We have a customer that has filed a claim disputing $1400 in ATM withdrawals during the past two months. Her account became overdrawn in early June and she would have started receiving OD notices at that time. She also received a statement on 6/19 that included some of the disputed items. The branch manager contacted her by phone to discuss her overdrawn account and the customer came in on July 7 and got a loan to cover her overdrafts and additional cash. She says that her card has never been out of her possession - maybe some guy (not sure if boyfriend or not) has taken her card before and made withdrawals and purchases. All the ATM transactions are local but the bank has not been cooperative in the past in providing camera shots to aid in the investigation. Doesnt it seem odd that she would go to the trouble to take out a loan to pay for her overdrafts without even questioning why she was overdrawn and realizing at that point that there was unauthorized activity on her account? Does this sound like a dispute that we can deny because she was notified by way of overdraft notices and even a loan and NOW she decides or thinks she didnt make these withdrawals? She was a little unsure about several things when she filed the dispute. It just seems rather odd that she would get a loan and never question why she was overdrawn in the first place - easy way to get the money to pay back the loan? Any thoughts or advice?

Do the ATM transaction fit her pattern of usage? If so, we deny claims like this all the time based on a well grounded belief that the transactions were authorized. Document the additional fact that the customer was notified that activity on their account took them negative and they got a loan to cover nsf's.

Document, document, document your reasons and keep them handy for the examiners.

If the card has never been out of her possession and she's disputing PIN-based transactions, I would say - Huh? I don't think so. Of course it would be nice if your competitor would be a little helpful with video (if they have it)

It sounds like a little out of the ordinary for me. Like you said she took out a loan and is NOW questioning the validity of the transactions. She may have increased her liability portion by not filing the disputes at the time of the OD. Hopefully others will chime in and be able to add their input.

How often does she over draft things? If she normally od's stuff that isn't any big deal. I like to use pattern of behavior as well but I don't know how well that holds up vs. the reg. Further, if she did at one time authorize her bf to use the card once, but he then used it again without her knowledge or permission those are still unauthorized.

Not everyone reacts the same way to all things. My mother drove her restaurant into bankruptcy and sat on the steps smoking a cigarette while the kitchen equipment she had bought was hawled away.

Has it occurred to you that this person may have been the victim of a skimmed card? As for the PIN usage, the way people just punch in their PINs without paying attention to what's going on around them - watch anyone at a grocery checkout - I'm surprised there isn't more fraud.

All that is to say - you cannot deny this claim simply based on the information you have provided. If the consumer asserts a claim of unauthorized within 60 days of the statement where the transaction occurs, a Reg. E Billing Error has been asserted and you must adhere to all requirements including perform a reasonable investigation to arrive at a conclusion. Gotwood is correct that a pattern of usage can be used as criteria for concluding the transactions are valid because this information is actually related to the transactions in question. Failing that, you cannot disprove the consumer's claim based on "facts" such as her reaction, her loan, and your OD notices. You must assume the consumer's claim is valid until you prove otherwise.

If this is a local issue and the other bank has not been cooperative with you regarding film why not contact the local police department? They may have a better chance of obtaining the facts(and a better chance of obtaining the other banks film during the investigation). - JMHO

Thanks everyone. The other bank has decided to cooperate with us this time and we are continuing the investigation with obtaining the photos from the transactions. We have provided provisional credit until we get all the photos back - it turned out she conducted one of the ones in dispute. Will have to see if any more turn out that way.