|
 |
Home >> Scams/Fraud
My Bank Won't Honor My Claim
I had identity theft on my account and the crook was someone who took care of me while I was ill. He stole a lot of money, taking my debit card while I slept and then putting it back in my wallet. He also took an old checkbook and forged checks. I reported all this to the bank as soon as I found out. They told me to file a claim. Because the crook's mother promised to pay me back (she didn't), it was several months before I filed the claims.
After I filed the claim, the bank said they were not responsible because the person knew my PIN, so I was "negligent". They also said there was a sixty day deadline. They did not mention the forged checks at all.
Are they really not at all responsible because he knew my PIN? Also, I reported this right away; wouldn't the sixty days be from the time I told customer service, not the time I filed the claim? Does the bank bear any responsibility for the forged checks?
Do you know if there is any legal action I can take against the thief? Though he claims he will pay me back, I don't believe he will. I find it odd that the bank doesn't want to investigate at all. I understand that they don't want to reimburse me, but don't they care that someone forged checks? Should I contact their regulator?
|
|
 As is often the case with complicated regulations and laws, somethings that the bank has told you are accurate, and some that are not. Let's see what we can sort out for you.
Liability for a series of forged checks is a complicated matter. In general, you, the customer, have a legal responsibility to promptly examine your bank statements and to notify the bank of any unauthorized items. If the bank can prove that you failed to do so, it can limit its responsibility to reimburse you to forged checks posted to your account before the end of the period ending thirty days after delivery of the statement showing the posting of the first forged check. For example, if the first forged check posted on May 1, 2009, and you get statements on the last day of each month, the bank could limit your claim to checks forged on or before June 30, 2009.
There's nothing in the law that extends that thirty day period for a customer prevented by illness from examining her statements, but there is a provision that allows for a sharing of liability if the customer can prove the bank didn't use ordinary care in paying the forged checks. Finally, a claim is unenforceable altogether if the alleged forgeries took place more than one year earlier (in most states). You may just be too late to have an effective claim for those checks.
The fact that the crook had access to your card's PIN is irrelevant. Regulation E, which protects consumers with respect to electronic fund transfers, says that a consumer's claim that a transaction was unauthorized cannot be denied based on the negligence of the consumer, even if the consumer has written his/her PIN on the card. What is relevant is your claim that the crook took and used the card without your permission or knowledge.
There is a sixty day rule that affects your liability for the unauthorized debit card transactions, but it does not eliminate or invalidate your claim because it was made more than sixty days after you got a statement showing one of the transactions. The sixty day rule does say, however, that there is a limit to the bank's liability based on the customer's obligation to promptly detect and notify the bank of unauthorized activity. Assume, for example, that the first unauthorized transaction occurred on February 5, 2007, and further unauthorized transactions took place sporadically over several months thereafter. If the February 5, 2007, transaction is reflected on a statement delivered on February 25, 2007, a sixty day period is counted from that date (it ends on April 26, 2007). If the customer was not aware that her card was stolen (as you have said), the customer is not liable for any of the unauthorized debit card transactions taking place on or before April 26, but is liable for all such transactions after the sixty -day period.
The sixty day period, according to the regulation and the law behind it, is supposed to be extended if the customer's delay in notifying the bank is due to extenuating circumstances. Whether your illness would be accepted as such an extenuating circumstance would be something a court might have to decide.
Yours is a complex set of circumstances and problems. Contact an attorney or a legal aid office for additional help.
Published on BankingQuestions.com 9/15/09
|
| |
|
Accounts
Article
Q&A
Podcast
Video
Blog
Discussions
PDF
Powerpoint
