Section 75 Consumer Credit Act Claim — 2026 Guide

Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is the most powerful consumer protection in English law — and most consumers don’t know it exists, while their credit card issuers don’t rush to remind them.

What s.75 does

If you buy goods or services between £100 and £30,000 and use credit (credit card, personal loan linked to the purchase, store finance) for any part of the transaction, the credit provider is jointly and severally liable with the supplier for:

• Breach of contract (non-delivery, defective goods, service not as promised)
• Misrepresentation (pre-contract statements that induced the purchase)

You can pursue either the supplier or the credit provider. If the supplier has gone bust, disappeared, or is refusing to engage, you go straight to the credit provider — who is equally liable in law.

The £100–£30,000 rule

Applies to the cash price of a single item or service, not the amount paid on credit. A £5,000 bathroom installation paid with a £500 deposit on credit card and the rest on debit is a valid s.75 claim for the full £5,000 — the £500 on credit is the gateway.

What qualifies

• Holidays (airline or package where supplier has failed)
• Weddings, events, catering
• Home improvements (kitchens, bathrooms, solar panels, windows)
• Vehicles (car not delivered, not as described, defective)
• Electronics (not delivered, defective, DOA)
• Professional services not provided
• Furniture not delivered or defective

Structure — the Litigant Standard

1. The contract and breach

Attach the invoice, receipt, contract. Describe what was promised and what was delivered (or not).

2. The s.75 hook

“Payment of £X was made using the [Issuer] credit card on [date]. Accordingly, under s.75 Consumer Credit Act 1974, [Issuer] is jointly and severally liable with [Supplier] for the breach / misrepresentation described above.”

3. The supplier’s position

“Supplier has [refused to remedy / ceased trading / failed to respond]. In the circumstances, the claim is brought directly against the Issuer under s.75.”

4. The remedy

“Refund of £X. Damages for [consequential loss]. Interest. Resolution within 8 weeks, failing which the matter will be escalated to the Financial Ombudsman Service.”

What issuers try to say

• “Use chargeback instead” — chargeback is shorter (120 days typically) and is a scheme rule, not a statutory right. S.75 is a statutory right; use both if within window, use s.75 if chargeback window closed.
• “The supplier is the party liable” — s.75 says jointly and severally. Both are liable.
• “The payment was to a third-party processor (PayPal, Klarna)” — debated. Some processors break the s.75 chain; issuers often concede and pay anyway. Chris drafts the argument.
• “Outside s.75 limits” — check the £100–£30,000 cash-price rule carefully.

Going to FOS after a s.75 refusal

If the issuer refuses, complain to the bank’s customer services. Get the Final Response. Go to FOS within 6 months. Section 75 refusals are one of the most successful complaint categories at FOS.

Can Chris draft the s.75 claim?

Yes. Upload receipt, credit card statement, contract, correspondence with supplier. Chris drafts the s.75 claim to the issuer with full regulatory framing, and the follow-on FOS complaint if refused. £30 per claim. No claims company taking 30%.

Prepare to win. Plan not to fail.

The statute has been on the books since 1974. Most consumers have never used it. You should.