HDFC LTD GUWAHATI

Closing Meeting Summary

1. General Observations:
(a) Loan Application Forms: Photos are not self attested, stapled instead of
pasting in the designated place in many cases.
(b) The filing of documents is not managed properly as documents of other files
found in the sample file, though not relevant. In some cases documents are
not available in the docket.
(c) In Guwahati, generally consideration for purchase of property detail (mode of
payment (Cash/cheque), cheque reference etc not mentioned. Only amount
received is confirmed.
(d) Customer signature in vernaculars language certificate is obtained in English.
(e) All pages of acceptance copy not signed from B/CB. The signature obtained
on last page.
(f) Location sketch is not self attested, verified with original by the branch. This
was suggestion in opening meeting from PIPM representative.
2. Branch Specific Practice:
(a) In case of disbursement in the other branch, the KYC documents are
updated by Guwahati branch official using their own login and stating that
same is verified by him/ her, instead of mention that same is verified by
other branch official.
(b) Where OCR not verified with customer bank statement, as it is not
provided by customer, due to his own reservations, the same is confirmed
as paid from the builder bank statement. We are not convenience with this
practice being it does not ensure that the payment was made by customer
from his resources, which has been concern of HDFC to ensure that
customer has interest in the property.
(c) The source in cash OC is not checked and documented for the justification
before accepting the same.
(d) FCI waived in the CCV module window instead of going in the module and
waiver given for the relevant item out of residence verification, ITR
verification, employment verification, whichever is not required.
(e) The income considered for repayment capacity includes rent received in
cash, forming major source of income, considered though not supported
with the banking balance also. Generally these agreements are for 11
months only. In few cases the rent agreement was also expired (not in
force) at the time of file was procured.
(f) Site photo is kept in Hard disc with the name of borrower instead of file
No.
(g) Acceptance copy is not available in some cases. The branch has not taken
ack on the photocopy of offer letter, in case due to some technical reason,
the acceptance copy could not generated.
(h) The declaration from the customer to compliance of TDS on sale
consideration is not obtained, where applicable.
3. Others:
(a) KYC: Address updated (specially property address) does not match with
the address proof obtained to comply the KYC, in some cases.
(b) Original documents are not verified with Original, as required, in few
cases.
(c) In case disbursement in outstation/ other branches, the Original KYC
documents are verified with original is not confirmed. The branch view is
that it the responsibility of the other branch disbursal officer. The
documents verified by other branch official, as verified is neither called to
keep in the relevant file nor confirmed on email with scan copy of the
same. Also refer para 2.(a).
(d) Disb Memo not signed by B/CB- cases observed.
(e) Latest bank statement not obtained before the File login and observed
gap of 2 to 3 months.
(f) CIBIL defaults, ignored without justification, merely on the basis of self
declaration.
(g) Mistake observed in compliance of special condition. Wherever waived
later on, same is not taken as deviation and approval of the competent
authority/ branch manager.
(h) Action Date: Expired, neither document obtained nor action date updated.
(i) Pending Title documents: the collection in old cases not encouraging, as
still lot of old cases are pending.
(j) FCI agency Reporting as address not found, later on branch report that
same found. In such cases FCI amount not deducted.
(k) TPA is not signed from the branch authorized person.
4. Technical: The approved plan/ site plan not carried in many cases by the
branch official, so auditor could not verify the same. This was communicated
in writing much in advance to the branch. The SARFAESI cases were not
shown to us due to some goof up in the HDFC officials. The estimate,
construction stage wise progress etc- question raised in a case not replied
satisfactorily.
5. PD Review: Branch is in process to take up the same.