What a nightmare.
What if someone lacks capacity and a Lasting Power of Attorney has to step in to manage financial affairs or a court appointed official runs affairs?
Again, a sledge hammer to crack the rather tough nuts of google, fb, etc...

Good grief. The comment finally worked but I don't know how?

Hmm. So many points, and coincidentally I had a letter this morning from First Direct saying that in future only the account holder would be able to pay in cash at a branch (of HSBC). To be fair - yes, money laundering is a huge issue - far bigger than most people realize.
But to the GDPR (one of my specialist subjects before I retired last year!). Incidentally, our own account with Anglian Water is in joint names. I haven't tried to add my partner's name to our energy accounts. But a utility account is effectively a contract between the account holder and the firm; irrespective of any data protection considerations, I think it is understandable that there might be objections to changing the name of the account holder. I can imagine circumstances in which this could cause problems in enforcement.
Similarly, an insurance policy is a contract between the insured and the insurer. A named driver is not the insured. Of course, the usual way around this is by use of a Power of Attorney (although I know from bitter experience what "fun" these can be to use!).
However, and unfortunately, the GDPR - and previously, our own Data Protection Acts - is too often used as a blanket "no co-operation" excuse where either the legislation does not apply, and maybe completely irrelevant, or - worst - explicitly allows what is being requested. I have no hesitation in raising a comnplaint with firms, and then the Information Commissioner's Office, where I feel that they don't know what they are doing! It is a fact that the people employed in call centres are given little or no training in this.

delcatto - anything with a URL goes to spam. When I check the spam, I do an unspam spell and the one in a million 'good' comments appears! For quicker service leave the 'URL' box blank.

This kind of thing makes it clear how important it is to have an LPA or EPA.

Tim... thanks for your input. I'll put my thoughts in separate boxes for ease of reading.

"But a utility account is effectively a contract between the account holder and the firm; irrespective of any data protection considerations, I think it is understandable that there might be objections to changing the name of the account holder. I can imagine circumstances in which this could cause problems in enforcement."

When it is the account holder asking to put the account in joint names, what is the problem?

I suspect it is more about it being easier for them to chase one person for any non-payment rather than two.

It is also impossible to set up joint names on utility accounts during online switches, so I expect it is now industry standard practice.

Our water company won't allow joint names, or direct debit payments over 12 months (only over 10 months as per the old system).

"Similarly, an insurance policy is a contract between the insured and the insurer. A named driver is not the insured. Of course, the usual way around this is by use of a Power of Attorney (although I know from bitter experience what "fun" these can be to use!)."

A named driver should be able to simply renew the policy though, with the policyholders permission. I've done this for many years... nothing in the GDPR precludes that, as far as I can see. Many parents pay their kids' insurance these days - they can no longer do this.

Plus - insurance companies still do multi-car policies, each car having an insured person - and any of them can still renew the whole policy. Hmm, I've only just thought of this. Good future ammunition :)

Many banks used to have a simpler 'third party mandate' which was a user-friendly lesser form of a PoA. These seem to be a dying breed now.

"However, and unfortunately, the GDPR - and previously, our own Data Protection Acts - is too often used as a blanket "no co-operation" excuse where either the legislation does not apply, and maybe completely irrelevant, or - worst - explicitly allows what is being requested."

Yes, exactly what I was saying. I've had multiple personal experience of this recently.

"I have no hesitation in raising a comnplaint with firms, and then the Information Commissioner's Office, where I feel that they don't know what they are doing!"

I used to... I'm being slightly more circumspect after recent experience of a friend.

Any insurance company can refuse to insure, or re-insure, you for any reason.

Complaining about them is a good enough reason.

You then have to disclose that you have had insurance refused when you seek new insurance, and either you then have problems getting insurance, or your premium increases dramatically (in my friend's case, more than doubled).

Complaining to the official body who upheld your complaint about the insurance company refusing you insurance after your successful complaint to them results in a "nothing to do with us, outside our powers" letter.

It's getting more and more dangerous to complain about anything...

"coincidentally I had a letter this morning from First Direct saying that in future only the account holder would be able to pay in cash at a branch (of HSBC)."

HSBC/FD is usually the last bastion of complying with anything official. This is interesting as it was only yesterday that MrBW asked about this when paying into a FD account at HSBC and he was told that there wasn't a date set yet for HSBC to enforce this. He also managed to change an old £10 note for a new £10 note, not even having to pay it in!

I deal with all our accounts. Many's the time that I've rung up to talk about our phone/electricity/gas/you name it account and even though I'm already registered as being authorised to speak (even registered as "my voice is my proof of identity" (or whatever it is) I have still been asked if my partner (whose name is on the account) is available to confirm that I am allowed to talk to them on his behalf. This pisses me off immensely

AQ - exactly; glad it's not just me! It's almost like they don't want to deal with anyone who doesn't fit their 'mould'.

I often think that same-sex couples (or house-sharers) must have an easier time of it as it's very easy to confirm something if you have the right voice pitch!

Thinking back to a time 20-odd years ago, when MrBW travelled extensively for work, and was away for 3 out of 4 weeks on average, I do wonder how on earth I could have run things as I did, were companies' systems as inflexible as they are now.