What are your thoughts on allowing customers to give an authorized signer access to their online banking and/or approving them to have a debit card? Would it make a difference if there is a form signed by the customer providing authroization and acceptance of liability for the transactions the signer conducts?
We currently have outside counsel providing what I believe is inaccurate guidance. However, I'm struggling to find resources I can use to refute their regulatory interpretations. Specifically, this applies to a consumer's right to stop payment under 1005.10(c). Can you please advise how these requirements apply to:
1. Preauthorized transfers for loan payments (we are the lender/servicer) drawn on both external (we obtain debit authorization) and internal deposit accounts; and
2. Preauthorized bill payments both issued against the bank's/vendor's account and debited directly from the consumer's account. We hold the consumer's deposit account and offer the bill pay service.
Reg E (12 CFR 1005.17(b)(2)) says we cannot condition the payment of checks and other transaction on the whether the consumer has opted into overdrafts via ATM and one-time debit card transactions. However, it does not clarify whether the opposite is allowed – meaning can you condition ATM and one-time debit card transactions on whether someone has opted into overdrafts via check and other transactions? I can't find any guidance on this question, so any advice is much appreciated.
How should a credit union as the Receiving Depository Financial Institution (RDFI) handle a situation when the credit union recovers unauthorized ACH debits from the OriginatingDFI (ODFI) through the breach of warranty process? An example may help to clarify the question.
A consumer-member disputes a series of ACH debits posted their account over the last several months as unauthorized, but the member is late in providing notice. The credit union recredits the member for the initial unauthorized ACH debits plus those that occur within 60 days of the statement being made on which the first unauthorized debit appear. The member is liable for the unauthorized debits after the 60 days until notice is provided to the credit union. The credit union is able to return the most recent unauthorized debits that occur in the last 60 days.
In an attempt to recover the remaining funds, the credit union sends a notice to the ODFI requesting the member’s authorization and if the ODFI is unable provide the authorization, requests permission to initiate a late return. The ODFI is unable to provide the authorization, so it grants permission to process a late return.
The credit union has now recovered the full amount of the unauthorized ACH debits claimed by the member. Can the credit union retain the amount that it recredited to the member (i.e., the credit union’s liability)? For the remaining funds recovered, should the credit union recredit the member? It seems to me that the credit union should recredit the member based on the concept of unjust enrichment.
A customer purchased KETO Bites and states the cost was $39.99. She immediately received an invoice along with charges to her account for the amounts of $59.99 and $239.99, not for the $39.99. Does provisional credit need to be given for those amounts and is the dispute considered fraud?
A customer filed a number of POS transactions originating from Cash App and during our investigation we found out that the charges were linked to a relative of the customer (whom she's previously had issues with). Our customer claims they never authorized this person to use/access the debit card. The documentation stated a physical item was sent to the address that matches that of our customer, but the name linked to the transactions does not match our customer's name. Can we deny this claim since information links back to her address but not her name?
Are financial institutions required to have a cardholder sign a dispute letter when filing a Reg E dispute on a debit card, or can a dispute be filed verbally and with no signature?
An executive officer has a debit card transaction that has caused an overdraft. As to Reg O, we would pay and charge the fee. But as to Reg E he has opted out which means we would pay the item and not charge the fee.
I don't know which Reg takes precedence. The account is overdrawn less than $100.
Is it possible to suppress the final bank statements for ID Theft accounts? Regulation E does not state any exception under it nor are there any regulations against it.
Can we as the bank deny a claim and wait for a resolution from Mastercard/Visa that exceeds the 90 day time frame due to it being in arbitration and then credit the consumer at a later date if we received the credit after the 90 day reg E time frame?