What happened on each call
- 12 Sep, 11:14EB-1100% · Excellent
Clean: reminder call found the payroll-date mismatch, promise to pay captured (call 1 of 2)
A pre-due call that did the one thing pre-due calls exist for: it found the cause before the money moved. Two questions established that the borrower’s payroll had shifted from the 2nd to the 7th while the EMI stayed on the 5th, which also explains the July bounce the officer had been handed as a risk flag. From there she separated the immediate fix (pay by link on Thursday night, balance in place before presentation, re-presentation on the 8th as fallback) from the permanent one (EMI date change to the 10th, effective October, with the charge and the one-cycle lag stated plainly). The bounce charge was quoted correctly as a flat Rs 590 with no capitalisation, the effect on the credit record was described without exaggeration, and the call closed on the borrower’s record rather than on pressure.
“EMI Rs 9,847 due 5 September · auto-debit set up on the salary account · bounce charge Rs 500 + GST = Rs 590 flat, charged once · promise to pay: Rs 9,847 by the evening of 4 September · fallback re-presentation 8 September · EMI date change request raised for the 10th”
- 211 Sep, 11:52EB-20% · Fatal
Fatal: penal charge described as compounding daily interest (call 2 of 2)
Everything about this call was right except one sentence. The officer opened correctly, heard a genuine medical emergency before putting the account position to the borrower, tested the promise against a real cash date, chased the EMI date-change form that would fix the account structurally, and offered declared part payment as a forward path. Then, asked whether the amount keeps growing, she said the penal charge is 2 per cent a month, accrues daily and compounds — none of which is true under the penal-charges framework in force, and none of which matches the flat Rs 590 explanation she herself gave this borrower nine days earlier. The borrower did the arithmetic out loud and she confirmed it. The call scores zero on the fatal, and the correction has to be made to the borrower, not just to the officer.
“EMI Rs 9,847 unpaid · two failed presentations (5 and 8 September) · bounce charges Rs 590 × 2 = Rs 1,180 · total payable quoted as Rs 11,027 · penal charge wrongly described as "2 per cent a month, adding every day" · promise to pay: Rs 11,027 on 14 September”
Sunil Waghmare
Each stage, call by call — the last column shows the change from first to latest call
| Stage | Call 1 | Call 2 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Reached the Right Person | 100% | 100% | 0 |
| 2. Disclosure & Opening | 100% | 100% | 0 |
| 3. EMI, Dues & Charges | 100% | 53% | -47 |
| 4. Reason & Funding Check | 100% | 100% | 0 |
| 5. Payment & Retry | 100% | 100% | 0 |
| 6. Promise to Pay | 100% | 100% | 0 |
| 7. Bounce Charge & Credit Record | 100% | 73% | -27 |
| 8. Closing & Next Step | 100% | 100% | 0 |
| 9. Fair Conduct | 100% | 100% | 0 |
| Call score | 100% | 90% → 0%set to 0 by fatal breach |
The stage scores above show how the officer did on each part of the call. A fatal breach is zero-tolerance, so it sets the whole call score to 0, whatever the stage scores were: Call 2 scored 90% on its stages → 0% (1 fatal). The journey score follows the same rule.