If a consumer calls to let us know of a specific transaction on their statement but then during the phone conversation they decide they are going to reach out to the company to try and get more info or check with their husband to make sure it wasn't something they did...does our investigation timeclock start at that point or only if they get back to the bank verifying it was in fact an unauthorized transaction?
How does use of a chip to conduct the transaction affect the claim? If the consumer still has the card in their possession, can we assume the transaction was done with an approved access device since the EMV chip cannot be duplicated?
A Regulation E unauthorized entry claim was received on 4/14/2021 for 4 bankcard purchases of $499.99. The transactions occurred on 12/18/2020. The first statement for which those transactions appears was also 12/18/2020. The bank determined no error occurred due to untimely notice based on § 1005.11(b)(1)(i). (The 60th day would've been 2/16/2021.) The client states the error was first noticed 4/14/2021 (the card was closed 4/14/2021.) According to the client's error claim, the card was never lost nor stolen. A testing report states the claim should've been deemed an error based on §1005.6(b)(1) because the client gave notice within 2 days of noticing the error. Does section §1005.6(b)(1) only apply when an access device is lost or stolen and would the client would still need to provide notice within 60 days from the statement the error first appeared for the liability tiers to apply? Please clarify the proper outcome for this case and provide more clarity on if 1005.6(b)(1) and how it applies after 60 days from the statement on which it first appeared and if it only applies for lost/stolen access devices.
Can we still de-risk?
Can our customer contribute to an IRA at 80 and still be in RMD?