The letter the bank asked for, and the escalation that undid it: 640 → 728

Background

Mr. Balsingh Shankarsingh Hajeri of Bengaluru came to us with a profile carrying multiple written-off and overdue accounts across different banks and institutions — his January 2026 CIBIL read 640. Each account was reviewed and worked individually: foreclosure and outstanding details obtained, options negotiated. On one account with IndiaBulls, where the outstanding was significantly high, negotiation brought the amount down to where the client could realistically clear it — and he did. Account by account, the profile was being repaired. Except one.

The account that would not correct

Mr. Balsingh had been paying Belgaum Rani Chennamma Bank on time — and the payments were not being reported correctly on his credit reports. When we first contacted the bank, corrections were assured. The reporting continued unchanged. In the same period, he applied to the same bank for a loan, and during that process the bank asked him to submit a letter stating that all his credit-related issues had been resolved, assuring him it would help the application. He trusted them and submitted it. The loan was rejected anyway — and the incorrect remarks stayed on his reports.

The loop

From then on, every complaint we raised met the same wall: the bank pointed to the letter the client himself had submitted — he had confirmed his issues were resolved, they said; the updates had already been made, they said. The reports said otherwise, month after month. The repeated assurances without correction put the client under real stress, and it became clear no amount of ordinary follow-up would break the loop. So we stopped following up — and escalated.

The escalation

The matter went to the Reserve Bank of India, laid out completely: the incorrect reporting against documented on-time payments, the sequence of assurances, the letter and how it was being used, and the impact on the client. Following the escalation, the bank reviewed the matter — and took corrective action: the reporting was corrected and updated accurately, while the other accounts we had been resolving individually were cleared and updated alongside.

The outcome

Corrections reflected across all four credit bureaus, and his CIBIL moved from 640 to 728 — documented below in his own report extracts, the Rani Chennamma account going from overdue reporting in January to closed at zero in June. What began as a pile of write-offs, overdues and one immovable bank ended as a clean, accurate profile.

Report evidenceView his reports — before and after+

CIBIL score640 → 728 Report pulls22 Jan → 23 Jun 2026 Rani Chennamma Bank accountOverdue reporting → Closed · ₹0 RedactedAccount nos., amounts & identifiers

Tap to compare the two reports

Before · Jan After · Jun

Before · pulled 22 Jan 2026Score 640

Open full size ↗

After · pulled 23 Jun 2026Score 728

Open full size ↗

The Rani Chennamma Bank reporting — January versus June

BeforeOverdue reporting

Open full size ↗

AfterClosed · ₹0 balance

Open full size ↗

Raw extracts from Mr. Balsingh's own TransUnion CIBIL reports, labelled by report pull dates. Account numbers, amounts and identifiers are redacted; the institutions are named in this article. Published with his consent.

His testimonial, in his words

Why this case matters

Because it documents a pattern every borrower should know before signing anything: never submit a letter stating your issues are resolved while they are not — whatever the assurance attached, a written confirmation in the lender's file can be read back against every future correction demand. And it shows the machinery that exists precisely for walls like this one: when a lender's assurances and its reporting tell different stories, the RBI escalation route compels the review that phone calls never will. Payments made on time are a matter of record; a report that says otherwise is a defect with a legal remedy — the full dispute-to-escalation playbook is here.