Chargeback vs Section 75: what is the difference in the UK?
Chargeback and Section 75 can both help when a purchase goes wrong, but they are not the same protection. The legal basis, eligible payment methods and claim rules are different.
Section 75 is a legal protection for qualifying credit purchases costing more than £100 and up to £30,000. Chargeback is a card-scheme process that can apply to debit, credit and prepaid cards, commonly with a 120-day claim window. Which route fits depends on how you paid and what went wrong.
Section 75 is a legal right
Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act can make a credit-card provider jointly liable with the supplier when qualifying goods or services are misrepresented or there is a breach of contract. MoneyHelper explains that the cash price of the item or service must normally be more than £100 and up to £30,000. You do not necessarily have to put the whole purchase on the card.
A small credit-card deposit can sometimes bring the full qualifying purchase within Section 75 because the protection relates to the debtor-creditor-supplier relationship, not simply the amount charged to the card. However, intermediaries and some payment structures can complicate that relationship, so a rejected claim should be assessed on the actual transaction path rather than the headline price alone.
Chargeback works differently
Chargeback is not the same statutory protection. It is a mechanism operated through card schemes such as Visa, Mastercard and American Express. It can be used with debit cards and can also be available on credit and prepaid cards. The bank or card issuer attempts to reverse the transaction under the relevant scheme rules when a claim is valid.
MoneyHelper says customers generally need to start a chargeback claim within 120 days, although the starting point can depend on the transaction; for an event booked for the future, the relevant date can be when the event should have taken place. Because scheme rules matter, contact the card provider promptly rather than trying to calculate the last possible day yourself.
Which route should you use?
If a qualifying credit-card purchase falls within Section 75, its legal status can make it the stronger route. For a debit-card purchase, Section 75 does not apply, so chargeback may be the practical card-based remedy. A credit-card issuer may also discuss chargeback where Section 75 is unavailable or where that route fits the facts better.
You do not need to become an expert in scheme law before contacting the provider. Explain what you bought, how much the item cost, how you paid, what the supplier promised and what went wrong. Ask the card company which protections it is assessing. Keep the terminology clear so that a chargeback rejection is not mistaken for a decision on a separate Section 75 right.
Evidence makes a claim easier to assess
Keep the receipt or order confirmation, card statement, product description, promised delivery date and your correspondence with the merchant. If goods were defective, photographs, repair reports or messages showing the seller’s response can help. For a service, preserve the contract or booking terms and evidence of what was not delivered.
It is normally sensible to ask the retailer to put the problem right first unless doing so is impossible, for example because the company has disappeared. When you contact the card provider, set out the chronology in date order. A compact evidence pack is more useful than dozens of unlabelled screenshots.
What if the card provider refuses?
Ask for the decision and reasoning in writing. A chargeback can fail because a scheme condition was not met, while a Section 75 claim can fail for a different legal reason. If you believe the bank handled the matter incorrectly, make a formal complaint and identify which protection you expected it to consider.
MoneyHelper notes that banks generally have eight weeks to respond to a complaint about a card-payment problem before you can take an eligible unresolved complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service. Do not let a merchant dispute drift indefinitely while claim deadlines continue to run in the background.
Common situations that change the answer
A purchase can become more complicated when a marketplace, travel agent, payment wallet or other intermediary sits between you and the supplier. Section 75 depends on the legal relationship created by the credit transaction, while chargeback depends on the card-scheme rules. Do not assume that paying by credit card somewhere in the chain automatically produces the same protection as paying the supplier directly.
Likewise, the relevant amount for Section 75 is generally the cash price of the item or service, not merely the amount charged to the card. A £20 deposit on a £500 qualifying purchase can be very different from buying five separate £100 items. Give the issuer the invoice or contract so it can assess the actual purchase structure.
Sources and verification
- MoneyHelper — Section 75 and chargeback protection
- MoneyHelper — How to sort a problem with a payment
Victoria Hughes — Consumer Rights Specialist
I would never use 'chargeback' and 'Section 75' as interchangeable words. That sounds technical, but the distinction can decide whether a customer gives up after the wrong process is refused. Section 75 is statutory protection tied to qualifying credit arrangements; chargeback is a card-scheme mechanism with its own time limits and rules. My practical approach is to start with the payment method and the cash price of what was bought. If it was a qualifying credit-card purchase above £100, I want the provider to consider Section 75 properly. If it was debit, prepaid, or outside that structure, I look at chargeback quickly because timing matters. Evidence should be organised before the claim: order, price, promise, failure, merchant response. I also tell people not to assume a single rejection ends every possible route. Ask what exactly was rejected and why. A scheme-based chargeback decision and a legal Section 75 assessment are different questions, and a formal complaint can be appropriate when the provider has not addressed the right one. When a transaction has an intermediary, I would explicitly tell the card issuer who the contractual supplier was and how the payment flowed. That prevents a complex purchase from being reduced to the misleading statement that a credit card was used, so Section 75 must apply.
MyBankAnswers uses official provider and UK regulatory sources wherever practical. Information is general and does not constitute financial advice.