Section 75 claim rejected: UK checks and next steps

A Section 75 claim can be rejected if the purchase falls outside the legal price limits, the payment arrangement does not qualify, or the evidence does not establish a supplier’s breach of contract or misrepresentation. For UK credit card users, checking the precise reason for refusal helps identify whether to challenge it or explore chargeback.

• Eligibility depends on the purchase price and contractual relationships, not simply using a credit card.
• Paying a deposit by credit card can be enough for a qualifying purchase.
• An intermediary does not automatically rule out every claim.
• A rejected claim can be challenged through the lender’s complaints process.

What does Section 75 actually protect?

Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 can make a lender responsible for a supplier’s breach of contract or misrepresentation. In everyday terms, this might involve goods that never arrive, a defective appliance or a service that falls short of contractual requirements.

According to Financial Ombudsman Service guidance checked in October 2026, the cash price must exceed £100 and be no higher than £30,000. Those boundaries concern the purchase price, not how much of it appears on the credit card statement.

Paying only a deposit by credit card therefore does not automatically limit the claim to that deposit. However, meeting the price test is only the starting point: the payment arrangement and the underlying problem must also qualify.

This guide concerns the UK framework. Readers with Canadian-issued cards cannot assume that these UK protections apply to their accounts.

Why might the price or payment method disqualify a claim?

A total shopping bill can be misleading. Citizens Advice explains that the limits apply to an individual item rather than automatically to the combined cost of separate purchases in the same order.

An item priced exactly at the lower boundary does not pass the test that its price must be more than that amount. At the upper boundary, the wording is different: the price may equal the maximum.

The payment method also matters. Section 75 does not cover debit cards or charge cards, and borrowing through a general-purpose bank loan does not create the same protection simply because that money funded a purchase.

What to check on your paperwork

Compare the invoice with the lender’s explanation. Look for the cash price assigned to the disputed item or service, the amount paid by credit card and the identity of the contracting customer.

If the lender has treated the card deposit as the entire purchase price, ask it to reconsider using the full invoice. Conversely, a qualifying total on a receipt does not establish eligibility for every separately priced item listed beneath it.

Does paying through another company always break protection?

No. Section 75 requires the relevant relationship between the customer, lender and supplier, often called the debtor-creditor-supplier agreement. An agent, marketplace or payment platform can complicate that relationship, but its involvement is not a universal reason to refuse a claim.

The Financial Ombudsman Service’s guidance for businesses says lenders need to examine these arrangements carefully. A company collecting money may merely process payments for the supplier rather than replace the supplier in the contractual chain.

Likewise, an unfamiliar business name on a statement might be a trading name or payment processor. It does not necessarily prove that the required connection is missing.

Useful documents include the order confirmation, supplier’s terms, invoice and payment receipt. Ask the lender to explain which relationship it believes is absent and how it reached that conclusion.

Purchases benefiting another person can also need closer examination. The ombudsman cautions that a third party’s benefit does not necessarily mean the cardholder has no contract, particularly where the cardholder appears in the paperwork.

What evidence helps challenge the rejection?

Being dissatisfied is not enough on its own. A useful challenge connects what the supplier promised with what actually happened and explains why the lender’s stated rejection reason does not fit the evidence.

Keep the submission focused on the disputed purchase. A short chronology can make the problem easier to assess than a long collection of messages without context.

1. Identify the purchase, supplier, payment date and requested remedy.
2. Provide the invoice and card statement showing how the purchase was funded.
3. Explain the unmet promise or defect, using the contract or advertising where relevant.
4. Attach correspondence, delivery records, photographs or an independent assessment if needed.
5. Address each rejection reason and identify evidence the lender appears to have overlooked.

Citizens Advice suggests trying to resolve purchase problems with the trader and keeping written records. If contact is impossible or the trader refuses to help, explain that rather than leaving the lender to infer what happened.

A successful claim does not necessarily mean a full cash refund in every situation. The ombudsman describes possible remedies including repairs, replacements and partial refunds, depending on the problem and applicable consumer law.

Could chargeback help if Section 75 does not?

Chargeback is a separate route through the card scheme, not another name for Section 75. It can be relevant to credit or debit card purchases when goods fail to arrive, arrive defective or a promised refund does not appear.

The Financial Ombudsman Service says the usual window is around 120 days, but the starting date and applicable limits vary with the circumstances. Ask the card provider promptly which deadline applies rather than assuming the purchase date always starts the clock.

Chargeback generally concerns the amount paid by card. It is not a substitute for considering a potentially valid Section 75 claim involving other recoverable losses.

A temporary account credit during a dispute is not necessarily a final refund. The lender may reverse it if the chargeback fails, so ask how the adjustment affects the statement and payment due.

For account-management context, see our guide to handling a missed credit card payment in the UK and Canada. A purchase dispute and an account payment problem need separate attention.

How can you escalate an unresolved complaint?

Ask for the rejection reasons in writing, then use the lender’s formal complaints procedure if you disagree. Specify whether the complaint concerns eligibility, ignored evidence, handling delays or failure to consider chargeback.

The Financial Ombudsman Service says you can approach it if you are unhappy with the lender’s final response or have not received one within eight weeks. Its service is free, although referral does not ensure a favourable outcome.

Keep borrowing costs separate from the purchase complaint. Our explanation of options after a UK credit card rate increase covers a different issue that may still affect the same account.

Informational content only, not financial advice.