A careful reading of 1005.6(b)(3) notes that the unlimited liability tier begins 60 days after the delivery of the statement that contains the first unauthorized charge. We do not get to take the date of notice in August and count backwards 60 days.
Since the customer notice of unauthorized transactions is not timely, we do not have to comply with 1005.11, which means we do not have to provide provisional credit and we do not have to complete our investigation in 90 days. However, 1005.6 says that we still have to calculate what our liability is versus the cardholder's liability. If the transactions are truly fraudulent, the customer would be liable for unauthorized charges more than 60 days from the date of the January statement. If the March charge is within this time frame, the bank may be liable for both charges if they are truly unauthorized.
The question that we should be asking is, "Are these transactions truly unauthorized?" The cardholder states that these online companies were repairing the computer, but then the charges for the services provided are unauthorized? This doesn't quite add up for me. If the cardholder contracted with for the service, but is now dissatisfied with the outcome, these would not be unauthorized transactions. Reg E does not cover buyer's remorse. More information about the nature of the claim may shed some additional light on this investigation.
Sola Gratia, Sola Fides, Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, Soli Deo Gloria!www.tcaregs.com