Section 75 Claims
On credit card purchases between $100 and $30,000, your card provider is equally liable with the retailer. That is statute, not a scheme rule.
$100–$30,000
Cash price range covered
6 years
Claim window (5 in Scotland)
Whole contract
Exposure from a part payment
What this service is, and what it is not
Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 makes a credit card provider jointly and severally liable with the retailer for any breach of contract or misrepresentation. If the retailer has wronged you, you can pursue the card company instead, and they must answer.
The conditions are specific. The purchase must be on a credit card, not a debit card. The cash price of a single item or service must be more than $100 and no more than $30,000. There must be a debtor–creditor–supplier relationship, which broadly means you bought directly from the supplier rather than through certain intermediaries.
Three features make it far stronger than chargeback. First, it is a statutory right rather than a card scheme rule, so the provider cannot simply decline it on internal policy. Second, there is no 120-day window, a contract claim runs for six years in England and Wales, five in Scotland. Third, the liability extends to consequential losses, not just the price paid: a faulty appliance that floods a kitchen can support a claim well beyond the appliance.
The most valuable and least understood point is that you only need to have paid part of the price on the credit card. Put $150 of a $12,000 conservatory on a credit card and the provider can be liable for the whole $12,000. Providers do not volunteer this, and it is frequently the difference between a small claim and a substantial one.
Business challenges this addresses
The provider says the $100 threshold was not met
The test is the cash price of the item, not the amount you put on the card. A $150 deposit on a $12,000 contract satisfies it.
The debtor–creditor–supplier chain is disputed
Providers argue that paying through an agent or marketplace breaks the chain. Sometimes true, often not, and it is worth testing rather than accepting.
The claim is called out of time
There is no 120-day rule. Contract limitation is six years in England and Wales and five in Scotland, generally from the breach.
Consequential loss is refused
Section 75 liability is the same as the retailer's. If the retailer would be liable for damage caused, so is the provider.
How we deliver it
Every stage has a named owner on our side and a defined output. You always know what is happening and what comes next.
Typical duration: Most cases resolve in 10–16 weeks
-
Eligibility check
Card type, cash price, the payment chain and timing. We confirm eligibility before you invest any effort, and tell you plainly if it does not qualify.
-
Establish the breach
Section 75 needs a breach of contract or a misrepresentation. We identify and evidence exactly which.
-
Quantify the loss
The price paid, plus consequential losses that flow from the breach, plus interest where appropriate.
-
Formal claim
A written Section 75 claim to the provider setting out eligibility, breach and quantum, with an eight-week deadline for a final response.
-
Ombudsman
Refusals are referred to the Financial Ombudsman, which decides Section 75 cases regularly and takes a considered view of the technical arguments.
What you receive
- A definitive eligibility assessment before anything else
- Identification of the specific breach or misrepresentation relied on
- Full quantification including consequential loss and interest
- A formal Section 75 claim letter to the provider
- Rebuttal of the standard technical objections providers raise
- Ombudsman referral with a full submission if refused
What changes afterwards
Survives the retailer's insolvency
The provider is liable in its own right. A collapsed retailer does not end the claim.
Years, not months
Six years in England and Wales, five in Scotland, where chargeback would have expired long ago.
More than the purchase price
Consequential losses caused by the breach are recoverable, which can far exceed what you paid.
Part payment is enough
A qualifying card payment on part of the price can expose the provider to the whole contract value.
Claims of this kind we have run
$6,200 kitchen deposit recovered from a $200 card payment
The installer took a deposit, missed three start dates, then dissolved the company. The provider initially refused because only $200 of the $6,200 had gone on the credit card, which…
- Total recovered
- $6,980 Total recovered
- Card payment that triggered liability
- $200 Card payment that triggered liability
- To reverse the initial refusal
- 11 days To reverse the initial refusal
$11,500 used car rejected and refunded after an undisclosed write-off
The dealer described the car as having no accident history. A check run when he changed insurer showed a recorded structural write-off. A $250 card deposit did the heavy lifting.
- Total recovered
- $12,020 Total recovered
- Card deposit that engaged Section 75
- $250 Card deposit that engaged Section 75
- Recovery versus the dealer's first offer
- 12x Recovery versus the dealer's first offer
Frequently asked
No. Section 75 is credit only. For debit cards, chargeback is the route, and we run that instead.
That is usually enough, and it is the most valuable feature of Section 75. Provided the cash price of the item is over $100, the provider can be liable for the full contract.
Six years in England, Wales and Northern Ireland; five years in Scotland. Generally from the breach rather than the purchase. Considerably longer than chargeback.
Yes, and where both are available we normally do. They are separate routes and a technical failure on one does not affect the other.
Services that pair with this one
Services Not Provided
Work paid for and never done, or done so badly it has to be redone. Builders, installers, courses, memberships and professional services.
Faulty or Misdescribed Goods
What arrived is not what was advertised, or it broke almost immediately, and the seller will not put it right.
Retailer or Provider Insolvency
The company you paid has gone into administration. Joining the creditors' queue is rarely your best option, and often not your only one.