I am new to compliance and am working on some training materials for Regulation E disputes. We ask our disputing customers to come in a fill out a form in order to dispute an item. I am aware of and have a copy of the "Written Statement of Unauthorized Debit". But, in our file, I am also finding "Cardholder Statement of Dispute". I am not sure if this is an outdated form or where this came from. Does anyone have any input on such a form? I am not sure if I just need to discard all of those forms and replace with the WSUD? Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

The WSUD is a NACHA form the is required by NACHA if a customer is filing a claim of incorrect or unauthorized ACH debits. (Note this is a NACHA requirement and you cannot condition a Reg E claim decision based on whether or not the claim is in writing.) Your institution may have come up with a seperate form for debit card related disputes as VISA/MasterCard don't have a perscribed "form" for cardholders to file claims.

Ok, thanks! That clears it up for me. Yes, I understand that I can't put the condition on the claim based on whether it is in writing. But, we do ask the customer to come in a fill out the form. If they don't, we still accept the dispute.

My error resoltuion is a little rusty..

Customer notified bank 5/10/2012 of an error that occurred on 58/2012. We require the complaint to be in writing. The customer never provided anything to the bank. I don't think we needed to give provisional credit but need to still investigate. From what I can tell, the investigation stopped since they didn't provide the complaint in writing. Any thoughts???

Thought #1: You don't need to provide provisional credit because you didn't get the written confirmation of the error claim.

Thought #2: You're in violation of the regulation by stopping the investigation because of the lack of a written claim. The only part of the investigation "schedule of required events" that is contingent on the written claim is the provisional credit. Everything else needs to proceed promptly.

That is what I thought. So, we still need to investigate. If an error occurred give the money back or if no error occurred just notify the customer that the invesigation is complete?

Reg E §1005.11(c) and (d)

Thanks! Is there somewhere in the regulation that says you can't make the customer file a police report?

Reg E doens't tell you what you "can't require. It only tells you what you "can" require.

1005.11(b)

(b) Notice of error from consumer. (1) Timing; contents. A financial institution shall comply with the requirements of this section with respect to any oral or written notice of error from the consumer that:

(i) Is received by the institution no later than 60 days after the institution sends the periodic statement or provides the passbook documentation, required by § 1005.9, on which the alleged error is first reflected;

(ii) Enables the institution to identify the consumer's name and account number; and

(iii) Indicates why the consumer believes an error exists and includes to the extent possible the type, date, and amount of the error, except for requests described in paragraph (a)(1)(vii) of this section.


Related thread on police reports

That isn't in the reg. What is, is what it says a person must do to file a claim. Essentially identify the account and why they believe there is an error. The deal is, the bank cannot add to those stated requirements in the law. The law says this is all that is required.

Brian beat me to it, but the MarkleBank, Markle IN. is the case you want to read.

http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20111029/BIZ/310299939/1031/biz

I just love this one sentence from that article: “ ‘The last compliance exam, we were doing the same thing, and (inspectors) didn’t say a thing,’ [the CEO of the bank's holding company] said.”