Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 makes your UK credit-card issuer jointly and severally liable with the merchant for misrepresentation and breach of contract on purchases between £100 and £30,000. It’s a statutory right, not a scheme rule. Banks can’t opt out. Here’s exactly how it works.
Last reviewed: 13 May 2026 · ScamSupport research
Section 75 in one paragraph
If you bought goods or services on a UK credit card (not debit, not charge card in some cases) with a cash price between £100 and £30,000, and the merchant misrepresented the product, breached the contract, or simply failed to deliver, the credit-card issuer is jointly liable with the merchant. You can claim against your card issuer directly, even if the merchant has disappeared, gone bankrupt, or is uncooperative. Section 75 sits alongside chargeback — you can use both. If chargeback fails, Section 75 often still wins because it’s a statutory right enforced by FOS, not a card-scheme rulebook decided by Visa or Mastercard.
Are you eligible? The Section 75 test
You qualify for Section 75 protection if ALL of these apply:
The purchase was on a credit card. Debit cards do not qualify (use chargeback). Charge cards (e.g. some Amex products) sit in a grey area — FOS has accepted some Amex claims but the statutory protection is technically for “regulated credit agreements”.
The cash price of any single item was more than £100 and not more than £30,000. The bounds refer to the cash price of the item, not what you actually paid. So a £120 item bought with a £20 voucher and £100 on credit card still qualifies, because the cash price is £120.
The transaction created a regulated credit agreement. Most ordinary UK consumer credit cards. Excludes some commercial / business credit cards held in a business name.
The merchant misrepresented the goods or services, OR breached the contract. Includes outright fraud, non-delivery, misdescription, defective goods, and service failures. Excludes pure price changes or buyer’s remorse.
There’s a direct three-party relationship: you (the debtor) — the credit-card issuer (the creditor) — the merchant (the supplier). This is the most heavily-litigated point. See below.
You’re still within the claim period: up to 6 years in England and Wales (Limitation Act 1980), 5 years in Scotland (Prescription and Limitation Act 1973).
The three-party rule that catches a lot of claims out
Section 75 protects you only when there’s a direct three-party debtor-creditor-supplier chain. The two situations that commonly break the rule:
Payment-aggregator intermediation (PayPal, Stripe, Square, etc.): historically FOS treated payments through a third-party aggregator as breaking the three-party chain. The position has softened — PayPal-funded credit-card payments where PayPal was clearly a conduit rather than the supplier are increasingly accepted — but this is the most common ground for refusal. Push back firmly and escalate to FOS if needed.
Booking platforms / travel agents: when you bought a holiday through a booking platform (e.g. Booking.com, Expedia) the “supplier” in the contract is sometimes the platform, sometimes the hotel/airline. Section 75 follows the contract, not the brand on the receipt. Get the booking confirmation and see what it says about who you contracted with.
Crypto exchanges / on-ramps: if you bought crypto with a credit card via an exchange that immediately forwarded the crypto to a scammer’s wallet, the credit-card purchase was technically of crypto, not of the fraudulent “investment”. The exchange supplied what you asked for. Section 75 generally doesn’t apply. (This is a critical loss avenue and worth knowing before paying for crypto with a credit card.)
The £100 / £30,000 bounds in practice
Single-item price is what matters, not the order total. A £500 hotel stay charged in two card transactions of £250 still meets the £100 threshold because the cash price for the booking is £500.
You can have paid only part on the credit card and still claim the full amount. Classic example: a holiday with a £150 deposit on credit card and £1,200 balance on debit card. Section 75 covers the full £1,350 because the credit-card deposit triggered the protection. The statutory right is for the full transaction value, not just the credit-card portion.
Subscriptions / instalment plans: each instalment is generally a separate transaction. A £90/month subscription doesn’t meet the £100 threshold per instalment, but if the contract is for £1,080/year, the cash-price-of-the-service test usually applies. FOS rulings are mixed.
Above £30,000: Section 75A (a separate provision) gives you partial protection up to £60,260 on linked credit agreements (mostly point-of-sale finance, not credit cards). Limited applicability for card transactions.
What “misrepresentation” and “breach of contract” mean
Misrepresentation (the strongest ground)
A false statement of fact that you relied on when entering the contract. Examples:
Holiday villa advertised as “private pool” that turns out to be a shared pool.
Investment platform claiming “FCA-regulated” when it’s not on the FCA register.
Used car described as “one owner, full service history” that’s neither.
Wedding photographer’s portfolio doesn’t match the photographer who shows up on the day.
Misrepresentation can be fraudulent (deliberate), negligent (careless), or innocent. All three give you Section 75 rights, though damages differ.
Breach of contract (the broader ground)
The merchant failed to do what they promised. Examples:
Non-delivery: you paid for goods that never arrived.
Late delivery beyond a contractually-specified deadline.
Goods that aren’t of satisfactory quality (Consumer Rights Act 2015 standards).
Services not carried out with reasonable care and skill.
Cancellation of a service the merchant was contracted to provide.
Use the Chargeback & Section 75 Generator
Use our Chargeback & Section 75 Generator → to produce a Section 75 claim letter framed under the right statutory provisions. The wizard runs entirely in your browser; nothing leaves your device. It frames the case around joint-and-several liability, misrepresentation or breach of contract, the three-party relationship, and the cash-price bounds — pre-empting the common refusal grounds.
How to file a Section 75 claim
Contact the credit-card issuer’s disputes / Section 75 team. Each major bank has a dedicated route — Barclaycard, NatWest, Halifax, HSBC etc. all accept written claims and most have online dispute forms.
Submit a written claim citing Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Don’t just say “I want a refund” — cite the statute, identify whether you’re relying on misrepresentation or breach of contract, and explain the joint-and-several liability framing.
Provide the evidence package (see below). All correspondence, contract documents, the merchant’s representations, evidence of breach or misrepresentation, evidence of attempted direct resolution.
Track the 8-week clock. The issuer has 8 weeks to respond. If they refuse, refuse to engage, or simply don’t reply, you can escalate to FOS.
Escalate to FOS if refused. FOS upholds Section 75 claims at substantially higher rates than card-scheme chargeback disputes because the underlying right is statutory.
If Section 75 is unavailable or fails: consider parallel chargeback, civil action against the merchant directly, or FOS escalation.
What evidence wins a Section 75 claim
The contract: order confirmation, terms of service, signed paperwork, recorded sales call.
The merchant’s representations: marketing copy, brochure scans, listing screenshots, recorded sales pitches. Wayback Machine evidence if the merchant has since changed their listing.
Evidence of payment: credit-card statement showing the transaction, receipt or confirmation.
Evidence of misrepresentation or breach: photos showing what was delivered vs what was promised, expert reports, regulator letters (e.g. FCA warning page), independent valuations.
Communications with the merchant: your complaints, their replies (or lack thereof), promised refunds that didn’t materialise.
If fraud is suspected: Report Fraud crime reference number.
Specifically for the three-party challenge: evidence that you contracted directly with the supplier, not through an aggregator. The booking confirmation, the supplier’s direct invoice, etc.
What banks try to refuse on (and how to respond)
“You paid via PayPal so Section 75 doesn’t apply.”
The PayPal-aggregator argument is the most common refusal. The position has softened: FOS now frequently rules in the consumer’s favour when PayPal was a payment processor rather than the substantive supplier. Provide the order confirmation showing the actual merchant; argue that PayPal was a payment conduit.
“The cash price was below £100.”
Re-check the cash price (which is the price of the item, not what you paid). Subscription instalments often individually fall below £100 but the total contract value is well above.
“The merchant has gone bankrupt; nothing we can do.”
This is exactly when Section 75 matters most. Joint-and-several liability means the issuer is liable for the full amount regardless of the merchant’s ability to pay. Push back firmly.
“This is buyer’s remorse, not breach of contract.”
Buyer’s remorse alone isn’t a Section 75 claim. But if the merchant’s representations were inaccurate (even innocently), or if the goods don’t meet Consumer Rights Act 2015 satisfactory-quality standards, that’s misrepresentation or breach — not buyer’s remorse.
“You should claim against the merchant first.”
You don’t have to. Joint-and-several liability means you can claim against either party. You typically pursue the issuer because they have money and the merchant doesn’t. The issuer then has its own subrogation rights to recover from the merchant.
“The merchant has offered a partial refund / store credit.”
You don’t have to accept a partial settlement. Section 75 entitles you to the full value of misrepresented or breached contract.
Section 75 vs chargeback — which to use when
You bought on credit card, £100–£30,000, and within 120 days of trigger event: file both. They’re parallel rights. Whichever succeeds first delivers the refund. Some banks process them as one workflow.
You bought on credit card but missed the 120-day chargeback window: Section 75 still available for up to 6 years. This is the most common use case for Section 75 alone.
You bought on credit card and chargeback was refused: Section 75 often still wins because it’s a statutory right, not subject to card-scheme rules. Particularly strong on misrepresentation cases that scheme rules struggle with.
You bought on debit card: Section 75 doesn’t apply. Use chargeback only.
You bought below £100 or above £30,000: Section 75 doesn’t apply. Use chargeback if within 120 days; otherwise consider civil action.
The full purchase price, even where only part was paid on the credit card.
Consequential losses: damages flowing from the misrepresentation or breach. E.g. a delayed wedding photographer cost you the venue’s late-cancellation fee; the issuer can be liable for that too. Less commonly awarded but legally available.
8% interest if FOS rules in your favour on delayed resolution.
Distress and inconvenience compensation: typically £100–£1,500 in FOS awards.
Common scenarios
Investment platform on credit card — took my deposit, never returned funds
Strong Section 75 ground (misrepresentation / breach of contract). Pair with FCA warning-list reference. Banks sometimes resist arguing “you knew investment carried risk” — push back that the platform misrepresented its regulatory status and never operated a genuine investment service.
Holiday villa booking that turned out to be a scam
Textbook Section 75. The misrepresentation is documented in the listing. Even if the “merchant” has disappeared, the credit-card issuer is jointly liable.
Used car bought on dealer finance — multiple defects, dealer refusing repair
Consumer Rights Act 2015 + Section 75 combined. The car is “not of satisfactory quality”; the credit-card issuer is jointly liable for the breach. Independent inspection report strengthens the case.
Wedding services — supplier cancelled the day before, refusing refund
Breach of contract. Section 75 applies if you paid the deposit by credit card. Consequential losses (rebooking premium, alternative supplier costs) can be included in the claim.
Three-party challenge: who was the supplier? If the platform contracted to sell you the ticket and the event provider is the substantive supplier, Section 75 generally still applies through the platform-as-supplier framing.