I wonder if you can clear up a problem? My understanding of the contributory OAP is as follows: as originally introduced, both the main pension and the spouse allowance were means test free.

Widow's pension

Somewhere along the line, the spouse allowance became the qualified adult or carer's allowance and as such became subject to means testing. My query is this: on my death, will my widow's entitlement also depend on means testing?

Mr.H.L., Dublin

You're quite correct about the historical situation with the contributory old age pension. In its original form, the contributory old age pension did allow for full spousal provision regardless of means, but only if you were a man. A man applying for a pension would automatically receive the full payment for his wife; however, a woman applying for a contributory old age pension received only her pension and no provision for their husband.

Such were the stereotypes of Ireland in a more traditional age. Presumably the thinking was that, in a family, the man would be the earner and his pension would cover his wife whereas a woman applying must be a spinster.

Anyway, in 1986, EU equality legislation dictated that we could no longer operate the system in this way. As a result, in November 1986, the current system was introduced. This allows that a person receiving a contributory old age pension now receives a qualified adult allowance for a spouse who is dependent on them for their income. This is means tested and operates on a sliding scale.

Turning to your wife's situation should you predecease her, the situation is that she should not have to worry about a means test. The position is that she would be entitled to a Widow's Contributory Pension provided either her own or your PRSI record permits it. Given that you are currently on a contributory old age pension from the Department of Social and Community Affairs, you must meet the requirements and this qualification would pass to your wife if she became a widow.

The Widow's Contributory Pension is not means tested. The other side of the coin is that it is liable for income tax on any sum exceeding the relevant threshold.

The Widow's Contributory Pension would also entitle your wife to the fuel allowance and, once she were aged 66 or over, the living alone allowance, a free television licence and the household benefits package comprising the telephone rental allowance and the electricity/gas allowance. Indeed, if you are in receipt of any of these at the time of your death, your wife may be able to qualify even if she is younger then 66 but not younger than 60.

If it comes to pass, the important thing is that your wife applies for the Widow's Contributory Pension within three months of your death. Otherwise, she could lose out on payments. She will need to fill out a form WCP1, which is available from any social welfare office or post office.

Fund transfer

I have a relative returning to this his homeland after many years in the United States. Is there any restriction on the amount of funds he may take into this country?

Mr T.P., email

The simple answer is that there is no such restriction. Ireland, in common with a lot of states, used to have exchange controls but those have been consigned to history.

Your relative is perfectly entitled to bring any funds he chooses, provided they are legally obtained in the first place and all taxes due have been paid. There is no limit on the amount.

First Active

My husband and I had our first mortgage with First Active. We moved and changed our mortgage but kept on our joint savings account, which operated with either signature. When the shares were issued, they were issued to the first named holder on our account which as it happened was my husband.

He requested that the shares be issued in both names or half in each name. The First Active told him that he could do this himself after they were issued to him. They would not do this for him. He kept the shares in his name (with my agreement) and when they were being converted back into cash he requested that the cheque be issued in both names or replaced in our joint account.

Once again the cheque was issued in his name only as he was the named holder of the shares. Now if my husband had been less of a gentleman than he is, I could have been swindled out of money! Everyone should be warned about being the second named on a joint account!

Mrs P. O'T., email

First Active has figured heavily in the postbag following last week's inquiry and if those letters are anything to go by the bank has an awful lot to do by way of rebalancing the requirements of profit with staff training and customer service under its new owners.

However, in this case, First Active is not at fault. The process you outline, where shares in a demutualising company are put in the name of the first-named in the case of joint account holders, is standard practice under the law governing such transactions. It happened with Irish Permanent, Norwich Union and First Active too.

Furthermore, while it appears you have not come across it, it has been widely covered - especially in the aftermath of the Irish Permanent flotation where several people lost out under similar circumstances.

As First Active pointed out, it would have been possible for you to go to the Revenue's stamping office and have the shares transferred into both your names.

On the second point of the cheque being made out in your husband's name despite your request, the bank would again have had no choice in this. The payment for the shares can only be made out to the people who are the named holders of the shares. If you had transferred the share certificates into joint names, the cheque would also have been made out in both names. Since you did not, the only name on the shares was that of your husband and therefore the cheque had to be made out in his name. If you think about it, while you are a harmonious couple, a bank could be faced with such a request where a family member might be coercing another to get a share of a payment illicitly. That's one reason why the rules are there.

Much as I appreciate your frustration, this is in no way a case of First Active swindling anyone. It has simply played by the rules laid down by others.

I note that you did complain to First Active and am glad, at least in your case, it did direct you to where it might be dealt with. That is a good step ahead of the experience of last week's correspondent and a number of others in my postbag.

Please send your queries to Dominic Coyle, Q&A, The Irish Times, D'Olier Street, Dublin 2 or e-mail to dcoyle@irish-times.ie. This column is a reader service and is not intended to replace professional advice. Due to the volume of mail, there may be a delay in answering queries. All suitable queries will be answered through the columns of the newspaper. No personal correspondence will be entered into.