You should issue a counter-claim against them for the charges applied to your account. They do not have the money to pay for the High Priced Legal Advisors like the banks. Below are snippets from my Claim which I have not yet submitted as it would cost alot of money to pursue as it would either be held in the Ordinary Procedure due to the length of the claim or possibly through the Outer House of the Court o Session in Scotland.
In 2005, they (The Banks) told the House of Commons Treasury Committee bank charges were "going to pay for all the people we have who pursue debt, collect debt, speak to customers and chase payments". That wasn't true.
Nor was it true when the British Bankers Association told us in 2006 that every time a transaction was declined there was a bank employee sitting in an office looking through a customer's file and deciding what to do.
In 2007, the banks then claimed overdraft charges were a fee for an informal overdraft.
The truth only came out in the OFT's case, and most banks have still failed to communicate this. They admitted the charges are indeed used to subsidise other customers.
The Banks have a duty under Section 221 of the Companies Act 1985 to keep accounting records:
Sub-Section 1 of the Act provides that, "Every company shall keep accounting records which are sufficient to show and explain the company's transactions."
Sub-Section 2 provides that the accounting records shall in particular contain-
(a) entries from day to day of all sums of money received and expended by the company , and the matters in respect of which the receipt and expenditure takes place.."
You can argue that the defenders should have all of this information to hand which would prove your case.
Section 222, Sub-Section 5 of the Act provides that "in the case of a Public Company, these records should be kept for a period of at least 6 years."
As these charges levied occurred within the last six years, you can crave the court to order the banks (debt collection agency in your case) to submit these detailed accounts into court showing the actual cost charges in reflection to the charges levied against you.
Section 450 Companies Act 1985.
(1) An officer of a company who
(a) destroys, mutilates or falsifies or is privy to the destruction, mutilation or falsification of a document affecting or relating to the company's property or affairs, or
(b) makes, or is privy to the making of a false entry in such a document,
is guilty of an offence, unless he proves that he had no intention to conceal the state of affairs of the company or to defeat the law.
(2) Such a person as above mentioned who fraudulently either parts with, alters or makes an omission in any such document or is privy to fraudulent parting with, fraudulent making of an omission in any such document, is guilty of an offence.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable to imprisonment or a fine, or both.
In the Supreme Court case; The OFT v Abbey and 7 others,
Early in his argument Mr Sumption said:
"[T]here is.room for argument about whether the insufficient fund charges are part of the price for the package of services or just the particular service which
occasions their being charged, but we will submit that it is unrealistic to say, as the judge did, that insufficient fund charges are not payable in exchange for any service at all and are, therefore, not a price at all."
Mr Justice Andrew Smith said:
I therefore accept the OFT's submission that if a Bank declines to pay upon a Relevant Instruction, it supplies no, or no relevant, services by way of considering, processing or otherwise dealing with it.
Effect of unfair term
8.-(1) An unfair term in a contract concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier shall not be binding on the consumer.
(2) The contract shall continue to bind the parties if it is capable of continuing in existence without the unfair term.
Therefore, since the terms and conditions of the Bank Account Facility were not individually negotiated, and unfair under the themes listed above, the "Relevant Charges" levied by the defender are not binding upon on the pursuer, the terms of the agreement are unfair to the pursuer and the Pursuer is entitled to be reimbursed accordingly.
The pursuer craves the court to allow the defenders the opportunity to provide documentation, transcripts from customers showing that they were allowed to open bank accounts without the "Relevant Charges" being part of the contract an or any of the other themes the pursuer has mentioned in his claim above.
If you require anymore snippets or legislation, guidelines, case law, just post a message or PM me and I will see what I can do for you.
Whatever you do, I think you should fight it and counterclaim. If you lose that, all you stand to lose is your fee for serving the counterclaim. If you require help in doing this let me know and I can help you through the claim process. I am not legally qualified, I just know quite a bit about Consumer Law and have spent over 30 hours researching information for one claim.