answersLogoWhite
notificationBell

Top Answer
User Avatar
Wiki User
Answered 2008-01-15 17:38:17

if you are an authorized user on the card then you are responsible for the card too. so yes they can

001
๐Ÿ™
0
๐Ÿคจ
0
๐Ÿ˜ฎ
0
๐Ÿ˜‚
0
User Avatar

Your Answer

Related Questions


No. Authorized Users are NOT liable for the debt, only the PRIMARY on the account is liable.


Credit card companies are usually responsive ONLY to the primary card holder. They generally will not speak to, or honor requests from authorized users.


An authorized user on a credit card can be responsible on an account in which the primary card holder passes. The creditor looks at the situation as the authorized card holder was able to make purchases with the account, and should be held liable, even in the event of the primary's death.


Yes. The point of having an authorized user is for that person to be able to use the credit card of the primary card holder. Usually when an authorized user is created, specific limits (amounts, number of transactions, merchant types, etc.) are set up. Sometimes the authorized user is given a card in their own name and that card may even have a different card number so usage may be tracked by the card company and the primary card holder.


No. The card holder is responsible for all debt on the credit they extended to him. (You may be responsible to the credit card holder for the debt he incurred for you, if that was your agreement).


Short answer:It depends on the bank. Most likely though, no. Long answer:It depends on the bank and if the person asking the credit limit increase is a primary card holder. Most banks or credit card companies won't allow a secondary card holder to increase the credit limit. I just called and checked. The bank my credit card was associated with was MBNA.I am a secondary card holder (my name is on the card, but the primary responsibility to the account is under someone else's name).They told me the primary card holder needs to call in to modify the credit limit.So in my case, the answer is no. An authorized user of the card cannot increase the credit limit without the knowledge of the primary card holder.


Usually all you need is the person's name and their relationship to the account holder. Credit Card issuers have different criteria for adding an authorized person or a second card holder.


If you were only an authorized user and not a joint account holder, you should never be responsible for the primary account holder's debt.


If you are a joint holder, no. You signed a contract that was legally binding. If you're an authorized user, then you can be removed. In fact, you don't legally even have to pay the debt.


Depends on what "Type" of Credit Holder you are. Here is how that will go: If you are what is known as an authorized user on the account. (i.e. - The Primary account holder has given you permission to make charges on the account), the answer is No. The primary account holder is responsible for any charges he/she has allowed you to make on the account. If you are a Secondary account holder (i.e. -your name was put on the account APPLICATION at the time the card was applied for), then your answer is YES. If the Primary account holder defaults on the account, then the credit card company will turn to try and collect from the Secondary account holder. BEWARE of becoming a secondary holder on anything that has to do with credit. If you know that the Primary holder may default, you could get stuck with a huge amount of debt on your hands, and if you can't pay, your nice credit score of 783 could very quickly go down the drain to 535 or lower.


If a credit card is used by an individual authorized to use the account and that person was not aware the primary acct holder was deceased when the card was used, the card company will probably include the charges in the final bill submitted to the estate rep. If death was known they will hold the authorised user responsible for the charges. If the user was not authorized and knew about the death of the holder it was fraud and criminal charges should be filed.


AN authorized user cannot be held responsible for a primary holder's debt in any case. Only a joint holder can be liable for the debt. YES OF COURSE


None, cause credit card companies are getting away from co-signers and joint accounts and having authorized shoppers instead. By having only authorized shoppers the full responsibility of the credit card is the Primary card holder.


No, presuming the credit card holder makes all the payments he is supposed to...the user is not liable for the debt on the card, and it is not part of his BK.


Ownership is an issue not covered by credit laws. There may be other statutes that deal with this issue. "Possession is nine tenths of the law" comes to mind. Creditors are only concerned with the money due them. An authorized user does not qualify as a "debtor" under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and therefore never has liability. The primary card holder would have liability regardless of who purchased the items/services and who has "ownership".


Yes, a second credit card holder has his/her credit card also but of course, they are just under the primary card holder.


No, authorized users are not responsible for debt incurred on such an account.


It depends if the secondary card holder is a "Joint Account Member" or a "Authorized User". The joint account member is responsible for the balance, the authorized user is not.


NO. Only the primary and/or joint owners are responsible for paying the owed balance, even if all charges were accrued by an authorized user. They are also the only ones 1) held accountable if the bill is not paid and 2) whos credit rating is affected.


Yes, as long as your listed as a "Co-signer" on the account. Credit is not build if you are just an "Authorized User" if this was a credit card account. Lastly, this all assumes that whatever this joint-account is that it reports to credit.


In general, those becoming "authorized users" will not have changes made to their credit report unless (1) they become an authorized user of a company card and that company requires employees to take personal responsibility for charges or (2) they become a joint account holder, making them responsible for all charges. So, if one falls into one of the above camps, the time varies based on the frequency with which the issuer chooses to inform the credit bureaus. Because "authorized user" status does NOT change the liability of the account holder, these types of credit report transactions are not priorities and may take place a few times per year. Wait three (3) months and re-review your credit reports. If the "authorized user" does not disappear, dispute the tradeline with the appropriate credit bureau.


No but if something happens to the card-holder, like dieing or being arrested, the authorized signer will be made responsible.


No. An authorized user is not responsible for credit card debt in any situation. Sorry, I failed to mention that the exception is if the "AU" is a spouse and the couple reside in a community property state. What if the authorized user charged on the card? Would he be held responsible for that?


Authorized users are not responsible for repaying cc charges. Unless they are a spouse of the account holder and live in a community property state. I work at a credit card company and an authorized user is just someone who is able to make charges on the account. The primary cardholderand/or the joint cardholder would be the one responsible for the bill. The payment history may be reported to your credit bureau though. That does happen with some companies.


NO. The credit card company won't allow that to happen.It is illegal for ANYONE who is not the card holder, named on the card, to sign for goods purchased with the card.Expanding on the above answer: A minor may be able to use an adult's credit card if the credit card owner has officially authorized the minor to use it. This would require the adult to contact the credit card company to document the minor as an authorized user; rules/regulations vary by company. Without this formal step, the first response holds true: it would be illegal.