Product: Checking or savings account

This issue arises from Fifth Third 's interpretation of Reg E, specifically 12 CFR 1005.6 ( b ) ( 3 ). I submitted a claim of unauthorized charges on a checking account dating back to XXXX of XXXX. The periodic statement showing these charges was transmitted to me on XX/XX/XXXX. The initial dispute included 28 charges totaling {$2600.00}. Notice of these charges was provided to a personal banker on XX/XX/XXXX in writing. The banker contacted me later that same day and acknowledged that the bank staff had reviewed the accounts further and identified a total of 43 transactions totaling " over {$3200.00}. '' Dispute staff facilitated merchant reversal in the amount of {$910.00}. All other amounts were determined to be valid transactions by the dispute staff per a series of final determination letters all dated XX/XX/XXXX. 

I re-asserted my claim that the remaining amounts be credited back to the account on XXXX through a phone call with the disputes department. I was advised on this call that the request was denied because Reg E did not require the bank to provide any credit for unauthorized transactions that they were notified of more than 60 days after their occurrence. I explained that this was inaccurate and based upon the regulation and relevant federal case law I was entitled to relief of all charges exceeding {$500.00} that occurred 60 days from XXXX ( the date of the first statement on which illegitimate charges appeared ). I further provided a detailed email explanation of this referencing 12 CFR 1005.6 ( b ) ( 3 ), the official commentary to the regulation, and recent caselaw in which federal courts have interpreted this section to mean exactly what I was asserting. Additionally, I requested all documentation used by staff in making their determination. I was assured I would receive this. 

I received an additional determination letter on XX/XX/XXXX denying my re-assertion claim. I again called the dispute department on XX/XX/XXXX to discuss this matter. I was told that Fifth Third did not have any documentation relating to this investigation because my claim was denied on the basis that I had not given timely notice of the charges. I was assured the explanatory email I sent was in their possession and had been reviewed as part of their re-assertion investigation. It is notable that all determination letters gave the reason for denial that " our research confirms that the transactions are valid. '' This is an audacious claim for them to make considering their staff has admitted no substantive investigation was ever completed and that the sole reason for denial is the time which elapsed between the charges and when they were notified. 

Fifth Third is in clear violation of Reg E. This specific matter has been controverted in several federal courts, as it appears many other banks have made the same mistake in interpreting the regulation. I am asking that all charges that occurred in the 60-day window beginning XXXX be promptly credited back to my account, with the exception of the {$500.00} liability which the regulation says I must assume. My calculations indicate this amount is approximately {$1700.00} to {$2000.00}.