[Rich]

The following is a hypothetical situation:

For Reg E disputes, We use “Cardholder Disputed Item Statement” from our core provider, JHA 20/20. It contains the following language:

“In dispute cases except those related to lost/stolen/counterfeit cards, you may be required to make an attempt to resolve the dispute with the merchant prior to filing a dispute. Please describe your attempt to resolve in the following section”

Just for fun, let’s say that a Federal Regulator said that this form’s language “imposes liabilities in excess of the regulation’s applicable limitations” and cannot be used.

Does any other JHA 20/20 bank use a different form? Is there an acceptable different form out there?

If your dispute form, policy or procedures contain this language, you might want to think about removing it. Not that I know from personal experience…

HELP! (Hypothetically, of course.)

Topic

[rcooper]

I would agree with your examiner. The language places requirements on the customer that the regulation does not allow, which is that the bank may require the customer to first dispute errors with merchants (not permitted under Reg E). Perhaps it is trying to state for disputes that do not qualify as errors under Reg E (such as customer is unsatisfied with product) that the customer may need to dispute it with the merchant. Either way, I think this language is an issue.

I have a contact at JH. I’ll reach out to him to get his take on the form and ask about additional forms they might have. I know contacting the vendors can be time consuming and frustrating, but I suggest you reach out to your contact at JH to relay the issue.

[Author]

Replies