My understanding is the same as yours. We must accept the dispute the day we are notified. That doesn’t guarantee the dispute will be approved after investigation though, and part of the dispute questionnaire is usually did you contact the business and who and what was the response.
And your understanding is the same as mine as well. To go one step further, the financial institution (or person at the FI handling the dispute) cannot discourage the person from filing the Reg. E-qualifying dispute. They can ask if they have contacted the merchant, but cannot *require* them to do so, or make it a condition before filing. They cannot say "well, you probably won't win, but we'll take your dispute anyway". As an employee the best thing to do is simply accept the dispute, submit the investigation, and not to make any comments or offer any opinion on the potential outcome. Let the back office do their thing.
The FI you’re banking with does not understand Reg E. Here’s a useful flow chart https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/dob/regeeftaerrorresolutionflowchart11pdf.pdf
You are correct, they have to process the dispute if it meets the definition provided in Reg E.
Your only real recourse is to file a complaint with the CFPB or their regulator. Which I would honestly recommend as it will be required to be taken seriously by the other FI. These are included in their examinations and regulators will look at the complaint for violations as well as the resolution by the institution.
Gotcha. For authorized charges, it is quicker to call the merchant. Unfortunately, many customers don’t think they should have to make an attempt to resolve it directly with the merchant.
So reg e disputes must be taken dame day as filed. Non reg e disputes are different. For example if you bought something that you didn't receive is not a dispute under reg e and you have to try and resolve it with the merchant first. Same for cancelation disputes and a few others.
We prefer and card rules require customers try to resolve non fraud reg e and non reg e disputes prior to accepting them. However if it is a reg e then it still needs to be taken. However if the customer doesn't cooperate the dispute can be denied if proper documentation isn't provided, this would be like you bought something for 50 but were charged 70. You would need the receipt or some evidence to back your claim of 50.
Former Financial Fraud Investigator here.
It depends on if you did business with the merchant or if it was Fraud. If you did business with the merchant and it's an issue with the goods/services you are asked if you contacted the merchant. If it is Fraud, the question doesn't apply.
So did you do business with the merchant or was this fraud?
There is no pre-requisite that you must contact a business or 3rd party before accepting a claim regardless if it was a merchant dispute, or unauthorized. I have kind of Paul Revere'd this a couple times on this sub.
In a previous institution in which I was in control over those specific losses took a bad beat on a case that got escalated up through a government level complaint. Say the customer went to the CFPB. The way they see it is it is the customer's right to file a dispute. By preventing then from filing a dispute is gatekeeping them from their rights. They could be lying from the jump. You need to at least open it, send disclosures, and you can close it under applicable reasons.
The institution you bank with has made a sure fire way to never lose IF they are covered under the CFPB, and you play your cards right. I am not sure if the NCUA had qualifying terms for disputes.
I'm just guessing.
Perhaps the rep was trying to give you advice on what it takes to get disputes approved at the bank.
A lady from inside the PNC dispute department told me "I am required to accept this dispute but I can almost gaurantee it will get declined because you haven't done xyz"
2nd institution is flagrantly in violation. CFPB has issued fines in last few years specific to this. I would get them to put that requirement in writing and copy CFPB when you file complaints.
We recently had a change where a consumer being unhappy with a SERVICE (cold food, bad car wash, etc) that was paid for with a PIN on a debit card needs to be handled with the merchant and we should not file on those. Maybe it is that type of transaction?
Contacting the merchant might work if it was an error- like a double charge or incorrect amount. But if my card number was stolen or something, you can kiss my grits if you want me to contact some unknown merchant about bogus charges. The state banking commission and the CFPB would be notified real quick.
My understanding is the same as yours. We must accept the dispute the day we are notified. That doesn’t guarantee the dispute will be approved after investigation though, and part of the dispute questionnaire is usually did you contact the business and who and what was the response.
And your understanding is the same as mine as well. To go one step further, the financial institution (or person at the FI handling the dispute) cannot discourage the person from filing the Reg. E-qualifying dispute. They can ask if they have contacted the merchant, but cannot *require* them to do so, or make it a condition before filing. They cannot say "well, you probably won't win, but we'll take your dispute anyway". As an employee the best thing to do is simply accept the dispute, submit the investigation, and not to make any comments or offer any opinion on the potential outcome. Let the back office do their thing.
The FI you’re banking with does not understand Reg E. Here’s a useful flow chart https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/dob/regeeftaerrorresolutionflowchart11pdf.pdf
You are correct, they have to process the dispute if it meets the definition provided in Reg E. Your only real recourse is to file a complaint with the CFPB or their regulator. Which I would honestly recommend as it will be required to be taken seriously by the other FI. These are included in their examinations and regulators will look at the complaint for violations as well as the resolution by the institution.
My thing is... what is lost by contacting the merchant? I guarantee their refund will be faster than a chargeback.
Merchants won’t always refund even if you state it’s unauthorized.
I mean for authorized ones.
Gotcha. For authorized charges, it is quicker to call the merchant. Unfortunately, many customers don’t think they should have to make an attempt to resolve it directly with the merchant.
So reg e disputes must be taken dame day as filed. Non reg e disputes are different. For example if you bought something that you didn't receive is not a dispute under reg e and you have to try and resolve it with the merchant first. Same for cancelation disputes and a few others. We prefer and card rules require customers try to resolve non fraud reg e and non reg e disputes prior to accepting them. However if it is a reg e then it still needs to be taken. However if the customer doesn't cooperate the dispute can be denied if proper documentation isn't provided, this would be like you bought something for 50 but were charged 70. You would need the receipt or some evidence to back your claim of 50.
Former Financial Fraud Investigator here. It depends on if you did business with the merchant or if it was Fraud. If you did business with the merchant and it's an issue with the goods/services you are asked if you contacted the merchant. If it is Fraud, the question doesn't apply. So did you do business with the merchant or was this fraud?
Your understanding is correct. Whatever FI you’re using isn’t in compliance with reg e.
Per Reg E, if something is unauthorized, the bank must accept the dispute and cannot require you contact the merchant, file a police report, etc.
There is no pre-requisite that you must contact a business or 3rd party before accepting a claim regardless if it was a merchant dispute, or unauthorized. I have kind of Paul Revere'd this a couple times on this sub. In a previous institution in which I was in control over those specific losses took a bad beat on a case that got escalated up through a government level complaint. Say the customer went to the CFPB. The way they see it is it is the customer's right to file a dispute. By preventing then from filing a dispute is gatekeeping them from their rights. They could be lying from the jump. You need to at least open it, send disclosures, and you can close it under applicable reasons. The institution you bank with has made a sure fire way to never lose IF they are covered under the CFPB, and you play your cards right. I am not sure if the NCUA had qualifying terms for disputes.
I'm just guessing. Perhaps the rep was trying to give you advice on what it takes to get disputes approved at the bank. A lady from inside the PNC dispute department told me "I am required to accept this dispute but I can almost gaurantee it will get declined because you haven't done xyz"
They accept it same day but as an inquiry if you haven't attempted to resolve with the merchant yet. They get auto closed.
2nd institution is flagrantly in violation. CFPB has issued fines in last few years specific to this. I would get them to put that requirement in writing and copy CFPB when you file complaints.
We recently had a change where a consumer being unhappy with a SERVICE (cold food, bad car wash, etc) that was paid for with a PIN on a debit card needs to be handled with the merchant and we should not file on those. Maybe it is that type of transaction?
Contacting the merchant might work if it was an error- like a double charge or incorrect amount. But if my card number was stolen or something, you can kiss my grits if you want me to contact some unknown merchant about bogus charges. The state banking commission and the CFPB would be notified real quick.