On interest bearing accounts, must a bank whether in person or via online e-disclosures provide a rate sheet to their clients or is this discretionary?
We have a customer who signed & opted into ODP when he first opened the account in September. After the 45-day qualification period, it was found that his account was eligible for ODP so we activated the ODP on his account. A teller at his branch, however, took a request from him to revoke ODP on his account in late November. This was not relayed to the appropriate staff and the change did not get made on his account. His TV bill, which is an authorized monthly payment, came through on his account as a POS debit while he was already a couple dollars negative. It should've been declined due to NSF and him previously revoking ODP. We've since made the appropriate changes on his account to revoke ODP on his account and we've reversed all the fees he shouldn't have been charged, but the customer is saying he is not going to pay for it, and that the bank is responsible for it.
My question is - is the bank responsible for it?
I have been instructed to lead a project around compliance ramifications if negative interest rates were to occur in the US. With regard to deposit accounts, would all TISA and other initial disclosures need to be updated to reflect this change. Since the change in terms would negatively affect our customers. This would be quite an undertaking as we have 10 member banks. Would all of our advertisements have to be re-disclosed? Any feedback is greatly appreciated.
Is a Notice Regarding Overdraft Fees disclosure required to be posted on an ATM? A question was recently asked about required ATM signage (https://www.bankersonline.com/qa/required-signage-atm) however I did not see mention of this Notice. Could this be a CA specific notice or one that may have been required in the past? The notice reads “If you do not have sufficient funds in your account for the withdrawal amount requested,completing the transaction may result in overdraft fees if you have given us prior permission to complete such transaction….”
On our Funds Availability sign, we have our main branch city and state. Should each sign have its location on it or do we even have to have a city and state on the signs?
I have received a call from a compliance sales group that says the first $100 of the held amount changes effective 7/21/2011 to $200.00 I cannot find this regulation change. Does anyone know about this? If so where can I find the change in the regulation.
As a follow-up to your question regarding a customer unwilling to file a police report - does that section of Reg E also include checks? It seems to speak about electronic transfers, but what about giving the customer their money back when the unauthorized transactions are stolen and forged checks? Are we required to reimburse if they will not file a police report?
We qualify loan applicants based on gross income. Our credit officer says that tax free income from SSI or VA Disability is the gross income and shouldn't be grossed up. I say the income is net and should be. Who's right? If we don't gross tax SSI up, are we discriminating?
We have a customer who took a 3/3 ARM four years ago. It adjusted at the three year mark as normal, but then adjusted one year later (last month). When the customer contacted us, we realized that it had been mis-entered in our system as a 3/1. The customer has benefited from a lower rate at this point (first new payment is currently due), but we are not sure of the implications from correcting this. My thoughts are to do one of three things: 1) Allow this payment to be made at the lower rate, but change the product back to the 3/3 at the current (higher) rate for the remainder of the term. 2) Offer to keep the lower rate and do a modification to a 3/1 if the customer accepts. 3) Change the product back to the 3/3, but keep the lower rate for the remainder of the period (2 years) Any thoughts from a compliance or legal standpoint?
Our bank received a Financial Records Summons (form 6639) from the IRS. The record keeper processed the request and submitted the requested items within two days of receipt of the information. Upon review of the form, a reference to Sec. 7609 'Special procedures for third-party summons' was noted. The wording in this section is very similar to the wording in the Right to Financial Privacy Act which gives the individual the opportunity to quash the summons. Should we have required a certificate verifying that the period to quash had expired prior to releasing the documentation?