I have a customer that today (12/27/2013) reported unauthorized charges have been occurring since 02/04/2012. This is a Visa debit card and the device was not lost or stolen, no PIN was involved. I am trying to determine if I am following Reg E or Visa rules or both. If I understand it correctly by Reg E, our institution is still liable for the February 2012 (the fraud didn't happen again until November 2012). However, because of delayed notification (with no clear reason from customer as to why it took so long), isn't she liable for everything from November 2011 until yesterday (12/2013)? She wants all the money back since February 2012
How does Reg E apply to a Business? We are thinking about offering debit cards to our business customers. Does Reg E only apply to consumers regarding the liability and chargeback rights on debit cards?
A large national retailer is now issuing in-store debit cards, that post transactions to our bank customers account as ACH debits. These are not credit cards - they are debit cards for use only at the designated retailer - swiped and signed just like any other card - only debiting the bank account. Our customer signed up for the card at checkout, provided her banking information, and received a discount for her purchase. One month down the road, she has $900 in debit card purchases that have posted to her account on a card that she says she never received. Can you please describe what would be considered the best practices for a bank in a dispute situation like this? And does the large retailer have a Reg E responsibility here, too? I am particularly thrown here because it is clear that she authorized the ACH debits - but the card purchases were fraudulent. With no control over the instrument or the agreement associated with it, we feel a little blindsided by this new type of dispute.
We are a small community bank that does not offer an overdraft program. We elected to opt out of the Reg E amendment effective July 1, 2010 and are paying one time debit card transactions that overdraw accounts without charging an NSF fee. Obviously we are losing income because of this. We are wondering if we could charge a reactivation fee on the debit cards that have overdrawn for the second time. Example: customer overdraws account with one time debit card transaction. We suspend the card. The customer deposits and we unsuspend. The customer does it again, we suspend, they deposit and we charge a reactivation fee to reactivate the card the second time. Is this ok? If not, can we charge an annual fee on debit cards?
Do reloadable debit cards have different Reg E requirement than a Bank issued debit card? I am asking in regard to possible fraudulent charges. Can the reloadable card require the consumer to be responsible for charges if the consumer has allowed someone to use the card and given that person access to the PIN number?
June 15, 2011 titled Debit Cards - Error Resolution Problems Solved. In that training, there were slides on cancelled recurring transactions that stated that these types of transactions were not covered by Reg E. Could you please provide the reference in Reg E where it supports that a transaction that occurs after the recurring transaction is cancelled is not considered unauthorized and therefore not covered by the regulation.
We went live with our debit cards in May of 2011. We just recently discovered errors in our processing codes. We have several accounts that have transactions for the last 12 months that did not post to customer accounts. We have corrected the error but have numerous transaction that we need to clear from our non-processed account. I'm not sure if we can process the whole 12 months or just go back six months (thinking stale dated check after six months). Is there any regulation that would prevent us from processing all of these transactions? We have the cardholder statements and also the copies from our processor that show the transactions were approved but not posted to their accounts.
We are changing our debit cards from Visa to MasterCard. Do we need to send a new EFT disclosure?
Our financial institution issues the VISA check card to our customers. We have had fraud issues that VISA denies us charge back rights on. They are protecting the merchants and the ones committing fraud but what about the cardholders and card issuers? Shouldn't VISA reimburse us for this loss? How can a FI get restitution for the money they lose when protecting their customers against fraud?
I have a question with regard to Reg CC and the ever changing environment of delivery methods and new accounts. The local tax firms such as H & R Block, Joseph Hewitt, etc. are providing tax refunds via a debit card. The way I understand from a manager of H & R Block, the tax forms are submitted to the IRS for review. Once the IRS approves it and releases the funds to H & R Block, the funds are then captured on a secured server and transferred to the debit card. This would be done by H & R Block. The customer gets this card in the mail. Their PIN is the last 4 digits of their SSN. Their customer is told they can access the cash at any ATM. If we have a new customer to the bank who wants to open an account, and they present one of these debit cards to have the balance on their card as their opening deposit, would that transaction be considered a Next Day Item/Electronic Payment? For us to access the funds, we would have to process it like a Cash Advance, typically a type of transaction done with a credit card. I am thinking it would be an electronic payment, even though there is some manual process to it. Would that be correct? I know the debit card is a substitute for the check, but again to access the funds, we have to go through an electronic medium to get them. We would get an approval code on the machine and record it in our paperwork. With a Cash Advance, once we get that approval, it authorizes our bank to pay the funds. We can then deposit it to an account or give the customer cash. It would be the same process with a debit card.