Does the bank have to provide a notice outlining the action taken and/or results of the investigation as Reg E requires on debit card disputes when a customer reports an ACH transaction as unauthorized or disputed?
If a customer contacts the bank stating there has been ACH transfers coming out of their account that they never authorized. Would the bank be required to resolve the problem by following Sec. 205.11 of Reg E - Procedures for resolving errors?
Can you provide an interpretation of Reg E Section 205.10? It states, "the financial institution must honor an oral stop-payment order made at least three business days before a scheduled debit. If the debit item is resubmitted, the institution must continue to honor the stop-payment order". It further states under revocation of authorization "once the financial institution has been notified that the consumer's authorization is no longer valid, it must block all future payments for the particular debit transmitted by the designated payee-originator." Is the bank covered if their policy is to place a stop payment for a specific time frame? Is the bank required to block all similar transactions (same originator not necessarily the same amount) indefinitely?
We have an item that posted to a customer's account that came through via what appears to be a paper item, although it posts as an "electronic image". However, it seems pretty obvious that the company took the customer's account information, probably via phone, and created a check for a payment of a membership. This was recurring for about 4 months. Is this an EFT, and thus, subject to Reg E?
I am going to ask a really stupid question. What is the difference between ACH and EFT? I am very new to the banking industry and these two topics confuse me.
My question is regarding Reg E concerning the placement of stop payments on ACH items. I was told that stop payments need to be placed indefinitely. I would think this would be up to the customer. Why would it be regulation to place a stop indefinitely without a known dollar amount, especially if you continue business with the payee? If the amount is not available all transactions from the payee will be returned. How true are these statements concerning stop payments on ACH transactions?
The passage below is part of John Burnett's response to a Reg E question concerning unauthorized transactions reported beyond 60 days from the statement delivery date. For example, if there was an unauthorized transaction (no access device used) that appeared on the customer's June statement and he or she is just now reporting it, must the bank reimburse the customer? My bank has been denying these claims as too old. Based on everything I've read, I believe the customer is not liable for these initial transactions, even though they appear on earlier statements. I am wondering what John meant by "unless the transaction is one in a series" in the article below. Could someone elaborate please? Your consumer/customer is entitled to enter a claim with you that an entry was unauthorized at any time (the 60 day limit in section 205.11 only covers the customer's right to the procedures in that section, not the customer's liability for unauthorized transfers, which is found in section 205.6). If the transaction is unauthorized, the customer is entitled to a refund unless the transaction is one in a series and took place more than 60 days after the statement was available that showed the first unauthorized transaction in the series.
If an unauthorized ACH (payment out) is discovered by a business by reviewing the bank statement (about 40 to 50 days after the transaction) who is liable for the loss, the bank or the business?
In regards to a POS or ACH dispute, which is considered day #1 for timeline purposes? Is it the day the dispute is reported or the following calendar day? For example, when using a day counter calendar day one begins on the following day.
Pay day loan companies are illegal in NC and a customer gets loans from six different companies then finds out it is illegal. He or she is then advised that they don't have to pay them back because they have no recourse against her in NC, so he or she wants to dispute the ACH debits as unauthorized transactions under Reg E and have all the money put back in his or her account. Wouldn't they have to return the credits as well? Also, does the bank have to return any NSF fees involved?