[TheBank]

When a customer calls in a Reg E dispute we ask the customer to come in and sign the form. Our core processor requires this form and it be signed. In a recent conversation with our core processor they stated that we could have an employee sign the form and state “on behalf of John Doe” stating the customer’s name.

Would this practice be acceptable? What issues would there be if any? Should we continue to try to get the customer to sign the form?

We understand that if the customer calls in the dispute and never comes in the bank to sign the form the dispute must still be investigated with timing requirements still applicable. The difficulty is that the clock starts when the dispute is reported to us, even if the form has not been signed yet. We are trying to improve the process.

[rcooper]

What is the form… is it an internal form the bank implemented, a form your core processor provided and requires, etc.?

[TheBank]

Sorry! the form is required by our core processor so that they can help us with the investigation of disputes.

[rcooper]

You are correct, you can’t require the customer to sign the form before you begin your investigation or in order to make your final decision regarding the claim. You can require written confirmation before you provide provisional credit. I’d want to make sure what the core processor is actually requiring – are they requiring the form be signed or just completed? I would not want to sign on behalf of someone else without proper legal authorization to do so. I think it would create risk for your staff and your bank. Notating on the form that the customer provided the information via telephone, email, etc. with the date/time/initials, etc. of the employee rather than signing on behalf of someone could possibly work. I’d suggest talking to your attorney about this and the risks involved.

[Author]

Posts