Section 75 is usually the stronger route when an eligible credit-card purchase costs more than £100 and up to £30,000, while chargeback is especially useful for debit-card purchases, lower-value transactions and disputes that fall outside Section 75. They are not interchangeable: Section 75 is a statutory consumer right, whereas chargeback operates through card-scheme rules and normally has much shorter deadlines.
You do not necessarily need to choose one in isolation. Depending on how you paid and what went wrong, your card provider may need to consider both. The practical priority is to identify whether Section 75 applies and, because chargeback deadlines can be short, contact your card provider promptly.
Section 75 vs chargeback at a glance
| Question | Section 75 | Chargeback |
|---|---|---|
| What is it? | A statutory protection under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 | A card-scheme process for reversing eligible transactions |
| Which cards? | Primarily qualifying credit arrangements, including eligible credit-card purchases | Can apply to debit, credit and some prepaid-card transactions |
| Purchase-price requirement | Cash price must generally be more than £100 and not more than £30,000 | No equivalent Section 75 purchase-price threshold |
| Must the whole purchase be paid by card? | No. Paying only part by qualifying credit may be enough | Recovery is generally tied to the amount paid through the disputed card transaction |
| Typical deadline issue | Not governed by chargeback's usual 120-day card-scheme window, although legal limitation periods still matter | Often around 120 days, depending on the scheme and circumstances |
| Legal right? | Yes | No. It depends on the relevant card-scheme rules |
The Financial Ombudsman Service guidance on goods and services bought using credit explains that banks and lenders may consider either a chargeback or a Section 75 claim when purchases go wrong.
What Section 75 actually gives you
Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 can make the credit provider jointly responsible with the supplier when the supplier has breached the contract or made a qualifying misrepresentation.
The Financial Conduct Authority describes Section 75 as connected-lender liability: where the conditions are satisfied, a consumer with a valid claim against the supplier may have a corresponding claim against the creditor. This can matter enormously if the retailer refuses to help, disappears or becomes insolvent.
For ordinary Section 75 protection, the cash price of the goods or services must be more than £100 and not more than £30,000. The important number is the item's cash price, not necessarily the amount charged to your credit card.
A small credit-card deposit can protect a much larger purchase
Suppose a sofa costs £2,000. You pay a £100 deposit using an eligible credit card and the remaining £1,900 by bank transfer.
The relevant price for Section 75 is the £2,000 cash price of the sofa. Subject to the other Section 75 requirements being satisfied, paying only part of the purchase with qualifying credit can still bring the whole transaction within the protection.
This is one of the major differences from chargeback. MoneyHelper specifically notes that a purchase can qualify even when only the deposit was paid using the credit card.
Section 75 may also extend beyond simply reversing the amount charged to the card. Where legally recoverable from the supplier, a claim may potentially include additional losses caused by the breach.
See MoneyHelper's current Section 75 and chargeback guidance for further examples of how partial credit-card payments can work.
What chargeback does differently
Chargeback is a mechanism through which your bank or card issuer can challenge a card transaction under the rules of the relevant payment-card scheme. It can be useful when goods never arrive, services are not supplied, goods are defective, a promised refund does not appear or the transaction otherwise meets a valid dispute reason.
Unlike Section 75, chargeback is not itself a statutory consumer right. The applicable procedure depends on the relevant scheme rules, such as those governing Visa, Mastercard or American Express transactions.
Its big advantage is reach. A debit-card customer cannot normally use Section 75 merely because they paid by debit card, but the transaction may still qualify for chargeback.
Chargeback can also be useful for credit-card purchases costing £100 or less, where the ordinary Section 75 price requirement is not met.
The deadline is the trap to watch
The Financial Ombudsman Service says consumers usually have around 120 days to raise a chargeback involving goods or services. Exactly when the clock starts can depend on the circumstances.
For example, if you bought concert tickets months in advance and the event was later cancelled, the relevant period may be connected to when the event should have taken place rather than simply the day on which you bought the tickets.
Scheme rules can contain different or additional limits, so do not treat 120 days as a universal formula. Contact your bank as soon as you know there is a problem and ask what deadline applies to your transaction.
Which route fits your purchase?
A useful way to decide is to start with the payment method, purchase price and type of loss rather than simply asking which process sounds easier.
| Situation | Route to investigate | Why |
|---|---|---|
| £60 item paid by debit card never arrives | Chargeback | Debit-card payment and below Section 75's qualifying price range |
| £900 laptop bought entirely on a credit card is defective | Section 75 and potentially chargeback | The purchase may fall within Section 75 and may also meet a chargeback reason |
| £4,000 holiday with a small deposit paid by credit card | Investigate Section 75 | Paying only part by qualifying credit can still be sufficient |
| £80 credit-card purchase was cancelled but never refunded | Chargeback | The individual purchase is below the ordinary Section 75 threshold |
| £1,500 purchase with losses beyond the amount charged to the card | Investigate Section 75 carefully | Section 75 can potentially address qualifying losses beyond merely reversing the card payment |
Do not misunderstand the £100 Section 75 rule
One of the easiest mistakes is to look at the total card statement instead of the price of the particular goods or services.
Section 75 generally requires the relevant item's cash price to be more than £100. An item costing exactly £100 does not satisfy a rule requiring the price to exceed £100.
Nor can several unrelated cheap items necessarily be added together simply because the till receipt exceeds £100.
MoneyHelper gives the example of separate items whose individual prices are £100 or less. Their combined bill does not automatically make each item Section 75 eligible. A genuine set sold as a single item may be treated differently.
Worked example: £1,200 furniture order
Consider an illustrative scenario.
- Furniture cash price: £1,200
- Credit-card deposit: £120
- Balance paid by debit card: £1,080
- Supplier later stops trading before delivery
The purchase price falls within the ordinary Section 75 range. Because part of the qualifying purchase was paid using the credit card, the customer could ask the credit-card issuer to consider a Section 75 claim for the relevant loss, subject to all the statutory requirements being met.
The customer should not assume that protection is limited to the £120 charged to the credit card. That is precisely where Section 75 can be more powerful than treating the problem solely as a card-transaction reversal.
At the same time, the customer should contact both card providers promptly because a chargeback route may also exist for relevant card transactions. There is little benefit in allowing a potentially useful chargeback deadline to expire while debating terminology.
Do you have to pursue the retailer first?
It is normally sensible to contact the supplier and preserve evidence showing what happened. For chargeback, your bank may specifically want evidence that you tried to resolve the matter with the merchant.
Section 75 is different in an important respect. The FCA has explained that the creditor's statutory liability does not generally depend on requiring the consumer to exhaust a claim against the supplier first.
That does not make documentation unnecessary. Your issuer still needs enough evidence to decide whether the supplier breached the contract or made a misrepresentation and whether the Section 75 relationship exists.
What evidence should you send?
A strong claim file makes it much easier for the bank to understand the dispute. Gather the evidence before contacting the card provider where practical, but do not miss a chargeback deadline while waiting for perfect paperwork.
- Order confirmation, receipt or invoice
- Card statement showing the transaction
- Contract and relevant terms and conditions
- Product description or screenshots of representations made before purchase
- Emails or messages exchanged with the supplier
- Cancellation or refund confirmation
- Delivery records
- Photographs or video showing defects
- Independent reports where the technical nature of a defect makes one necessary
- A short timeline explaining what happened and when
The Financial Ombudsman Service lists similar forms of supporting evidence when explaining how banks should consider these disputes.
What if PayPal or another payment intermediary was involved?
Payment intermediaries can make Section 75 claims less straightforward because Section 75 depends on the necessary relationship between the debtor, creditor and supplier.
Do not assume that every credit-card-funded digital-wallet transaction either qualifies or fails automatically. How the payment was processed can matter.
MoneyHelper, for example, distinguishes between some PayPal payment arrangements when discussing Section 75 protection. If an intermediary was involved, tell the card issuer exactly how you paid and ask it to assess the actual transaction structure rather than rejecting the claim solely because a payment service appears on the statement.
Can you ask the bank to consider both?
Yes, where the facts potentially support both processes, it can be sensible to ask the card provider to consider both chargeback and Section 75 rather than trying to diagnose the claim perfectly yourself.
The Financial Ombudsman Service says financial businesses should consider the relevant processes and explains that chargeback alone may be insufficient when a consumer is seeking more than the amount paid by card.
A simple request can therefore explain:
- what you purchased;
- how much it cost;
- how you paid;
- what the supplier promised;
- what went wrong;
- what resolution you sought from the supplier; and
- that you want the bank to consider any applicable chargeback and Section 75 rights.
What if your bank rejects the claim?
First ask for the reason in writing. A rejection may turn on the price, payment method, nature of the alleged breach, evidence, card-scheme deadline or whether the required Section 75 debtor-creditor-supplier relationship exists.
If you think the bank has handled the claim incorrectly, make a formal complaint to the bank or lender.
The Financial Ombudsman Service says that if you remain dissatisfied with the firm's final response, or the firm has not provided a final response within the applicable complaint-handling period, you may be able to refer the complaint to the Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman can examine how the financial business handled the dispute, including whether it properly investigated Section 75 and whether it was fair to raise, continue or decline a chargeback in the circumstances.
A five-question decision checklist
- Did you pay by credit card or debit card? Debit card usually points toward chargeback; qualifying credit may open the Section 75 route.
- What was the cash price of the specific item or service? More than £100 and not more than £30,000 is the key ordinary Section 75 range.
- What actually went wrong? Non-delivery, defective goods, inadequate services and misrepresentation can raise different issues.
- How long ago did the problem arise? Act quickly because chargeback scheme deadlines can be short.
- Are you seeking more than the card transaction itself? If so, Section 75 may deserve particular attention where its conditions are satisfied.
Bottom line
Use the nature of the protection, not just the word “refund”, to choose your route. Chargeback is valuable because it can cover debit-card transactions and purchases outside the ordinary Section 75 price range, but it is governed by scheme rules and time limits.
Section 75 can be substantially stronger for eligible credit purchases because it creates statutory liability against the creditor and can apply even when only part of the purchase was paid by qualifying credit.
If a credit-card purchase may qualify for Section 75 and a chargeback deadline is also running, contact the card provider promptly and ask it to assess both possibilities. Keep your receipt, contract, correspondence and a concise timeline together so the provider can see exactly why you believe the supplier failed to meet its obligations.
This article provides general educational information about UK consumer payment protection. Whether Section 75 or chargeback applies depends on the payment arrangement, transaction structure and facts of the dispute. For an individual dispute, check the card provider's current procedure and consider independent consumer or legal advice where necessary.
