     Kimberly (Addak) | Thursday, March 29, 2001 - 09:09 pm 
I'm unsure if I'm posting this in the correct area so if I have, I apologize.
Here's my question..my uncle had a credit card with Capital One, to which he added me as an authorized user because I sometimes shopped for him when needed. Well, I just recently did a credit report on myself and lo and behold, it turns out he became behind on his payments and they put it on MY credit report as well as his. I thought as a authorized user only that I was not in any way responsible for the debts incurred. In fact, we never even gave them my soc. sec. number or anything so I really don't understand that. On the application it only asked for my signature for verification of transactions for when I use my card. Has anyone ever heard of this before or do I have this wrong? Just wondering if it's something I should pursue to have changed or if there's nothing I can do about it.
Thanks in advance,
Kim |
| Ann (Momof3) | Friday, March 30, 2001 - 04:50 am
If you were just an "AU" on this accont, then you should call the credit reporting agencies and tell them that you were only and "AU" and ask them to remove this from your reports. You should should also call Capital One and asked to have your name removed from the account, b/c unless they have your signature that shows you agreeing to be a "JOINT" account holder, then you should not be responsible for this debt, only your uncle.
Strange my husband is an "AU" on 3 of my accounts and he never had to sign anything for verification?? Are you sure the account is listd as "AU" and if it is have them remove this. |
| Kimberly (Addak) | Friday, March 30, 2001 - 12:56 pm
I'm positive it was as an authorized user..I know for a fact that we didn't supply any info on me at all..no address, soc. sec. number, income/job info, credit info..and now that I think about it, I'm not even sure I signed it..it might have just asked for my name..and I also remember that it asked what my relationship to the cardholder was. Thanks for your help..I am definitely going to look into getting this fixed.
Kim |
| Christine Baker (Admin) | Friday, March 30, 2001 - 01:32 pm
One of my clients had a $8,000 unauthorized user problem.
Paying that "authorized user charge-off" was a condition for closing his mortgage.
The mortgage broker had NOT upgraded to the RMCR, and while the borrower had explained the "authorized user" status to his agent and the loan processor, he was told HE needed to deal with it.
I'm hoping the problem has been resolved after I spoke with and faxed to the broker, but it just shows again how incompetence rules everywhere.
I'd like to know how the bureaus handle Kim's disputes. |
| Shylock (Shylock) | Friday, March 30, 2001 - 03:44 pm
I noticed elsewhere that there are modifications afoot to the FCRA. Silly things like free reports, mandatory email access, etc. Why don't they try to address real problems like the one mentioned above? |
| Christine Baker (Admin) | Friday, March 30, 2001 - 04:40 pm
The reporting of those authorized user accounts helps many people establish credit. I'm not sure I'd want to see that reporting prohibited by the FCRA.
Mandatory PERSONALIZED e-mail responses would go a LONG way towards documenting problems.
If I didn't have many of my recent calls to the bureaus on tape, I'd question whether I actually talked to them!
At Equifax you can talk to 3 people and get 3 different answers.
It would be really nice to be able to compose ONE e-mail stating:
"Please remove the late payments on account xyz as I am only an AUTHORIZED user and not responsible for payment.
Thank you,"
And you copy/paste the 3 bureaus' e-mail addresses and hit send!
Instant, in writing, free ... works for me!
If you then get a stupid response from Equifax refusing to remove the lates, copy/paste again, straight into the FTC complaint form. |
