Section 75

First: identify the exact Section 75 problem

Before arguing about the law, classify the transaction. The answer can change depending on the financing, the cash price and the parties between you and the supplier.

What Section 75 actually does

Where Section 75 applies, the debtor has a claim against the creditor in respect of a supplier misrepresentation or breach of contract. “Joint and several” liability means the consumer can pursue the creditor for qualifying loss without first obtaining a judgment against the supplier. The creditor is not simply acting as a messenger to the retailer.

That does not mean every merchant dispute becomes the bank’s problem. You still need to establish the underlying wrong, for example, non-delivery, faulty goods, defective services, failure to provide a booked holiday, or a false statement that induced the purchase. The creditor is entitled to investigate those facts and the legal remedy that would have existed against the supplier.

The £100–£30,000 rule: look at cash price, not the card payment

For the familiar Section 75 route, the relevant financial test is normally the cash price of the single item or service. The lower threshold is “more than £100”, not £100 exactly, and the upper limit is £30,000. A £30 credit-card deposit towards a £2,000 sofa can therefore be materially different from a £30 item bought as part of a £2,000 basket.

Part-card, part-cash and deposits

There is no general rule that you must put the whole purchase, or £100 of it, on the credit card. The important questions are whether qualifying credit was used and whether the relevant cash price falls within the statutory range. This is why a deliberately small card deposit can still matter.

Keep the invoice showing the total cash price and the statement showing the credit payment. If the bank focuses only on the amount charged to the card, ask it to identify the statutory basis for doing so.

Debtor-creditor-supplier: the relationship is often the real dispute

Section 75 depends on a connected debtor-creditor-supplier arrangement. In a simple card purchase the roles are obvious: you are the debtor, the card issuer is the creditor and the retailer is the supplier. Modern checkout chains can be less obvious.

Do not treat every intermediary as automatically fatal. A different name on the card statement might be a payment processor or trading name rather than a separate supplier. Conversely, some wallets, agents or payment arrangements can insert a party in a way that affects the statutory chain. The correct response is to map the parties and contracts, not rely on a slogan such as “PayPal always breaks Section 75” or “using a credit card always guarantees cover”.

PayPal, digital wallets and payment processors

When a bank rejects a claim because payment went through an intermediary, ask what role that intermediary performed. Was it only transmitting the card payment? Did it provide its own credit? Did you pay money into a wallet balance first? Who was named as merchant and who supplied the goods? Those facts can matter.

Preserve checkout screenshots, the PayPal/wallet transaction record, card statement, merchant invoice and platform terms. If the creditor says the chain is broken, ask it to identify the party that it says interrupts the debtor-creditor-supplier relationship and explain why.

Marketplaces, agents and travel bookings

Marketplace and travel transactions can involve a supplier, platform, booking agent, payment processor and card issuer. The fact that an agent is involved does not by itself tell you whether Section 75 applies. Work out who promised the underlying goods or service and how the payment moved.

For travel, distinguish the airline/hotel/package organiser from the agent that sold or facilitated the booking. For marketplaces, distinguish the marketplace’s buyer-protection policy from the seller contract. The creditor should analyse the actual legal and payment structure rather than reject solely because a familiar platform name appears in the chain.

Additional cardholders and purchases for somebody else

The “debtor” is normally the person who owes the credit-card debt, which is commonly the principal cardholder. An additional cardholder is not automatically the debtor merely because they physically used the card. This can make claims fact-sensitive.

Likewise, buying a gift or paying for something another person will use does not automatically destroy a claim. Relevant questions include who contracted with the supplier, whether the additional cardholder was acting with the debtor’s authority, who was intended to benefit and what the creditor agreement says. Present those facts rather than simply asserting that the card was authorised.

Breach of contract: show what was promised and what failed

Section 75 does not create a new standard for the goods or service. It gives the consumer a route against the creditor for a supplier breach that already exists. For faulty goods, the Consumer Rights Act may establish the breach. For services, reasonable care and skill or a specific contractual promise may be relevant. For non-delivery, the contract and delivery obligations matter.

Misrepresentation is a separate route

Section 75 also covers supplier misrepresentation. This matters where the problem is not simply that a term was broken, but that a false statement induced you to enter the transaction. Preserve the advert, sales message, quotation, call note or other representation as it existed before you agreed to buy.

Explain the representation, why it was false, how you relied on it and what loss followed. Avoid reducing a misrepresentation claim to “I feel I was mis-sold”; identify the statement and the decision it caused.

Consequential losses can matter

A Section 75 claim is not necessarily limited to refunding the amount paid to the supplier. If the underlying breach legally caused additional recoverable loss, the creditor may need to consider that too. Examples can include reasonable rectification costs or other foreseeable loss flowing from the breach.

Causation and mitigation still matter. Keep invoices and explain why each additional cost was reasonably incurred. Do not claim the same loss twice through a supplier refund, chargeback, insurance and Section 75.

Supplier insolvency: you do not have to wait for a failed company to revive

Section 75 is particularly valuable where the supplier has ceased trading, entered insolvency or simply disappeared. The creditor’s potential liability is its own statutory liability; the practical impossibility of obtaining a supplier refund can strengthen the importance of the route.

Give the creditor whatever evidence is available about insolvency or closure, but keep the claim focused on the supplier breach and resulting loss. “The company has gone bust” explains why the supplier cannot put matters right; it does not replace proof of what you bought and what was not provided.

The creditor can investigate, but should investigate the right question

A bank can ask for evidence, contact the supplier and assess the underlying contract. That is not inherently obstruction. The problem is when requests become irrelevant or the bank repeatedly asks for material that cannot affect the statutory test.

If the request feels excessive, ask what issue the evidence is intended to resolve: eligibility, debtor-creditor-supplier relationship, breach/misrepresentation, causation or quantum. A reasoned claim file makes it harder for the investigation to drift.

Common rejection reasons, and what to test

Section 75 versus chargeback

These routes can overlap but they do different jobs. Chargeback is a scheme mechanism that normally seeks to reverse the card transaction and is subject to scheme conditions and short deadlines. Section 75 is statutory liability and can potentially address wider qualifying losses.

A bank should not use the existence of one route as a reason to ignore the other. In an urgent case, especially where chargeback time limits are running, ask the bank to consider both. Any money recovered through one route must be taken into account under the other so you are not compensated twice.

Section 75 versus warranties and insurance

A retailer or bank may point to a manufacturer warranty, travel protection or insurance policy. Those can be useful additional routes, but they do not automatically replace Section 75. A warranty is a separate promise; insurance is a separate contract. Section 75 turns on the statutory conditions and supplier breach/misrepresentation.

Use whichever route is most effective, but keep records of recoveries and excesses. If the creditor says you must use a warranty first, ask it to explain why that affects its own Section 75 liability.

Multiple items, packages and linked transactions

The £100 lower threshold can become awkward when one checkout contains several things. Do not assume that a £600 basket automatically means every £60 item is protected. The question is normally the cash price of the particular goods or services supplied under the relevant transaction. Equally, do not assume that a package must always be broken into tiny components: a single composite supply can have one overall cash price.

Look at how the supplier sold and invoiced the purchase. A fitted kitchen sold as one design-and-install package is different from ten unrelated accessories placed in one basket. A holiday package, course, season ticket or suite of furniture may also require analysis of what the actual contractual supply was. If the bank applies the threshold mechanically, ask it to identify the item or service it says is the relevant supply and why.

Overseas purchases can still qualify

Section 75 is not confined to UK suppliers. A qualifying purchase from an overseas supplier can potentially be covered where the statutory credit relationship exists. This is particularly useful where suing the supplier abroad would be difficult, expensive or unrealistic.

Preserve the foreign invoice, currency amount, card statement, supplier identity, terms, delivery promises and all correspondence. If the creditor rejects merely because the supplier is overseas, ask it to identify the legal basis for treating location as determinative. There may still be difficult jurisdiction, evidence or contractual questions, but “foreign supplier” is not itself a complete Section 75 analysis.

Partial performance and the cost of putting the breach right

Not every Section 75 case is an all-or-nothing refund. A builder may complete 70% of a project before ceasing trading; a furniture supplier may deliver part of an order; a course provider may deliver several months before closing. The correct remedy depends on the underlying contract and loss.

Work out what value you actually received, what remains outstanding, and what a reasonable substitute or rectification will cost. If another supplier quotes substantially more to finish the work, explain why that cost is reasonably caused by the original breach rather than simply asking the creditor to pay the entire replacement contract without analysis.

How much can you claim?

The amount put on the credit card is not necessarily the ceiling on a valid Section 75 claim. The creditor's potential liability follows the supplier's qualifying breach or misrepresentation, subject to the ordinary rules governing the remedy, causation, foreseeability and mitigation. That can mean a refund, repair or replacement cost, price reduction, rectification cost, or other recoverable consequential loss depending on the underlying claim.

Do not inflate the claim. Separate the primary loss from consequential items, give a calculation, attach proof and deduct sums already recovered. If the supplier, insurer or chargeback process has refunded part of the loss, Section 75 is not a route to recover the same money twice.

Do you have to return the goods?

If the underlying remedy involves rejection or rescission, the creditor may reasonably need to know what will happen to the goods. That does not mean the consumer should dispose of them simply because the supplier has failed. Keep them safe, avoid unnecessary further use and ask the creditor to explain any proposed collection or return arrangement.

Where goods are bulky, dangerous, installed or expensive to remove, record that at the outset. A bank should not reduce a complex statutory claim to “post the item back to us” without considering the actual underlying remedy and practical circumstances.

Expert reports: useful when they answer a real dispute

A creditor may ask for an expert report where the cause of a fault or quality of workmanship is genuinely contested. That can be reasonable, particularly for technical defects or high-value rectification claims. But evidence should be proportionate to the issue. A clear non-delivery case normally does not require an engineer; a visibly incomplete installation may not require a lengthy forensic report simply to prove that promised work was omitted.

If a report is requested, ask what question it needs to answer and whether the creditor will consider the reasonable cost if your claim succeeds. Give the expert the contract/specification as well as the defective item or work so the report addresses what was promised, not merely whether the product currently functions.

Buy Now Pay Later: the rules changed on 15 July 2026

Do not assume that every Buy Now Pay Later purchase is outside Section 75. From 15 July 2026, third-party Deferred Payment Credit (DPC): the interest-free form of BNPL covered by the new regime: became regulated where the lender and supplier are different businesses. For qualifying agreements entered into from that date, Section 75 can be available in the same way as for other connected credit, subject to the usual cash-price, debtor-creditor-supplier and breach/misrepresentation requirements.

The date and structure matter. An agreement entered into before 15 July 2026 remains outside that new regulated DPC regime, and DPC provided directly by the same business that supplies the goods or services is not brought into regulation by these changes. If a lender rejects a post-15 July 2026 BNPL claim simply because “Section 75 does not apply to BNPL”, ask it to identify the agreement date, the lender, the supplier and the basis on which it says the new protection does not apply.

Point-of-sale loans and purchases above £30,000

Section 75 is not limited to plastic credit cards. Certain point-of-sale credit arrangements can create the necessary debtor-creditor-supplier relationship. Conversely, a general-purpose personal loan obtained independently and then paid to the supplier will not automatically have the same connected structure.

Where the cash price is above £30,000, do not simply abandon the issue. Section 75A of the Consumer Credit Act can apply to some linked credit agreements for higher-value transactions, subject to different statutory conditions. Ask the lender to consider the correct provision rather than treating the familiar Section 75 ceiling as the end of every possible connected-credit claim.

When the creditor says “go back to the supplier first”

Contacting the supplier is often sensible and can produce useful evidence, but Section 75 is valuable precisely because the creditor can have its own liability. A bank should not turn joint and several liability into a rule that you must sue the supplier, exhaust an administrator, finish a warranty process or obtain a court judgment first.

If the bank wants you to take a particular supplier step, ask why that step is relevant. It may be reasonable to give a functioning supplier a short opportunity to inspect or rectify; it is very different to refuse to investigate at all until an insolvent or unresponsive supplier completes a process that plainly is not going to happen.

Evidence worth keeping

Useful wording when the bank has missed the point

Eligibility: “Please identify whether you dispute the cash-price condition, the qualifying credit arrangement or the debtor-creditor-supplier relationship, and give your reasoning for that conclusion.”

Underlying breach: “The supplier breach I rely on is [state it]. The evidence is [identify it]. Please assess the creditor’s liability under Section 75 rather than treating this solely as a retailer warranty complaint.”

Intermediary: “If you consider the payment chain breaks the required relationship, please identify the party you say breaks it and explain the legal/factual basis for that conclusion.”

Escalating to the Financial Ombudsman

If the creditor rejects the claim or handles it poorly, make a formal complaint to the financial business. For most complaints the business normally has up to eight weeks to issue its final response. The Financial Ombudsman can then consider how the creditor applied Section 75, relevant consumer law, the evidence and good industry practice.

Do not send the Ombudsman only the merchant dispute. Include the creditor’s reasoning and explain exactly why it is wrong or incomplete. The usual referral deadline is six months from the final response, subject to the Ombudsman’s wider jurisdiction rules.