheap direct debit rates. So if you're
17:57 Martin Lewis? 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 better, the cheaper way to do it, I won't go better because it depends on your view of direct debits, the cheaper way to do it is variable direct debit.
18:10 Speaker 04 Okay. Um, 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?
18:27 Martin Lewis? It depends. Okay.
18:30 Martin Lewis? So if you are with British Gas, EDF, E.ON, 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.
19:08 Martin Lewis? 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 way it works. Now, your question was more specific about if they didn't supply. I think, I mean, I've never heard of it happening. It's very rare now with all the major suppliers you'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.
19:46 Speaker 04 How would you mess this up?
19:48 Martin Lewis? Easily.
19:49 Speaker 04 Well, 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 says, I know for a fact that energy prices are going to grow much more than people are saying. So then I'd, trying to be clever, I'd then take out an extremely long fix rate at a not particular big discount, thinking, you know, I know something, which are the stuff. I mean, it's a semi-serious question because I suppose what I'm asking, are there fix rate products out there which are a seriously bad idea, which you could sign up to?
20:29 Martin Lewis? Yes, the first thing, we're talking about cheap fixing, right? 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. So 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 it'd be more tricky to do this.
21:07 Martin Lewis? I tend to look at fixes going out to 18 months. After that, I'm a bit quiet and I shall be honest with with people listening. I'm a bit quiet because it's simply a
21:20 Martin Lewis? of data.
21:21 Speaker 04 Yeah.
21:21 Martin Lewis? 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 at no more than the current price cap.
21:47 Speaker 04 At a level you are comfortable with.
21:49 Martin Lewis? Then that's not a bad decision. It might be a bad decision in hindsight, but you know,
21:56 Martin Lewis? I often get say people often get confused with with a, it wouldn't be a bad, 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.
22:11 Speaker 04 Absolutely, in life and football and everything.
22:13 Martin Lewis? 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 are, people often ask me. And to talk about, so 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 a hundred pounds, Adrian.
22:43 Martin Lewis? Simple as that, on the toss of a coin, we'll pretend it's a real coin. I'm not really offering him that bet. It is not legal contract. Okay, would you take the bet?
22:50 Speaker 04 Yes, I would.
22:50 Martin Lewis? Okay, so call.
22:52 Speaker 04 Uh, heads.
22:56 Martin Lewis? It's tails. Was it a bad bet?
22:58 Speaker 04 Uh, no.
22:59 Martin Lewis? No.
23:00 Speaker 04 Didn't work out.
23:01 Martin Lewis? 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 quid if it went wrong. Now, when we do that very simple decision, on a fifty fifty 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 moved 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.
23:46 Martin Lewis? 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 recognizing the difference between the two.
24:02 Speaker 04 Do you want to speak to Louise in Plymouth?
24:03 Martin Lewis? Let's do it.
24:04 Speaker 04 I'd like to. Louise, how are you doing?
24:07 Speaker 05 Hello, Adrian. I'm fine, thank you. Hello, Martin.
24:09 Martin Lewis? Hello.
24:10 Speaker 04 Go on. So what have you got for us? It's about standing charges?
24:14 Speaker 05 Yes, it is. So I know that Martin has campaigned hard on behalf of people like myself, who are very low users, that the standing charges relatively unfair. But equally, I understand that people who need to have lifesaving 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 is he that the standing charges will not be reduced to make the bills fairer for very low users like myself? If a greater weight is applied to usage rather than standing charges for the next fourteen months, then I don't want to fix.
25:00 Martin Lewis? How low is very low? Roughly what are you paying a month?
25:07 Speaker 05 I am paying £50 a month.
25:10 Martin Lewis? That's extremely low. So you're an ex, I mean, that's hardly energy. So you're basically 50% of your cost is standing charge, 50% of your cost is, is, is energy use. Yeah.
25:21 Speaker 05 Yeah.
25:22 Martin Lewis? 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.
25:42 Speaker 05 Okay.
25:42 Martin Lewis? 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 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 hire users, just as you've talked about with medical equipment, and then you can bring standing charges down for everybody,
26:23 Martin Lewis? which is what most people want. The government hasn't yet said that, so the regulator isn't bringing standing charges down, but is investigating and hopefully going to bring in a proposal that I need to be honest, was mine and my team's, which is where we, you have two price caps. You have one that's the current one with a 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 usage of 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.
27:05 Martin Lewis? 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. 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 insure 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 charge at the £50 cheaper. So if you just wanted, you could stick on the price cap with a £50 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.
27:50 Speaker 05 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.
27:58 Martin Lewis? Well, then you have, then you limit your choices.
28:00 Speaker 05 I know, I realise that.
28:02 Martin Lewis? I mean, luckily, the one advantage is the savings of fixing and the savings of doing anything when you're paying 600 quid a year are not that big anyway, because it's a percentage based saving. So, I mean, I wouldn't, I wouldn't be slapping your wrist very hard. I mean, I'd always slap it a little bit because, you know, I have to do that.
28:20 Speaker 04 I wouldn't, Louise.
28:21 Martin Lewis? I wouldn't be slapping it 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 to stay with us, would you pay £50 or would you move elsewhere?
28:35 Speaker 04 Hmm. You'll have to come back to us on that one. I'll leave you to ruminate.
28:43 Martin Lewis? Because that's what you're doing by not moving.
28:44 Speaker 04 Yeah.
28:45 Speaker 05 Okay.
28:46 Speaker 04 Okay, Louise, thanks.
28:47 Martin Lewis? Thanks, Louise.
28:48 Speaker 04 Thanks for getting in touch.
28:49 Speaker 05 Thank you, Martin.
28:50 Speaker 04 All the best, my dentist, Louise, in Plymouth.
28:52 Martin Lewis? And quite a few more of your questions to come on energy that we'll do a little bit later.
28:59 Speaker 04 Where are we? Oh, yes, today's tell us, tell us about the tell us, Martin.
29:04 Martin Lewis? So today's tell us 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?
29:26 Speaker 04 Okay, 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 which pays 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 didn't sound completely legal, something called Snoop.
29:46 Martin Lewis? It is legal, it's a bit of a competitor 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. So 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? So 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.
30:26 Martin Lewis? So the minority of people have a joint account for everything these days. On Instagram, which has had 40,000 votes, 4% not in a 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 odd thousand 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.
31:10 Martin Lewis? 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 breakup 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 but a joint bills account, not in every circumstances, there's some issues where that can be a problem. And works well, I think, and it is what most people are doing. Shall I read a couple of these? Alison.
31:49 Martin Lewis? 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.
32:02 Speaker 04 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 how much 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.
32:18 Martin Lewis? Yeah, I'm never going to interfere with whatever works for you, as long as it works for both of you. Susan, I sort 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 wrist. I'm sorry, it's my second slap wrist on the programme. I absolutely understand that you are the lead financial manager in your relationship, but this is where the three Ds come in. It's not very pleasant. Death, divorce, dementia. If you do everything and one of those three Ds hits and your husband had to take over the finances or vice versa, if it were in another relationship, he is
33:03 Martin Lewis? 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
33:48 Martin Lewis? 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 three Ds hit. Forgive me for being a bit, I hope it's not patronising.
34:05 Speaker 04 So 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 means test the contribution?
34:20 Martin Lewis? Well, 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're in 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 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 the one who earns less, or maybe
35:02 Martin Lewis? isn't working, maybe doing other things in the home, may have just as many responsibilities. And if you consent, 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.
35:23 Speaker 04 Okay. A friend of ours has a joint account with her fiance 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, but we've shared it.
35:39 Martin Lewis? Well, look, I mean, I wanted to get into that. I'm going to move in to read Carrie Anne'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. And when I talk about joint accounts and I talk about second cardholders, 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. Right? 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 Carrie Anne.
36:18 Martin Lewis? When I was married, he controlled everything. He checked the accounts every morning and asked why I'd spent £3 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 50/50 from a joint account if we live together or paying 50/50 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.
37:03 Martin Lewis? 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.
37:24 Speaker 04 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, it's sort of muddling through and you find sort of what works for you.
37:39 Martin Lewis? There's an age thing here. If we were to do the poll solely 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 separates 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 for. Don't take a loan out for somebody else, you know, the debt's in your money and, you know, even if it's not abusive, the use of love of a financial weapon can be very difficult. Just let me read one by Claire 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.
38:24 Martin Lewis? "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.
38:32 Martin Lewis? 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 cash and 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, you know, 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.
39:17 Martin Lewis? 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
39:57 Martin Lewis? reference agencies, you know, call Credit Equifax Experian and you, sorry, TransUnion Equifax Experian, and you need to write and ask for a notice of disassociation. Okay? And that will separate you. And don't worry, I haven't forgotten. I am going to run through the best joint bank accounts a little bit later. Play the Mastermind theme tune.
40:26 Martin Lewis? 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.
40:58 Speaker 04 I'll settle for that, being better than an ass.
41:00 Martin Lewis? Better than an ass. You can put that on your CV if you like.
41:03 Speaker 04 Yes, well, my gravestone.
41:04 Martin Lewis? Oh, yeah, it could be. Yeah, I was looking at it just because I, you know, I like credit. Could I just have a dash Martin Lewis on it?
41:10 Speaker 04 Of course, absolutely.
41:11 Martin Lewis? So here's the question, as people will 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 pyjamas. Unfortunately, he lost his case. Just carry on.
41:31 Martin Lewis? Took you a second though, didn't it?
41:32 Speaker 04 It did.
41:33 Martin Lewis? Because it's that bad. Still, with that experience, I'm sure you'll be able to answer a question about flight delays, Adrian. Are you ready?
41:39 Speaker 04 Yeah.
41:41 Martin Lewis? 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.
42:19 Martin Lewis? 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?
42:52 Speaker 04 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 in the UK. And I can't believe if that-
43:14 Martin Lewis? I just want to be very clear. Under the UK flight delay compensation laws-
43:22 Speaker 04 Yeah, well, it's got to be, well, I would say it's A then. I think you are entitled to it. If it begins or originates in the UK, then I would have thought-
43:34 Martin Lewis? It didn't, it originates in New York.
43:36 Speaker 04 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 like, it's a direct flight, is it?
43:57 Martin Lewis? It's a direct flight. Okay, you're going for A.
44:00 Speaker 04 Yeah.
44:01 Martin Lewis? Okay. So, post-Brexit, the EU Regulation 261/2004 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 doors opening time. If that's over three hours late on arrival, you are 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 a UK flight? Well, first of all, all flights from a UK or EU destination.
44:44 Martin Lewis? So anything leaving London or Manchester, wherever it is, or Glasgow, is an EU flight under the regulations and is covered by the regulations.
44:53 Speaker 04 What about the other way around?
44:54 Martin Lewis? But it is different the other way around. So you were wrong to say- That it should be covered both ways. The rules the other way round.
45:03 Speaker 04 I was right to say it should be.
45:05 Martin Lewis? You may be right to say 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, because had it been.
45:31 Speaker 04 I should never have shown my workings.
45:33 Martin Lewis? No, it's your working. So you know, I've just been having my daughter in my home and there's the 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 I'm annoyed. 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.
46:11 Speaker 04 There's a lot of them. But has anyone ever received this compensation?
46:14 Martin Lewis? 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. 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
46:56 Martin Lewis? 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.
47:32 Martin Lewis? 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 Suze, who's standing in this week to help me out while Simon's away. Suze, 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?
47:52 Speaker 03 Yeah, with some really great questions. Obviously, it's something that's front and centre after the cold snap last week. So Jack has this question for you, Martin. What's the rules on fixing? So what if you fix 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?
48:14 Martin Lewis? I don't think that's ever going to happen, to be honest with you, because your cooling 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 play. 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, the big principle of if I fix and later prices get cheaper or the price cap 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 on a fix, most, not all firms, will levy early exit penalties if you leave before the end of the fix.
48:58 Martin Lewis? 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,
49:41 Martin Lewis? that means the exit penalties are equivalent to around 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 hither nor thither. 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
50:20 Martin Lewis? to think of your fix as it's a peace 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, so you're 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.
51:04 Martin Lewis? To pay to get out a few days early, 100 quid just wouldn't be worth it. It would 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. You know, some of them in over recent years have been up there in the 200, 300 pounds per fuel. And that, that really does prohibit you from fixing. But on a longer fix, if it were two or three years, then, you know, the 50 quid isn't that much over how much you'd pay over two, three years, so it may be worth doing it.
51:49 Martin Lewis? I went on a bit long. That was a long fix and a long answer. What have you got next?
51:53 Speaker 03 Okay, quite a few people asking this question. So. We've got listeners who are on Octopus tracker tariffs. More than one, otherwise we wouldn't be asking the questions. We'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. Rowley also says, I'm quite happy with it so far. Is it worth fixing?
52:19 Martin Lewis? 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, 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.
53:04 Martin Lewis? But overall, it is still a pretty good deal and has been for most. I'm going to come on to 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.
53:48 Martin Lewis? So these offer sophisticated users, the agile tariff. Tracker 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 have advantages of a podcast and I can go into detail 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 Ofcom. Here's the problem on time of use tariffs. The government is keen for us to move to more of more time of use tariffs where you paid based on the wholesale rates at the time and these, 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.
54:32 Martin Lewis? 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, that's bad for consumers.
55:10 Martin Lewis? 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 publish 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 tracker tariff and all I can say is it has been pretty good over the last year,
55:52 Martin Lewis? but I don't know the pricing 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.
56:24 Speaker 03 Okay, 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 in 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?
56:43 Martin Lewis? Okay, there are two types of electric vehicle tariff. The first type, which is generally offered by OVO and Scottish 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 OVO and Scottish Power. And the alternative type of EV tariff, so that's very useful for those people who want to fix.
57:26 Martin Lewis? As long as you can get a decent fix at OVO or Scottish Power, they're not that cheap at the moment, but sometimes they are. Sometimes they have cheap fixes. Then you can lock into, 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 5am. And they're charging, you're paying around seven to 10p a kilowatt hour, rather than the price cap of 23p a 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 tariff 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.
58:07 Martin Lewis? 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 usage that you can shift to those off-peak hours as well. You've got storage heaters or you've got a way of putting on your washing machine overnight. I'm slightly nervous of drying machines because there 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 a comparison site because it depends on your personal usage and comparison sites simply aren't up to that yet.
58:46 Speaker 03 Can you bear one more cheeky little question on energy? This is from at Undertwok. Is this his name? He is on Twitter. I don't even know actually his mail.
58:57 Martin Lewis? I'm going to call him Twok for short.
58:59 Speaker 03 Okay, great. And they say, is it time to start taking a heat the person rather than a heat the home approach?
59:07 Martin Lewis? 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, you know, 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 gilets or soles
59:48 Martin Lewis? 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, maintaining the heating temperature in your boilers to bring that down. There's MoneySavingBoilerChallenge.com, I think is the 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 were struggling. But is it time? Well, my answer is no, I hope it isn't. But for some it is.
1:00:28 Martin Lewis? 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? Suze, 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 start?
1:00:41 Speaker 03 Okay, I think this one is mildly controversial.
1:00:44 Martin Lewis? So it's simmer. It's on simmer, not pour on.
1:00:48 Speaker 03 It's simmering away. Emma says this. One specific account for bills, which everyone seems to do, then we cover the costs prorated 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.
1:01:10 Martin Lewis? 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...
1:01:23 Martin Lewis? 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, proper stereotype, of how it often worked. And therefore, there was one joint account. It was prorated to earnings because one earned 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 prorate the bills based on earnings, especially if there's a really big differential, seems pretty fair to me. I mean, you are a couple.
1:02:07 Martin Lewis? And you've made that declaration that you're shared. I mean, let's just remember, if you get divorced, I mean, 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.
1:02:25 Speaker 03 Fascinating. Here's one. Malcolm on Twitter. No joint account. I've always paid for big items in utilities, my other half for food. Never asked how much she earns. And she's never asked how much I earn. Haven't done any budgeting since we paid off the mortgage. It's clearly working okay for them.
1:02:43 Martin Lewis? I find this fascinating, whether you know how much your partner earns or not. Because I'm, 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. Ha ha. A spreadsheet budgeting tool used that we got from CAP, Christians Against Poverty, that is, years ago, and a budget meeting on the day we get pay slips
1:03:12 Martin Lewis? from me for the budgeting meeting. Works most of the time. We recently decided to make sure everything was joint and 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.
1:03:57 Martin Lewis? There's no contractual obligation between the two of you, and it is somewhat tougher. Have you got more? I've got a couple more to read.
1:04:02 Speaker 03 I have got a couple more, actually. So this one says, main current and savings account is joint, but 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.
1:04:20 Martin Lewis? 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 incomings 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.
1:05:05 Martin Lewis? Whatever it is, I would never think to dictate to people.
1:05:10 Martin Lewis? 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 you're newbies to the bank, 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.
1:05:56 Martin Lewis? 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 a month you could 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. The Nationwide Flex Direct is also £175 for free. I'd call it a good all-rounder. You get 5% interest on up to £1500 put in there, so it's easy access savings if you like. 1% cash back for a year, and there's a maximum of £5 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 a month.
1:06:41 Martin Lewis? 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 £150 for switching to that, but you pay £3 a month. However...
1:07:06 Martin Lewis? It gives you cash back on the bills you pay from that account via direct debit. So you get 1% cash back 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 cash back 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 cash back. 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 for bills, strong fan of Santander Edge there.
1:07:50 Martin Lewis? 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 packaged 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.
1:08:34 Martin Lewis? So as long as you 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's 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, Suze, and I normally marry Adrian, I'm marrying you today. It's my account, Suze, and 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- You get the account holder benefits as well for when you want to do so you've
1:09:18 Martin Lewis? got Europe 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 a 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 in some of those I've talked about they've all got eligibility criteria I'm not dotting the i's and crossing the t's see it as a here's something you should go and do a little bit more research on rather than 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
1:10:03 Martin Lewis? 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
1:10:29 Speaker 03 Martin Lewis is the founder of money saving expert.com but of course other consumer and price comparison websites are available you can get in touch with Martin's podcast team by emailing Martin Lewis podcast 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
1:11:07 Speaker 06 Sometimes we all need an extra helping hand especially with a tricky business problem you've been putting off Claude is the AI for just that it's the collaborator that understands your entire workflow and thinks with you not for you and Claude isn't just for quick questions hand it a whole task like turning a folder of scattered Notes into a report and it does the work and hands back something finished that you can open and edit. Claude can now draft a doc or deck right in front of you and Claude Design now lives right inside Claude. Describe the website or prototype you're picturing, attach your design system and it comes back in your own design language, ready to edit right on the canvas. It works with your files and the tools you already use like Gmail and Slack.
1:11:52 Speaker 06 And whether you're debugging code at midnight, building a financial model or strategizing your next business move, Claude extends your thinking to tackle the problems that matter for problems worth solving. Get started with Claude at claude.ai/solve. That's claude.ai/solve. And check out Claude Pro, which includes access to all of the features mentioned in today's episode. Claude.ai/solve.
1:12:17 Speaker 03 This week on the interface, why Meta's banking on you watching movie-length videos on Instagram. Would you do it?
1:12:24 Speaker 06 90 minutes, just how Christopher Nolan intended. Plus some troubling signs that the AI bubble may be bursting. And we'll be talking about some of the consequences, like the fact that tech companies might start selling your deepest, darkest secrets if they go bankrupt.
1:12:39 Speaker 03 Join me, Jess Maddox.
1:12:41 Speaker 06 And me, Thomas Germain, for the interface.
1:12:43 Speaker 03 Listen wherever you get your podcasts or find us on YouTube.
Previous Get travel insurance ASAP or it can be disastrous: when to get it, how to choose, pre-existing conditions & more Next Banned: Mobile & broadband mid-contract inflation price hikes, yet many’ll still pay more! Page updated November 5, 2026 · transcript and summary are machine-generated