A good rule of thumb for any financial account: savings, checking, credit cards, etc. is to occasionally look over the account for problems.
Fun fact: most unauthorized transactions must be disputed within 60 days of the statement posting period or you are completely liable for any losses. Other things that you need to actually notice in a reasonable amount of time include your direct deposits not showing up where they are supposed to go. Even bank errors, flat out they did it WRONG, needs to actually be noticed by you in a time period where it is possible to at least research the problem.
Second fun fact: most financial records within a bank are destroyed after five years. There are exceptions. Check copies, for instance, get saved for seven years. But for many things, after five years, it's gone (and sometimes shorter than that). See, if it's electronic, the bank is paying for that archival space. If it's on paper, then there is a storage facility of some time with a finite.
Sorry to be over-explainy, but seriously:
SC comes in THREE times this week to question withdrawals made from her individual account over five years ago.
Now, one of the transactions is a transfer out of the account for over 29,000 dollars. That's an amount that I can definitely understand being concerned about... you know, some time around when it actually happened. But still, I do my best. We keep the electronic copies of receipts practically forever, and we keep our own statements back to 1992 (when we started archiving them electronically), so I'm actually able to discover relatively quickly that the transaction in question from April of 2009 was a transfer from her individual account to her joint account with her husband.
Problem solved, right?
Not even close. She proceeds to inform me that SHE did not authorize that transfer. Worse, she does so in the most condescending way possible.
SC: "Is this account not an individual account, with no one on it except for me?"
Me: "Yes ma'am, it is."
SC: "Does that not mean that I am the only one able to withdraw funds from that account?"
Me: "Yes ma'am, you are the only person able to authorize withdrawals from that account."
SC: "Then explain to me how this withdrawal happened without my permission!"
Unfortunately, while I have a copy of the receipt on file, it is a wet-signed receipt. That means the electronic copy is not the signed copy (the receipt images at the same time that it prints out). Now we DO keep the copies of the signed receipts... for five years.
So, can I prove to the SC that it was her signature that authorized the transaction? No I cannot. I can tell her that it went into another account with her name on it. Now maybe, just maybe, an employee made an error and allowed the member's husband to make the withdraw/transfer. If this happened, it was most definitely in error.
Do I think that is what happened? No, not really. Not when the other three transactions she questioned from several years ago, I DID have copies of her own signature to prove that she was the one who authorized them.
And frankly, even if the money went to someone else entirely, there would be nothing I could do about it now.
Five years without noticing a 29 thousand dollar withdraw. Must be nice to be able to ignore that sort of money.
Oh, and the joint account was still open, with plenty of funds still in it. So she could have, if she wanted to, move the funds back to her individual account.
Fun fact: most unauthorized transactions must be disputed within 60 days of the statement posting period or you are completely liable for any losses. Other things that you need to actually notice in a reasonable amount of time include your direct deposits not showing up where they are supposed to go. Even bank errors, flat out they did it WRONG, needs to actually be noticed by you in a time period where it is possible to at least research the problem.
Second fun fact: most financial records within a bank are destroyed after five years. There are exceptions. Check copies, for instance, get saved for seven years. But for many things, after five years, it's gone (and sometimes shorter than that). See, if it's electronic, the bank is paying for that archival space. If it's on paper, then there is a storage facility of some time with a finite.
Sorry to be over-explainy, but seriously:
SC comes in THREE times this week to question withdrawals made from her individual account over five years ago.
Now, one of the transactions is a transfer out of the account for over 29,000 dollars. That's an amount that I can definitely understand being concerned about... you know, some time around when it actually happened. But still, I do my best. We keep the electronic copies of receipts practically forever, and we keep our own statements back to 1992 (when we started archiving them electronically), so I'm actually able to discover relatively quickly that the transaction in question from April of 2009 was a transfer from her individual account to her joint account with her husband.
Problem solved, right?
Not even close. She proceeds to inform me that SHE did not authorize that transfer. Worse, she does so in the most condescending way possible.
SC: "Is this account not an individual account, with no one on it except for me?"
Me: "Yes ma'am, it is."
SC: "Does that not mean that I am the only one able to withdraw funds from that account?"
Me: "Yes ma'am, you are the only person able to authorize withdrawals from that account."
SC: "Then explain to me how this withdrawal happened without my permission!"
Unfortunately, while I have a copy of the receipt on file, it is a wet-signed receipt. That means the electronic copy is not the signed copy (the receipt images at the same time that it prints out). Now we DO keep the copies of the signed receipts... for five years.
So, can I prove to the SC that it was her signature that authorized the transaction? No I cannot. I can tell her that it went into another account with her name on it. Now maybe, just maybe, an employee made an error and allowed the member's husband to make the withdraw/transfer. If this happened, it was most definitely in error.
Do I think that is what happened? No, not really. Not when the other three transactions she questioned from several years ago, I DID have copies of her own signature to prove that she was the one who authorized them.
And frankly, even if the money went to someone else entirely, there would be nothing I could do about it now.
Five years without noticing a 29 thousand dollar withdraw. Must be nice to be able to ignore that sort of money.
Oh, and the joint account was still open, with plenty of funds still in it. So she could have, if she wanted to, move the funds back to her individual account.
Comment