Whilst this is a bit trite - surely given that three times the deposit is likely to be large a solicitor might be the best answer - there is a Firm called Pain smith who specialise in Landlord and Tenant (I hasten to add I have no connection) who might help.

I appreciate that - my point is that the word "instruction" is defined within the terms and conditions and it is only when you give an "instruction" to withdraw funds that are not there that the charges bite. My submission is that debiting every time is not dependent on an instruction being given each time - the instructionj was given just once - when the DD was signed.

I am considering a small claim for charges based on exceeding standing orders and direct debits. The argument centres on the word "instruction" which RBS defines and which I would say is only issued once - when I took out the s/o of DD. The bank can only charge if I make an instruction when there are no funds. I say I made the instruction only once - when I took out the DD. Contra proferentem and all that. Suspect may be difficult but wondered what views might be. Have draft pleading.