What is a good response to this post? For this discussion, I will share an example from the company I work for, referring back to the example I shared in week one concerning the ATM upgrade and debit card changes. When our company switched ATM and debit card processors, so did our process for fraud disputes. Initially, when a member’s card was frauded, they would come into the branch, we would refund their money under provisional credit, and then send off the dispute to the processor for them. This process worked well most of the time, but in the instances where a member claimed fraud and the processing company determined it was not fraud, their money was then taken back. With the new system, it is up to the member to file their own dispute, and they now have to wait 45-60 days to receive a refund if they are frauded. Due to the sheer uptick in fraudulent behavior, this was a smart choice for the credit union because one department cannot simply keep up, and outsourcing to a third party made sense. Placing some of that burden on the member made sense. Due to the increase in fraud, it seems it was not a reasonable choice for the member. Waiting 45-60 days to get money back on a fraud dispute seems like a burden to the member, especially when bills are due. Let's be honest, the electric company doesn’t usually care if you’re waiting on a refund from some supposed fraud, they want their money! This reengineering was successful from a business viewpoint and less successful from a member viewpoint. I am in the “it’s a cath 22” camp because, from the business end, I can see it makes sense, but as a member who has had fraudulent charges on my card, I want my money back NOW! Business-wise, we have seen a decrease in loss in the area of fraud because we are not just handing out money left and right, waiting to be reimbursed. There is now a formal process that the member must go through to initiate the refund. Once the fraud is validated, the company will then send the funds to our accounting department, and they then return those funds to the member. This has deterred many people from making fraud claims if they understand their claim will be investigated. For instance, we see a lot of people claiming fraud on cash apps and video game accounts. Oftentimes, this has turned out to be kids purchasing on their parent’s linked accounts, and that is not the case for a fraudulent dispute. In this area, the change in process has increased efficiency. Reducing the loss of provisional credits has positively impacted the financial status of the credit union because reducing loss is always a bonus. However, we cannot dispute the inconvenience this places on the members who are true victims of fraud. Overall, it is a business win for the credit union. While there are some disgruntled members, typically, the ones that are honestly claiming fraud have shown us patience and grace throughout the process.
What is a good response to this post?
For this discussion, I will share an example from the company I work for, referring back to the example I shared in week one concerning the ATM upgrade and debit card changes. When our company switched ATM and debit card processors, so did our process for fraud disputes. Initially, when a member’s card was frauded, they would come into the branch, we would refund their money under provisional credit, and then send off the dispute to the processor for them. This process worked well most of the time, but in the instances where a member claimed fraud and the processing company determined it was not fraud, their money was then taken back. With the new system, it is up to the member to file their own dispute, and they now have to wait 45-60 days to receive a refund if they are frauded. Due to the sheer uptick in fraudulent behavior, this was a smart choice for the credit union because one department cannot simply keep up, and outsourcing to a third party made sense. Placing some of that burden on the member made sense. Due to the increase in fraud, it seems it was not a reasonable choice for the member. Waiting 45-60 days to get money back on a fraud dispute seems like a burden to the member, especially when bills are due. Let's be honest, the electric company doesn’t usually care if you’re waiting on a refund from some supposed fraud, they want their money!
This reengineering was successful from a business viewpoint and less successful from a member viewpoint. I am in the “it’s a cath 22” camp because, from the business end, I can see it makes sense, but as a member who has had fraudulent charges on my card, I want my money back NOW! Business-wise, we have seen a decrease in loss in the area of fraud because we are not just handing out money left and right, waiting to be reimbursed. There is now a formal process that the member must go through to initiate the refund. Once the fraud is validated, the company will then send the funds to our accounting department, and they then return those funds to the member. This has deterred many people from making fraud claims if they understand their claim will be investigated. For instance, we see a lot of people claiming fraud on cash apps and video game accounts. Oftentimes, this has turned out to be kids purchasing on their parent’s linked accounts, and that is not the case for a fraudulent dispute. In this area, the change in process has increased efficiency.
Reducing the loss of provisional credits has positively impacted the financial status of the credit union because reducing loss is always a bonus. However, we cannot dispute the inconvenience this places on the members who are true victims of fraud. Overall, it is a business win for the credit union. While there are some disgruntled members, typically, the ones that are honestly claiming fraud have shown us patience and grace throughout the process.
Step by step
Solved in 2 steps with 3 images
