A UK refusal that says your bank statement or employment letter "could not be verified" is usually survivable. Read the paragraph numbers before anything else. A refusal that sits under the visitor rules because a check came back empty is a credibility problem. You fix it with better evidence and you reapply. A refusal that says the document is "not genuine" and cites deception is a different animal. It carries a mandatory ten-year bar on future entry clearance applications, and a fresh application will not wash it out.
Most Indian files I see in this position fall into the first group. Somebody from the visa section phoned a branch or an HR desk and got nobody who could confirm anything. The caseworker wrote it down. That is fixable this month.
The second group needs a lawyer before it needs a new application. I will tell you how to tell them apart, what the caseworker actually did with your documents, and how to make sure the next call gets answered by someone who can say yes.
The two refusals that look alike on paper
Since 11 November 2025 the old Part 9 general grounds have been replaced by Part Suitability of the Immigration Rules. The Home Office caseworker guidance on deception, false representations and false documents sets out the split, and the rules themselves carry the numbers. As of October 2026, re-checked against the current text on gov.uk, they read like this.
| What the letter cites | What it means | Consequence for the next application |
|---|---|---|
| Appendix V genuineness (V 4.2), with wording such as "it has not been possible to verify" | The officer is not satisfied on the balance of probabilities. No finding of dishonesty. | No bar. Reapply with evidence that closes the gap. |
| SUI 10.1 (false representations, false documents, non-disclosure) | Discretionary refusal. Can apply even where the applicant did not know a document was false. | No automatic ban, per the guidance. Must be declared and explained next time. |
| SUI 9.1 (deception) | Mandatory refusal. The officer is satisfied you used deception. | Ten years under SUI 11.1 read with row (f) of SUI 12.1, which for visits applies to entry clearance applications. |
Older letters, issued before November 2025, will cite paragraphs 9.7.1 and 9.7.2 instead. Same logic, different numbering.
The guidance is explicit that a deception finding has to be clearly stated. An officer writing that he has "doubts" or "concerns" has not made one. If your letter talks about doubts, you are almost certainly in the first row.
What the caseworker did with your bank statement
The current Visit caseworker guidance (version 18.0, published 8 October 2026, which replaced version 17.0 of 25 February 2026) tells officers that if they have concerns about whether a document is genuine, they should try to verify it at source. Section 7.5 lists, among reasons to doubt a visitor, that "it has not been possible to verify information provided by the applicant despite attempts to do so".
Despite attempts to do so. An attempt is enough. Whether a human ever picked up is a separate matter, and often nobody did.
In practice, from what applicants later recover through their records, the check is a phone call or an email from the visa section in India to the number or address printed on your document. A branch phone. An HR email. Sometimes the general customer care line. The outcome goes into a Document Verification Report, which the refusal may mention without enclosing.
There is an old tribunal decision that shows exactly how thin these checks can be. In IA/39639/2014, the Chennai office emailed an SBI branch about a balance letter. The bank said the figure did not match and declined to explain. The Upper Tribunal held that this did not amount to prima facie evidence of deception, and said the allegation should not be relied on in any later decision. It also held that the Home Office was entitled to treat the documents as unreliable. Both things were true at once.
That is the line your next application has to walk.
Why Indian files fail the call
I have watched the same handful of patterns for years. None of them involve forgery.
- The statement was downloaded from net banking, carries no branch seal, and lists the bank's national toll-free number. Customer care will not confirm an account to an unknown caller, and it should not.
- The account was opened at one branch and serviced at another after a merger or a home loan. The branch on the letterhead has never heard of you.
- A fixed deposit was broken, or money was moved in from a parent, a week before the application. The balance letter and the statement show two different numbers on the same date. That is precisely what happened in the SBI case.
- The employment letter has a mobile number for the founder and a Gmail address. Nobody answers an unknown +44 or Delhi landline call during a board meeting.
- Salary is paid partly in cash, so the salary slip and the bank credits do not match. The January 2025 update to the Visit guidance specifically told caseworkers that supporting documents must match the finance and income figures declared on the form.
And then there is the one nobody likes to talk about. An agent "tidied up" a statement. If that is your file, stop reading this section and read our piece on declaring an agent's misrepresentation on the next application.
The ten-year finding, and the Kaur judgment
If your letter says checks with the bank "confirmed that this document is not genuine", you are dealing with a deception refusal. Do not file a fresh visit visa with a cleaner statement and hope.
The clearest recent authority is R (Kaur) v Entry Clearance Officer (New Delhi) [2026] UKUT 00080 (IAC). An Indian visitor with a clean previous UK trip submitted an HDFC statement. The officer refused under the old 9.7.1 and 9.7.2 after checks with the bank, and the ten-year bar followed. She tried to withdraw the application, then applied again without the HDFC statement. The second application was refused on the strength of the first.
Two points from that judgment matter to you. First, the tribunal said an applicant facing a mandatory deception refusal should generally be given notice and a chance to respond before the decision. Second, it still dismissed her challenge, partly because she had the gist of the allegation from the first refusal letter and did not put in representations during the long window she had. Her solicitors' letter said a local consultant had prepared the file. That did not help.
The lesson is uncomfortable. Once the bank has told the visa section the document is not theirs, the clock runs against you. Silence looks like acceptance.
What to do this week
Visitor refusals carry no right of appeal and, as of October 2026, Appendix V is not among the routes listed for administrative review. So the options are a fresh application, or a judicial review where the decision is legally flawed. Judicial review has to be brought promptly and in any event within three months.
- Identify the paragraph cited. V 4.2 alone, SUI 10.1, or SUI 9.1. That single fact decides everything below.
- Get the record. File a subject access request with the Home Office for your file, including any verification notes. It is free. The page itself warns of delays, so file it today. Free Movement has a useful piece on why document verification reports are not secret materials.
- Go to your bank branch in person. Ask whether anyone contacted them about your account, and when. Branch staff sometimes remember a call from the High Commission because it is unusual.
- Ask your HR team the same question, in writing, and keep the reply.
- If the letter cites deception and the bank now says the statement is genuine, get that in writing on letterhead, signed by the branch manager, before you speak to anyone about reapplying.
Pre-verifying every exhibit before you resubmit
For a V 4.2 refusal, the fix is boring and it works. You build the file so that any call the officer makes lands on a named person who has been told to expect it.
Bank
Get the statement printed and stamped at the home branch, with a covering letter giving the branch manager's name and a direct landline. Tell the manager a call may come. If balances moved recently, add a one-page note explaining each large credit with its source document attached. A sale deed. A maturity advice. A gift letter from a parent with their own statement.
Employer
The letter should come from HR on letterhead, signed by a named person with a direct landline and a company-domain email. Not the founder's mobile. Brief that person and the reception desk. Salary slips should reconcile to bank credits month by month. Where they do not, say why.
Tax and self-employed income
For founders and consultants, the ITR acknowledgement downloaded from the income tax portal is the anchor. Pair it with a CA certificate of income that carries a UDIN, the unique number the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India requires on certificates so that anyone can check it was really issued by that CA. A CA letter without one invites exactly the call you are trying to avoid. The CA should be reachable on the number printed.
As of October 2026, the Standard Visitor visa costs £135 for up to six months, and a decision usually takes about three weeks after biometrics. Fees move every April, so confirm before paying.
How we would handle this file
A founder came to us earlier this year with a one-line refusal on genuineness. His statement listed a private bank's corporate address. His company letter carried his own signature, because he owns the company. Nothing was false. Nothing was checkable either.
His story stayed exactly as it was. What changed was who would answer the phone. His personal banker signed a stamped statement with a direct line. His co-founder signed the employment letter. His CA issued a UDIN certificate reconciling dividend income to the ITR. Before submission, someone on our team called every number on every document, as a stranger would, and logged who picked up. Two numbers failed that test and were replaced.
The cover letter addressed the earlier refusal in one plain paragraph. It named the document the officer could not verify and pointed to the replacement. No adjectives.
For deception refusals our approach is different. We bring in a regulated UK immigration solicitor first. We are not the right people to run a judicial review, and anyone who tells you they can make a ten-year bar vanish with a new application is selling you a second refusal.
When you should not do this alone
If the letter cites SUI 9.1 or the old 9.7.1, and especially if an agent prepared the documents, do not reapply yourself. A second application made on the same facts can be refused by reference to the first, as Kaur shows, and it adds another refusal you will have to declare to every country for years. The three-month window for judicial review is the deadline that matters.
If it is a plain genuineness refusal and you have a trip within six weeks, the risk is speed. People rush, change two documents, and leave the third one that actually failed. It is worth having one person who has seen these letters before check every exhibit by phone. Our note on the four sentences in almost every UK visitor refusal covers the rest of the letter.
What readers ask after a verification refusal
Does "could not be verified" mean I am banned for ten years?
No. A ten-year bar follows only a deception finding, which the officer has to state clearly, usually citing SUI 9.1 (or 9.7.1 on older letters). A refusal under the visitor rules that says information could not be verified is a finding that you did not prove your case. You can reapply as soon as you have better evidence.
Should I attach a letter from my bank saying the statement is genuine?
Yes, if the earlier refusal mentioned the bank. It should be signed on letterhead by a named branch officer with a direct number, and it should state the balance on the date of the original statement. A letter that only says "we confirm the customer banks with us" adds little.
Do I have to declare this refusal on other countries' forms?
Answer every refusal question exactly as that form words it. Some ask about refusals by any country, others only about their own. Where the question covers a UK refusal, declare it with a one-line explanation. A plain genuineness refusal is rarely fatal elsewhere when it is disclosed. Hiding it is what causes trouble. Our piece on declaring one country's refusal to another walks through how consulates weigh it.