I feel quite silly asking this because I've done disputes for many years now, and this is a first (for me) - I guess I was just lucky and never had one like this.

This is not actually one of my customers, but it's happening to someone I know so I'd like to provide her with information to assist her (she's elderly).

She authorized grandson to use her debit card by allowing him to use it and gave him the pin. She knows and agrees with this and until now he's never abused that right.

Money was stolen out of her account via card access at ATM's. She filed a police report initially indicating she suspected it was her grandson because he has not been back for a few days now (he's adult).

Her bank denied the claim because she authorized him to use the card and didn't inform them when authorization is revoked(which is correct)

Come to find out, he didn't use the card, but another person he was with. Photographs from some of the ATM's have been retrieved by law enforcement. Apparently he didn't do the transaction, but gave the card and pin to someone he was with and that person did the transaction (he is seen in the background of the photos, not at the machine doing the transaction).

My question is, does he have the right to authorize another person to use the card... basically granting authorization to another? My gut reaction is only the owner of the account can authorize users, but this is where I'd like input to be sure.

I tend to agree with your assessment. Only the actual cardholder can give authorization to use it IMO.

Agree. There's no sub-authorization recognized under Regulation E. I think the Granny gets her money back, and the bank talks to the police about both grandson and his friend. The friend may have done the deed, but it sounds a lot like grandson conspired with him/her.

Thank you both for your input. I will pass the word along for her to contact the police to get details of who used the card so she can submit that back to her bank. Hopefully she will at least get part of it back. Poor gal was saving for a trip she has to make.

She should get all of it back even if she doesn't get the information from the police. Regulation E doesn't require the customer to do anything except dispute the charge.

Agree, DS. Granny is entitled to reimbursement by her financial institution based on section 205.6 of Regulation E (and subject to any limits that apply). The use of the card by this unidentified third party should be considered unauthorized. If the bank is able to learn who the third party is, it will have a better chance of recovering what it needs to pay Granny, but her right to reimbursement doesn't hang on whether the bank can make itself whole.

What I mean about information is simply finding out (verbally is fine) from the police there is a third party involved that used the card. Simply confirming with them that in any of the videos they may have recovered, he was not the one doing the transactions.

She told the bank initially it was her grandson so they denied it based on that fact (because he had prior auth). She will now be able to go confidently back to the bank and state that it wasn't her grandson, but another person, and it's documented by local law enforcement and feel free to take the issue up with them at this point for verification.

The bank that was supposed to do the investigation SHOULD have discovered this on their own, or in concert with the police. If they assumed it was the grandson without checking, they didn't do enough IMHO.