Skip to content
GeoDataVision
Learn More - Click Here!

Thread Options
#2123012 - 03/22/17 12:02 AM Reg E -
Tesla Offline
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 3,689
Where does Reg E say a customer cannot be denied a claim due to friendly fraud, or card/PIN not secured, etc. I can't find it.
_________________________
It's not that I take life for granted. It's only that the good won't make it. Innocence dies, while Villany Thrives.

Return to Top
#2123032 - 03/22/17 12:56 PM Re: Reg E - Tesla
#12 Offline
Diamond Poster
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,338
Commentary to 1005.6(b) and commentary to 1005.2(m). Is that what you're looking for?
_________________________
CRCM

Return to Top
#2123103 - 03/22/17 03:59 PM Re: Reg E - Tesla
Tesla Offline
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 3,689
yes, that is it! Thank you!

Follow up question - that seems to apply only to unauthorized transactions- so any other error - would not be subject to these restrictions, correct?
_________________________
It's not that I take life for granted. It's only that the good won't make it. Innocence dies, while Villany Thrives.

Return to Top
#2123967 - 03/28/17 04:27 PM Re: Reg E - Tesla
burkemi Offline
Platinum Poster
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 528
Reg E is most concerned with what is authorized/what is not authorized. To determine if the dispute falls under the Reg E umbrella, the primary indicator is "Did the customer authorize the transaction(s).?" If your customer did authorize the transaction, then this is not covered under Reg E and your statement above is correct. Some obvious situations that are covered....

Lost card, stolen card, counterfeit card.....and forced authorization (held at gun point to WD funds from ATM).

Keep in mind, however, you may still need to initiate a dispute based on the agreement with your card carrier, even if the transactions are not covered by Reg E.
_________________________
I reject your reality and replace it with my own.

Return to Top
#2124054 - 03/28/17 10:59 PM Re: Reg E - Tesla
BrianC Online
Power Poster
BrianC
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,363
Illinois
Look carefully at 1005.11(a) for what is and is not a covered EFT error. It is a lot more than unauthorized. If I authorize but am charged a wrong amount it is covered. If I am expecting a credit and I don't get it, it is an error. If ai receive the wrong amount of money or no money from an ATM it is covered. If the transaction is not properly identified and I am not sure if I did it or not, it is covered. If I authorize one charge and am charged twice, it is covered. Don't deny a claim just because the transaction was authorized, there may be more to the story.
_________________________
Sola Gratia, Sola Fides, Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, Soli Deo Gloria!
www.tcaregs.com

Return to Top
#2124318 - 03/30/17 01:22 PM Re: Reg E - Tesla
burkemi Offline
Platinum Poster
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 528
blush Hey Brian, you trying to make me look bad? blush

You're right, of course. I'm guilty of trying to over-simplify Reg E. Which is, at best, a difficult prospect. But seriously, thanks for supplying (as Paul Harvey would say) "the rest of the story."
_________________________
I reject your reality and replace it with my own.

Return to Top
#2129220 - 05/04/17 04:46 PM Re: Reg E - Tesla
katheh Offline
New Poster
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 6
If you are unable to verify that an error did occur because you need additional facts or documentation from the customer and you request it but do not receive it. Are we in compliance if we close the case, take back the provisional credit and advise customer that based on information supplied we are unable to determine that an error occurred. If they then have further proof or information how long to they have to re-assert this claim? also what documentation would we have to provide them if we could not determine an error had occurred.

Return to Top
#2129246 - 05/04/17 05:53 PM Re: Reg E - Tesla
BrianC Online
Power Poster
BrianC
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,363
Illinois
Welcome to the BOL threads.

Quote:
Are we in compliance if we close the case, take back the provisional credit and advise customer that based on information supplied we are unable to determine that an error occurred.


No. Consider the CFPB 2014 Supervisory Highlights which points out that " Regulation E also sets forth the timing and content requirement to assert an error, specifically, sufficient information to identify the consumer’s name and account number and why the consumer believes an error exists, including, to the extent possible, the type, date, and amount of the error. A financial institution cannot deny an error claim on the basis of a consumer failing to provide additional information, or require the consumer to contact the merchant involved first."

If you are new to Reg E, BOL has some great training opportunities. BOL Guru Andy Zavonia just gave a Reg E Webinar yesterday and I have previously done webinars on MasterCard Error Resolution and VISA Error Resolution
_________________________
Sola Gratia, Sola Fides, Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, Soli Deo Gloria!
www.tcaregs.com

Return to Top
#2130498 - 05/15/17 07:05 PM Re: Reg E - Tesla
John Burnett Offline
10K Club
John Burnett
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 39,785
Cape Cod
Consider also that it is the card issuer's responsibility to document that the challenged transaction WAS authorized, not that it was not. If the issuer cannot document that there was an authorization, it has to approve the consumer's claim. Documentation does not have to be "beyond a reasonable doubt," and the issuer does not have to look outside its own records if there is no agreement between it and the merchant, originator, etc.
_________________________
John S. Burnett
BankersOnline.com
Fighting for Compliance since 1976
Bankers' Threads User #8

Return to Top

Moderator:  Lestie G