@UncleB wrote:
@RobertEG wrote:
You consent, by havng yourself designated as an AU, to posting of an account to your credit file that is not yours.
Any AU account is, by definition, not yours.
Thus, there is no inaccuracy in the reporting, and a dispute is not the way to handle it.
You get the creditor to remove the reporting as an AU.
Hmm... that's an interesting way to look at it, but I disagree with your logic.
It's actually possible (I've even seen it done) for one to be an authorized user on an account without even being aware of it, and without his/her social security number ever being provided to the issuer. By definition, an authorized user is not responsible for the debt, thus it makes no sense that once an account is closed or charged off for the account to continue to report for an AU. Another way to think of it is that while the account is open the AU is 'authorized' to make purchases, but once the account is closed that authorization becomes 'moot'.
I respect your opinion, but I still feel that once the account is closed the "not my account" option is indeed valid - and factual - since the account does not (and never did) belong to the AU. I'll also reiterate that this method has worked for me and family members in the past with no push-back from either the credit bureaus or the issuers.
I validate this assumption. I have a pseudo employee, whom I wish to make AU on two of my cards (one business, one personal). She filed bankruptcy awhile back, and I introduced her to cap one a bit ago, she is doing good. I will be limiting her charges on both cards, she gets her own log in and pay status. BUT, if it gets out of hand, I am responsible. Consequently, I only allow enough that my savings could comfortably cover.
If if I was to go rogue, so to speak, they would not chase after her in anyway. Since they do not allow card holders with bks, but they do allow AU, as long as she has not gone bad on them before. In a charge off situation, both cards should not be on her reports.
Signature needs updating
