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.
Date due
When the chargeback clock usually starts
$100+
Card element needed for Section 75
Full contract
Potential Section 75 exposure
What this service is, and what it is not
Paying a deposit for work that never starts is one of the most distressing consumer problems we see, because the sums tend to be large and the trader tends to be uncontactable. Kitchens, bathrooms, driveways, windows, wedding services, training courses and professional retainers all fall into this category.
The Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires services to be performed with reasonable care and skill, within a reasonable time, and for a reasonable price where none was agreed. Where a trader fails, you are entitled to repeat performance or a price reduction, and where repeat performance is impossible or refused, a refund.
For card payments, both chargeback and Section 75 apply. The 120-day chargeback window runs from the date the service was due to be performed rather than the date you paid, which matters enormously for deposits paid months in advance. A deposit paid in January for work booked in June does not start its clock in January.
Where you paid a deposit by credit card and the balance by another method, Section 75 can still make the credit card provider liable for the whole contract, not just the part you put on the card, provided the card payment was for at least $100 of a single item or contract. That point is frequently missed and it can transform the value of a claim.
Business challenges this addresses
A deposit paid months before the work
Consumers assume the clock ran out. It usually runs from the date performance was due, not the date of payment, and claims written off as out of time often are not.
Part-completed work
Half-finished jobs are harder than no-shows because the trader argues value was delivered. An independent assessment of what was actually completed settles it.
The trader has dissolved the company
Traders who fold and re-form under a new name are common. The card route reaches the money regardless of what happened to the company.
Only the deposit went on the card
Section 75 can cover the entire contract value where the card payment was at least $100. Most people, and some bank staff, do not realise this.
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
-
Free assessment
We establish what was contracted, what was delivered, how you paid, and which route gives the strongest claim.
-
Quantify the loss
Not just the money paid but the cost of putting it right, which is recoverable under Section 75 as a breach of contract claim.
-
Formal demand to the trader
A letter setting out the breach and the remedy sought, with a deadline, before any card claim is submitted.
-
Card claim
Chargeback timed from the date performance was due, and a Section 75 claim to the credit card provider where the purchase qualifies.
-
Escalation
Refusals go to the Financial Ombudsman with evidence and a full submission on liability and quantum.
What you receive
- Analysis of which route applies and the correct start date for the time limit
- Assessment of the full loss, including the cost of putting the work right
- A formal letter of claim to the trader
- Chargeback and Section 75 claims run in parallel where both apply
- Ombudsman referral if the provider refuses
- Guidance on preserving the site and evidence before remedial work starts
What changes afterwards
The clock may not have started when you think
Timing from the date performance was due, not payment, rescues a large share of the claims we see.
The whole contract, not just the deposit
Where Section 75 applies, the card provider can be liable for the full contract value including consequential loss.
Recovering the cost of putting it right
A Section 75 claim is a breach of contract claim. It can include what it costs to have the work redone properly.
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
Frequently asked
Possibly not. The chargeback window generally runs from the date the service was due to be performed. Give us the dates and we will tell you where you stand before you assume the worst.
Yes, for the part not performed or not performed properly. Quantifying that fairly is the work, and an independent assessment usually pays for itself.
That is often the best position to be in. Section 75 can make the card provider liable for the whole contract where the card element was at least $100 of a single contract.
Photograph and document everything before anyone touches it, and get a written quote for the remedial work. That quote becomes evidence of your loss.
Services that pair with this one
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.
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.