I sent them a letter stating that I still believed the charges were unfair and if they were not repayed I would consider taking them to court.
See below - Sorry its a bit long
Re: Your refusal to refund bank charges
I write in response to your letter refusing my request for a refund of bank charges. I note your position is that I am not entitled to a refund because the terms and conditions of my account allow you to impose charges where I have insufficient funds in my account.
Your bank insists it can impose charges in accordance with its terms and conditions of contract. However, those terms and conditions are subject to the common law and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (UTCCR). Indeed, the UTCCR takes precedence over any contractual term where the court finds a term to be ‘unfair’. The court can then treat that term of contract as having no legal effect.
The question that arises is this: are your charges unfair in terms of the UTCCR? 0n 26 July 2005 the OFT stated that 'a charge is likely to be disproportionately high if it is more than a court would be likely to award if the lender sued the cardholder for breach of contract'. So what would the court award your bank for my minor breach of contract?
As you will be aware, the court will only award (in a non-negotiated consumer contract) a sum to reimburse actual loss. Your charges do not reflect actual loss. Rather, they include a massive profit margin or penalty. Alternatively, they subsidise the bank's global debt recovery costs and lending losses. There is parliamentary evidence for this assertion.
When the UK banks gave evidence to the House of Commons Treasury Committee on how bank charges were calculated they said:
"[bank charges] are going to pay for all the people we have who pursue debt, collect debt, speak to customers and chase payments. The way these charges are arrived at is by taking these total costs and making some assumptions about the volume that is going to come through to arrive at the individual charges" (House of Commons, 2nd report, 25 January 2005, paragraph 50).
Accordingly, your charges do not reflect the actual loss in my case. They are an illegal penalty charge designed to recover money unconnected with the conduct of my account. Please advise whether you have an appeals procedure, and if so, please treat this letter as a request for an appeal against your decision not to refund charges.
If I do not hear from you within the next 7 days, I will consider raising an action of payment at my local court. In that eventuality, I would require you to lodge in court financial vouching for the actual loss sustained in my case, together with your full financial accounts revealing how much income is generated from your bank charges, as against the cost of administering dishonoured transactions.
I look forward to your response.