How do other FI's define "prompt" in relation to Reg E error resolution claims? I am specifically looking at commentary related to §1005.11 (c)-2.

Written confirmation of oral notice. A financial institution must begin its investigation promptly upon receipt of an oral notice. It may not delay until it has received a written confirmation.

Within how many days must the investigator begin their review of the dispute?

My answer is based on customer service - I try to look at them as soon as they are received. The reg states that we have 10 days to conduct our initial investigation to determine if we can resolve it or if we need additional information from the other party in the transaction. We are a small institution, and I am a department of one, so there are times when we may have a delay,

Why would you wait. Any delay and it puts the bank at an increased loss risk as your 60-day return timeline is ticking.

Well, "promptly" is defined as, with little or no delay; immediately.

If you opt to wait, your deadline remains and is unchanged. But for consumer protection if the bank would have been able to resolve the claim in 1 day, yet took 10, that would not be promptly and a violation of Reg E and likely considered a UDA(A)P issue as well causing consumer harm.

In reality when you interview the consumer and take notes and open a file, you have begun your investigation. The intent is, the consumer should not be disadvantaged because a bank always opts to wait until day 10 to start, or waits for a written claim. I think Valley Girl is on the right track.