Unauthorized ACH Claim

Posted By: Bankwoman1

Unauthorized ACH Claim - 10/04/19 08:13 PM

I have a question regarding an unauthorized ACH claim. We have a customer who is disputing 5 ACH transactions that posted to her account. She informed us of the dispute last Friday, September 27th. 3 of the transactions are within 60 days of the transmittal of the periodic statements. 2 of the transactions are prior to that and do not fall within the 60 days. We are investigating all 5 transactions, however, can the 2 that were not reported within the 60 day window be denied for that reason? When we questioned EPCOR, we were told that we would still need to investigate and if we could not be provided with documentation showing she approved these ACH's then we could still return them, only it would have to be done in paper form. Which we would have to pay to do. Could we not simply follow Reg E rules and deny the claim on the 2 that were not reported in time or do we have to follow NACHA rules and still return them? We have already returned the other 3 and received credits on those. We get so confused when it comes to ACH unauthorized transactions and what rules to follow - Reg E or NACHA and how they affect each other.

Thanks! I feel like I have asked a lot of questions the last couple of days!
Posted By: rlcarey

Re: Unauthorized ACH Claim - 10/04/19 08:54 PM

You have it backwards on customer liability. They are liable for the transactions that occur after 60 days of the first statement.
Posted By: BrianC

Re: Unauthorized ACH Claim - 10/04/19 09:27 PM

See this Related Thread where I illustrated the impact of 1005.6(b)(3) relating to a similar question on debit card disputes.
Posted By: Bankwoman1

Re: Unauthorized ACH Claim - 10/07/19 12:46 PM

Ok.....so just to make sure I have it straight. Our customer had 2 transactions come out of her account in May, 1 in June, 1 in July and 1 in August. The first statement would have been the June 10th statement - so 60 days after June 10th - we would be responsible for. That would take us to August 10th. Which would mean that the transaction that came out on August 28th would be the customers' responsibility and everything else would be ours? Correct?? We were able to return 2 of them and received credit. We are waiting on the preauthorization for the other 3, which we don't think we will receive, as we do believe it's a scam. We can then return them late, with a fee. We do, however, still have to do provisional credit within 10 days....correct?

I get so confused with all of this! I appreciate all of the help I receive on here!

Thank you!
Posted By: John Burnett

Re: Unauthorized ACH Claim - 10/07/19 07:46 PM

60 days from June 10 is August 9. July still has 31 days. (OK, so I pick nits!)

Any of the unauthorized transactions occurring after August 9 would be the customer's responsibility.

You received credit for two transactions that you returned. I assume that one of them is the August 28 transaction. You owe your customer credit for any transaction you successfully charge back via the ACH, even if it is one the customer would ordinarily be responsible for under Reg E section 1005.6(b)(3). That's a NACHA requirement.

The provisional crediting requirement is found in 1005.11, and applies if you aren't able to complete an investigation of the consumer's claim within 10 business days of receipt of the claim (in writing, if you told the customer to put it in writing). But it would only apply to the transactions shown on a statement issued within the 60 days prior to the date of the claim.
Posted By: Bankwoman1

Re: Unauthorized ACH Claim - 10/07/19 08:08 PM

Thank you John! Yes - we already provided the customer credit for the items that were returned. We were thinking they would then be responsible for the items within the 60 day timeframe. We had it backwards, as Randy mentioned above.

I think I have it straight now! That is until the next question I get......honestly, Reg E gives me a headache! smile

I appreciate your response and all of your help!

Thanks again.
Posted By: John Burnett

Re: Unauthorized ACH Claim - 10/08/19 01:21 PM

The challenge, of course, is in dealing with the differences between 1005.6, which calls for reimbursing the customer for the oldest transactions when lack of authorization is involved, and 1005.11, which limits the consumer's ability to make error claims to the most recent transactions. And, of course, the vagaries of the other rules -- NACHA, Mastercard and Visa -- that may affect the final result.