I'm probably overthinking this, but I need to be sure I'm understanding this correctly. So here's my scenario:

Customer gives us verbal notice that they did not authorize a specific transaction. We tell customer that we will investigate, but that we require written notice (as stated in our Reg E disclosure) within 10 days. We do not receive written notice from the customer.

Am I correct that we do not have to give provisional credit, but that we do have to investigate the claim and, if we decide that it is fraudulent, give final credit with 45 days? BUT, if we are not able to determine if the transaction was fraudulent (say it was a PIN based transaction at a merchant that the customer has been to in the past) can we decline credit because the customer did not give us written notice?

Thanks for any help you can give!

The customer's failure to provide written confirmation of the oral claim ONLY affects the provisional credit requirement. It's irrelevant for all other Section 205.11 considerations.

You must decide whether, based on all of the information available to you, whether or not the transaction in question was authorized.

Thanks John. I just needed confirmation for my argument.

I think I should clarify that in my example above the claim wouldn't be denied simply for the reason that the customer did not provide written notice. The denial would be because our investigation shows no evidence that the transaction was fraudulent. With a written statement, the fact that the customer said it was not authorized AND was willing to sign a WSUPP to that effect would likely cause us to pay the claim.

I read back over my original post and thought it was a bit confusing!