In your second scenario, since the error claim will probably include those first two months of unauthorized ACH debits and the subsequent unauthorized debits, you will need to follow 1005.11 only if one or more of the UEFTs is covered by that section. For example, today is 1/10/22. If all of the allegedly unauthorized ACH debits show up on statements sent before 11/11/2021, section 1005.11 would not apply to any of them. It would apply to any unauthorized ACH entries on statements issued after 11/11/2021.
However, because 1005.6 applies independently of 1005.11, you would still need to determine which of the allegedly unauthorized EFTs were not authorized, apply the rules in 1005.6(b) to determine which of them you will need to reimburse the consumer for and which are the consumer's responsibility, and, as a customer service, probably provide a written explanation. In that explanation, you should remind the consumer of their responsibility for timely examination of periodic statements and prompt notification to the bank of unauthorized transactions and any other errors.
If there are any allegedly unauthorized ACH debits that are 60 or fewer days old (from posting date to today's date), you can return them to the ODFI if you have a WSUD from the depositor. Any that you do return will have to be reimbursed to the customer under Nacha rules (not Reg E).
Last edited by John Burnett; 01/10/22 05:00 PM. Reason: added a thought
_________________________
John S. Burnett
BankersOnline.com
Fighting for Compliance since 1976
Bankers' Threads User #8