Chargeback and Section 75: questions to check

Chargeback and Section 75 are different routes for challenging a card-related loss. The Financial Ombudsman explains their distinct bases, eligibility questions and the card provider's role. ^[1]

Identify the payment chain

Provide the card type, transaction date, amount and supplier. Explain deposits, split payments, intermediaries and any credit agreement. For Section 75, the item's cash price and the debtor-creditor-supplier relationship can matter; the amount placed on the card is not the only relevant figure.

Keep evidence of the breach or misrepresentation and attempts to resolve it with the trader. Identify refunds, insurance payments or replacements already received.

Ask the provider to assess the appropriate route

Contact the provider promptly because scheme and complaint deadlines differ. Ask whether it is considering chargeback, Section 75 or both, and retain the explanation if either is refused.

Return evidence supports a goods dispute. Travel bookings may involve a payment structure needing closer examination. If the provider's complaint process does not resolve matters, check Financial Ombudsman eligibility and referral timing rather than assuming an unsuccessful chargeback decides every other legal avenue.

Build a payment map before choosing the route List each payment, its date, amount and method, linking it to the relevant purchase or instalment. Identify the cardholder, purchaser, supplier and any intermediary. Keep the invoice and agreement alongside the card statement, because the merchant name on a statement may differ from the contractual seller. Explain deposits, split payments and refunds already made. A provider can assess the available route more accurately when the transaction is described as it occurred rather than simplified to the statement that everything was bought on a card.

Check the type of credit or card arrangement from the documents. Debit-card chargeback, credit-card Section 75 and a supplier's responsibilities under some finance agreements involve different questions. The Financial Ombudsman explains that Section 75 depends on qualifying credit arrangements and a cash price above £100 and no more than £30,000, with the relevant relationship between customer, creditor and supplier. The amount placed on the card is not necessarily that cash price. Provide the underlying purchase breakdown so eligibility can be assessed rather than inferred from one transaction total. ^[1]

Explain the failure independently of the payment method State what the supplier promised and what happened instead. The issue may be non-delivery, defective goods, a service not performed or a misleading statement that induced the purchase. Attach the evidence most directly supporting that issue, such as an order confirmation, delivery promise, inspection report or cancellation acknowledgement. A card statement establishes payment but does not prove the alleged breach. Keep the supplier's explanation, including any evidence against your position, so the provider can assess the actual disagreement rather than an unanswered accusation.

Record attempts to resolve the matter and the remedy requested. If the supplier agreed to a refund that never arrived, preserve that agreement and the expected payment details. If goods were returned, provide dispatch and receipt evidence tied to the order. Where the provider requests an assessment or further document, clarify what it needs and why before commissioning expensive work. A focused response can answer an eligibility or evidential question more effectively than sending a complete inbox with no explanation of which record proves the disputed point.

Ask which process is being considered and why Chargeback operates under card-scheme rules, with different grounds and time limits, while Section 75 is a statutory route. Ask the provider to identify what it is considering and the relevant deadline. Do not assume that the expiry or failure of one process necessarily answers the other. Contact the provider promptly, especially for goods or services purchased well before their expected supply date, and give both dates. The Financial Ombudsman's guidance stresses that the applicable chargeback period can depend on the circumstances. [1]

Keep a note of evidence requests and respond within the stated time, retaining proof of submission. If the merchant disputes a chargeback, ask for the substance of the response and explain any factual error using the original records. Distinguish a provisional account credit from a final outcome. A temporary credit may need further investigation, so continue reading messages from the provider. Avoid treating a changed account balance as confirmation that every aspect of the dispute has been resolved without checking the accompanying decision.

Challenge the provider's decision on its actual reasoning If the claim is refused, request a clear explanation identifying whether the problem is eligibility, evidence, time or the provider's view of the supplier's liability. Address that reason specifically. For example, an intermediary in the payment chain requires analysis of the arrangement, not simply repetition that a credit card was used. If the refusal appears to consider only chargeback, ask whether the separate Section 75 position has been assessed where relevant. Keep the decision and the documents that support the requested reconsideration together.

Use the provider's formal complaint process if the matter remains unresolved, preserving its final response and checking any Financial Ombudsman referral requirements promptly. Explain what you say the provider did wrong as well as the original supplier problem. Maintain a record of later refunds, insurance payments and credits so the remaining loss is accurate. Where another financial arrangement makes the lender directly responsible, ask for that route to be considered on its own basis. The aim is a reasoned assessment of the applicable protection, not an assumption that every card payment guarantees reimbursement.