Bought an online course that never delivered? Your chargeback isn't the only option.

You paid on a credit card. The course never showed up, or it showed up half-empty, with a tutor who stopped replying. You disputed the charge with your card. They said no. Now you're sitting on a £4,000 lesson in how online-course schemes operate.

Here's what most people don't realise. A rejected chargeback is not the end of the road. There is a separate, stronger route. It is in your card issuer's small print, and they are required by law to tell you about it. They almost never do.

This article walks through what that route is, when it applies, and exactly how to use it.

The pattern, in one paragraph

You see an advert, usually for a property, trading, or business course, promising a specific income outcome. The pitch is polished. You pay between £1,000 and £10,000 on a credit card. After payment, the experience changes. Sessions get cancelled. The mentor goes quiet. Login details never arrive, or arrive after you've started complaining. You raise a chargeback with the card issuer; they reject it on a technicality. The merchant either ignores you or threatens you for "defamation" if you ask for a refund.

If even three of those sentences match your situation, the rest of this article is for you.

Chargeback vs Section 75: they are not the same thing

Most consumers use "chargeback" as a catch-all for any credit-card refund. They are actually two completely different mechanisms.

A chargeback is a goodwill scheme run by Visa, Mastercard, and American Express. It is fast, but it is contractual, not statutory. The card scheme decides. The grounds are narrow ("services not provided", "not as described"), and the merchant gets a chance to push back. If the merchant produces any documentation, even a half-page T&C, the chargeback often fails.

Section 75 is something else entirely. It is statutory. It comes from Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. It says that for a single purchase between £100 and £30,000 made on a credit card, the card issuer is jointly and severally liable with the merchant for any breach of contract or misrepresentation.

In plain English: if the course provider mis-sold you, lied to you, or failed to deliver, you can sue the bank instead. They are on the hook in the same way the merchant is. They cannot hide behind "we only processed the payment."

This is the route most people never use, because nobody tells them it exists.

Can I claim a refund under Section 75 if an online course wasn't delivered?

Yes, provided four conditions are met:

1. You paid on a credit card (not debit, not prepaid, not Klarna, not bank transfer). One penny on the credit card is enough; the rest can be on debit.
2. The single purchase was between £100 and £30,000. "Single purchase" matters: splitting one course over two cards can break the link.
3. There was a breach of contract or a misrepresentation. Non-delivery is a breach. "Income guarantees" that didn't materialise can be misrepresentation. "I changed my mind" is not.
4. You bought directly from the merchant (or through a payment link the merchant controls). Buying through a third-party marketplace can sever the link.

If all four are met, you have a Section 75 claim. The card issuer is liable, even if the merchant has gone silent, gone bust, or threatened you.

What you can do today

1. Stop calling. Write.

Phone calls to the card issuer disappear into the system. From this point on, every contact is in writing: email, or the issuer's secure message portal. Save copies of everything.

2. Send a written Section 75 claim to your card issuer

Not a chargeback request. A Section 75 claim. Name it explicitly. The letter needs:

• The phrase "I am making a claim under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974"
• The merchant's name, the date of purchase, the amount, the credit card used
• A short statement of what was promised vs what was delivered (one paragraph)
• The basis: breach of contract, misrepresentation, or both
• Evidence list: the sales page screenshot, emails, payment receipt, any session recordings
• The remedy you want: full refund

A template is in the Citizens Advice guide. Use it. Issuers often try to bounce you back into the chargeback process. This is when you reply: "I am invoking the statutory right under Section 75, not the chargeback scheme."

3. Build the evidence pack before they ask

Gather, in one folder:

• The original sales page (use archive.org, as providers often delete pages once disputes start)
• Every email, WhatsApp message, or Telegram exchange
• Bank/credit-card statement showing the payment
• The course platform showing what you did and didn't get access to
• Any income claims, mentorship promises, or schedule documents

Misrepresentation cases are won on what was promised before payment, not what was delivered after. The sales page is the most important document you have.

4. Give the issuer eight weeks, then escalate to the FOS

The card issuer has up to eight weeks to give you a final response. If they reject the claim, or if eight weeks pass with no decision, you can take it to the Financial Ombudsman Service. The FOS is free, independent, and reviews the decision on a "fair and reasonable" basis, which is broader than the issuer's own contractual analysis.

5. Keep the merchant claim alive separately

A Section 75 claim does not extinguish your right to sue the merchant directly in the small claims court (claims up to £10,000). Most people don't bother because the bank route is easier. But if the merchant is still trading and reachable, putting them on notice in parallel sometimes triggers a settlement.

What usually happens next

The card issuer's first response is almost always a refusal. They will say one of three things:

• "There is no written contract": irrelevant. Online sales create contracts on the click of "Buy Now". Email confirmations and the sales page are sufficient.
• "The merchant says they delivered": the issuer is required to investigate, not accept the merchant's word.
• "This is a chargeback matter, please use the dispute process": wrong scheme. Reply naming Section 75.

If you escalate to the FOS, the picture is different. The FOS does not defer to the issuer's reasoning. It looks at the evidence directly and decides what is fair. In undelivered-course cases with credit-card payment, the FOS upholds in favour of the consumer in a meaningful share of complaints, though every case turns on its facts.

Realistic timeline: 8 weeks at the issuer, then 3 to 9 months at the FOS. Persistence is the variable that decides outcomes.

When to escalate further

• If the FOS rejects the claim and you believe they got the law wrong, you can request a final ombudsman decision (different from the investigator's view) within the deadline they give you.
• If you can show the merchant marketed unregulated investment-style returns ("£10K/month guaranteed"), report them to the Financial Conduct Authority. Even if the FCA can't recover your money, it can stop the next victim.
• If the merchant has gone into liquidation, your Section 75 claim against the issuer is unaffected. The bank's liability is independent of the merchant's solvency.

The bottom line

A rejected chargeback is not a final answer. Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act puts your card issuer on the hook for the merchant's failures, and most consumers never invoke it because nobody tells them it exists. Write the letter, escalate to the FOS, and treat the timeline as a marathon. That is how these cases get won.

Frequently asked questions

Does Section 75 work if I paid with a debit card? No. Debit cards are not covered by Section 75. The closest equivalent is the chargeback scheme run by your card network, which is weaker and discretionary.

My course cost more than £30,000. Am I out of luck? No. Section 75 still applies provided the single purchase (one transaction line) is between £100 and £30,000. If your course was billed in instalments, each instalment may be its own qualifying purchase. Take advice on the structure.

The merchant has gone bust. Can I still claim? Yes, and this is precisely when Section 75 is most valuable. The credit card issuer's liability is independent of whether the merchant still exists.

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 1a: Chargeback vs Section 75: which one to use, and when
• Blog 1b: How to write a Section 75 letter that actually works
• Blog 1c: When the FOS rejects your case: your options