Sears is really starting to piss me off!!!! My hubby was an AU on my Sears account. It has some late pays on it. He has been removed as the AU, but Sears will not remove it from his credit report. I disputed again about 25 days ago and I just checked this morning and it says that they have verified. What next? I think I am going to send them a nutcase-type letter with a copy of the lawsuit that dealt with this (I can't remember the name, I will have to search for it....I think Breeze gave it to me before). I will ask for his signature and proof that he has a contract with them (well, I will be the one writing it, but it will be from him). Does this sound like a good next step? Why are they being so damn stubborn about this???? I would really appreciate any and all feedback!!!
I am going through the same thing with Sears except I am the authorized user wanting to be removed. The account is actually charge off. Make them verify everything . Check back to your original posts for my posts. Then check the ECOA 206.6 (1-3) and 202.10 . Tell me how you read that? It may be something you can argue. e-mail me at JRDRJR@msn.com Maybe we can go througth this process together. Also check out "Ask Max" in the Experian site. It is a question and answer forum by Experian. Look up the subject of authorized users and you will see a post from someone asking about getting an authorized user off a card. Then "Max" anwsers the question and offers a proceedure for removal. The thing I would do now is stop fighting with Sears for the moment and since your husband has been officially removed from being an authorized user, disput it again with the three CB's. If then can verify he is not an authorized user, THEY may drop it off the report. Let me know what happens , I should be recieving a similar reply from them soon.
Diane, Thanks for the response. I did dispute it and it came back verified. Not really sure what I am going to do next, but I will think of something!! I will let you know if I get anywhere!!! G
O.K What I meant by "verify" is that I believe they must show some sort of documentation from the original creditor . They cannot just say "verifyed" and not show you proof of anything. 202.10 of the ECOA seems to indicate that NEW accounts must be reflected on both Primary and Authorized user reports but existing accounts where an authorized user is added on at a later time can only be added at the written request of the primary card user. So maybe if you did not expressly write to them adding his name or if you added him via telephone then you can make an argument. This law is in desperate need of repair. BTW I think The lawsuit is Phillips vs Transunion. I can only find info about the suit but not the statis of late. If you find out could you post a link? thanks Diane
