At our institution, when a customer makes a Reg. E claim, we provide an Affidavit of Unauthorized use form for the customer to complete. Our internal procedures state that this affidavit must be notarized. We are considering changing our procedure to state that we "may" require the form be notarized. I can't find anywhere in the Regulation that specifically states that claims must be notarized...does anyone know if Reg E. requires a notary on claims?
TIA.

From the SWACHA training conferences I've attended...anytime a form says Affidavit, it MUST be notarized. All Reg E requires is a Written Statement Under Penalty of Perjury when filing an error and the form doesn’t have to be notarized. Be sure your customer understands that the WSUPP is a legal document that will hold up in court if the originator should press charges.

Reg. E does not allow you to require from the consumer a notarized document nor does it allow requirement of a signed document. You can ask the consumer to notarize an affidavit but if they refuse, you cannot deny the claim based on that refusal (or lack of signature on a document).

A WSUPP must be obtained and signed in order for any disputed ACH item to be returned into the network. Right?

Yes. NACHA rules require a WSUPP for several types of ACH returns. But you need to separate NACHA rules from Regulation E.

Regulation E provides your customer with certain rights without regard to NACHA or card network rules. In rare cases, the NACHA or card association rules provide some extra rights to the consumer, but they can never take Regulation E's protections away.

Whether or not you obtain the WSUPP from your customer will determine whether your bank is able to recover funds that Regulation E often requires you to return to the consumer.

Aw... that's right... NACHA requires the WSUPP. Sorry bout that Kibbles.

..My apologies for not being more specific...It was actually for an ATM dispense discrepancy.
Between VISA, NACHA and straight up Reg E., it's hard to keep up!
Thanks everyone