SOLUTION for Never Late -> Not Mine

As has been discussed at length on this board, there is an inherent problem with disputing an account as "not mine" after it has already been disputed as "never late". This is because by first disputing an account as "never late" you are indirectly admitting to the CRA that the account does in fact belong to you which makes any and all future "not mine" disputes theoretically "already verified" by the previous "never late" dispute.

I think I have found a solution?

Instead of using the simple "not mine" excuse, dispute the account as "not mine" by reason of the fact that you were only an "Authorized User" and never a guarantor on the account in question. Since authorized users are not responsible for derogatory debts, the CRA's will have to investigate and delete if the OC or CA can not verify. Additionally, just because someone who claims to be an "Authorized User" had previously argued that they were "never late", it does not undermine their argument that a debt does not belong to them on the grounds that they were only an "Authorized User".

And, if you want to take the dispute process one step further, you could also send the same I was only as "Authorized User" excuse to the CA or OC and demand that they provide documentation (e.g. a signed application or contract) demonstrating that you were in fact a guarantor on the account as they claim.

I'd like to hear some thoughts on this...

Thanks.