Chargeback or Section 75: which one to use, and when

Both will get your money back, in theory. Only one of them is enforceable in law. The other is a goodwill scheme. Mixing them up is the most common reason people end up empty-handed after a credit card dispute, even when they had a strong case all along.

This is the short version of the difference, with a decision tree at the end.

What's the difference between a chargeback and a Section 75 claim?

A chargeback is a private process run by the card networks (Visa, Mastercard, American Express). It is a contractual right between merchants and acquiring banks. It is fast, the limits are high, and it works for both debit and credit cards. But it is not law. The card scheme decides, the merchant gets a chance to push back, and the rules are governed by network operating regulations rather than statute.

A Section 75 claim is statutory. It comes from Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. It only applies when you paid (in whole or in part) on a credit card, where the single purchase was between £100 and £30,000, and the merchant either breached the contract or misrepresented the product. It makes the card issuer jointly and severally liable with the merchant. That means you can sue the bank instead of the merchant, even if the merchant has gone silent or gone bust.

In short: chargeback is fast and discretionary. Section 75 is slower and statutory. They are for different problems.

When chargeback is the better tool

• The transaction is recent (typically within 120 days; some claims are tighter).
• You paid by debit card (Section 75 doesn't apply).
• The dispute is about something the card scheme will recognise quickly: duplicate charge, transaction never authorised, services demonstrably not provided.
• The amount is below the Section 75 floor (£100).
• You want a quick result and don't mind the merchant getting to dispute it.

When Section 75 is the better tool

• You paid on a credit card (even one penny on the card counts, the rest can be on debit).
• The single purchase was £100 to £30,000.
• The case turns on misrepresentation: what was promised before payment was different from what was delivered.
• The merchant has gone bust, gone silent, or is hostile.
• Your chargeback was raised and rejected (you can still pursue Section 75 separately).
• The matter is more than 120 days old (chargebacks usually time-barred; Section 75 has a much longer limitation period).

Can I do both?

Yes. They run on separate tracks. Most people raise the chargeback first because it's quicker, and only escalate to a Section 75 claim if the chargeback fails or the case is too complex for the card scheme's process. A failed chargeback does not prejudice a later Section 75 claim. Tell the issuer in writing that you are now invoking Section 75 (a different statutory right), not re-running the chargeback.

Decision tree

1. Did you pay on a credit card? No → chargeback only.
2. Was the single purchase £100 to £30,000? No → chargeback only.
3. Is the dispute about misrepresentation, breach of contract, or undelivered services? No → consider a different remedy (small claims court, ombudsman scheme).
4. All three yes → Section 75 is your stronger route. You can still raise a chargeback in parallel for speed.

What usually happens next

Issuers default to the chargeback process because it is easier for them. They will often try to redirect a Section 75 claim into the chargeback queue, where the rejection rate is higher. The fix is one sentence in your letter:

"I am invoking the statutory right under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, not the chargeback scheme. Please treat this as a Section 75 claim and respond accordingly."

That sentence flips the case onto the right track. From there, the issuer has up to eight weeks to give you a final response. After that, you can escalate to the Financial Ombudsman Service for free.

The bottom line

Chargeback is fast and discretionary. Section 75 is slower, statutory, and stronger. Most consumer disputes that go wrong, go wrong because the wrong route was used, or because the issuer was allowed to pretend the only route was chargeback. Name the right scheme, in writing, and the analysis changes.

Docketory publishes general information based on real disputes. Identifying details are changed and patterns from multiple cases may be combined. This is not legal advice. For advice on your specific situation, contact a solicitor or Citizens Advice.

Related on Docketory:

• Blog 1: Bought an online course that never delivered? Your chargeback isn't the only option.
• Blog 1b: How to write a Section 75 letter that actually works
• Blog 1c: When the FOS rejects your case: your options