Grandma claims over $7,000 in unauthorized charges on her account, she notifies bank of this 2/16. She worked to get refunds/money back on some of them, as it seemed her grandson used her card, although she claimed he didn't. She then comes back to bank stating only $4,000 needs to be disputed; it is then bank knew a total on what transactions were actually being disputed. Bank then provided provisional credit to customer for $4,000, but this happened to be longer than 10 days after the initial notification to the bank of the dispute on 2/16. In this scenario is it okay we waited to provide provisional credit, since we didn't have all/clear info from customer on 2/16 (or even within 10 days of this date)?

I'm not going to opine on the timeframes, but on the situation.

Comment was that it appears that her grandson used the card . . . If the bank can get proof - picture from store, atm, etc., tell grammy that they will file theft and abuse of elderly charges against the kid.

No, it is not OK to go beyond the timeline to pay provisional credits. At issue here is did grandma place a claim, or inquire about the nature of transaction that she wanted to review? If it is the former, it's a violation, if it's the latter she is now identifying why she believes there are errors and the bank needs to begin it's investigation.

I don't disagree with Rocky's comments so long as the bank WILL actually do this. And more than once I heard back, "I hope something will get thru to him this time, so go for it."

A problem you may now have is if you are looking for video evidence, it may have been recorded over.

When a customer only tells the bank that there are some unauthorized withdrawals and hasn't identified which transaction are in question, you don't have a claim unless the customer asks for more information on one or more of the transactions. But if the customer's notice is no more than "I don't recognize some of the withdrawals from my account," the bank needs to get the customer to pin down which transactions are being challenged before there is a valid claim that starts the 10-, 45-, or 90-day clock.