[penncm]

A customer files an unauthorized transaction Reg. E claim and the bank pays the claim. After the claim is paid, the customer then goes further back in their statements to see when the first error happened and files another claim. If the customer would have claimed the UT the first time it happened, the original claim would then be the customer’s responsibility because they didn’t notify the bank within 60 days of the statement date and it falls 60 days after the first UT yet the bank can’t reclaim the payment it already made.

What is the proper process for situations like this? Or does the fault lie with the bank since the bank did not research prior statements looking for the first UT when the customer first filed the claim? Must the bank pay both claims (within liability limits of course)

Topic

[rcooper]

Researching prior statements for the UT in question would prevent situations like this from occurring. Going forward I recommend researching prior statements to verify the bank was notified within the appropriate time frames (within 60 days of when the UT first transmitted on a statement) and to determine if the UT was preventable (if the bank had been aware), both of which will affect the amount of the customer’s liability.

From the information you provided, it sounds like you weren’t technically liable for the claim you already paid, but if you revoke it now you are out of your timeframes for handling the dispute, so if you reopen it, you may create more headaches for yourself later on.

[Author]

Replies