No credit card required
Browse credit cards from a variety of issuers to see if there's a better card for you.
sgress,
My wife had a WAMU acct.& I was an AU on it to get the credit limit added to my total, however, she started not paying it in full each month & that was hurting my utilization so I paid it in full and removed myself as an AU. That was about a year ago and today that acct. only shows on my EQ file, and the credit limit is still used for my total credit available.
@Anonymous wrote:
I removed my DH as an authorized user on my cap 1 acct because I have 4 lates in 2008 and we need his score to go up to get a mortage loan. I just checked my Score report on myfico.com and they only changed the status to terminated. I thought that they remove the entire TL from his report? They did for experian, whats going on? What do I do?
We had similar issue with Discover. In January, DH removed me as AU to help utilization. TU deleted TL completely but EQ and EX still show it albeit "account relationship terminated" and '0' balance. And EQ/FICO counts this TL in my age of accounts (acct was opened in 07-09).
I questioned with Discover and was advised the TL would show on report with accurate info up to the date of my deletion as AU, and that TL would not be removed.
I tried disputing with both EX and EX as "not mine" and got back the disputes as "info stands".
Just today deleted DH as AU on my Discover (again for utilization since I have a balance now) so it'll be interesting to see if they handle this the same way.
Did not have a lick of problem deleting me from DH's Citi and BoA card; TLs were removed just after statements cut.
Interesting that EX deleted your TL entirely......and TU is the one that deleted mine.
I wish I did have a solution for you......and for myself!
Maybe some others will chime in with advices!!
@haulingthescoreup wrote:
rom 828, so the Discover TL still shows on two of your reports, with a $0 balance? When is it supposed to go away, 10 years after you came off as AU, or ten years after your DH closes the card? It doesn't ever report new balances, does it?
I'm curious, because I'm an AU on my husband's card, and I'm getting ready to take myself off of it, after getting tired of making sure that it was paid, etc. But in my case, it's helpful, because it's so old. I have to say, I wouldn't mind a bit having it continue to report!
With my luck, though, Discover will call in to the CRA's that very day and have it removed from my reports.
Yep.....it's a TL on EX and EQ with 0 balance and the remark "acct relationship terminated".....but it's still used for AAoA calculation and "accounts opened in past year". DH deleted me as AU in January, but it took til about April (after disputes) for the balance to be reported as 0.
And I have no idea when it will delete!! Maybe never, since it's not shown as closed and there doesnt appear to be any 'date' to go by.....it may just stay on forever!!
I'm going to see how Discover handles removing DH from my card, and if it's done the same way I think I'll go back to them with a little more "fight" about the reporting. While I realize AU reporting can often be of benefit, it just doesnt seem right that the TL still reports when the AU relationship terminates, since the AU did not apply for the card, etc but is just an 'authorized buyer".
In your case, though, I can see that having it continue to report would be beneficial, so for your sake, I hope that's what happens
@haulingthescoreup wrote:
This is interesting, because AmEx does the same thing. I put DH and DD#2 on my Gold card and later removed them. The lines still report, which is annoying as it was a new card. On top of which, someone started using the account number, and AmEx replaced the card, so DH and DD now each have two closed AmEx accounts on their reports, lowering their AAoA.
AmEx wants me to buy Experian reports for each of them, saying that they need a credit report number to fix this. What a load of hogwash. I have to pay $30 to get them to stop reporting an AU account??
Do it for free. I mean with all the AA going around surely they had to have been victimized a little. Denied.