Start with the payment method
Section 75 concerns qualifying credit arrangements. Chargeback operates through card-scheme rules. APP scam reimbursement concerns certain authorised bank transfers to fraudsters. The routes overlap in purpose, but not in their legal basis or conditions.
A bank saying “this is not a chargeback” does not necessarily mean there is no remedy. Equally, asking for Section 75 after paying by ordinary debit card will not make that statutory protection apply.
The strongest claim identifies the payment rail, the failure and the exact protection being invoked.
Section 75: statutory credit protection
Section 75 can apply where
- the purchase was made using a qualifying credit agreement, commonly a credit card;
- the cash price of the individual item or qualifying set is more than £100 and no more than £30,000;
- the supplier breached the contract or made a misrepresentation;
- only a deposit was placed on the credit card, with the balance paid another way; and
- the necessary legal connection between debtor, creditor and supplier remains intact.
Section 75 is not simply a refund policy. The customer must identify a breach of contract or misrepresentation and show the resulting loss. Claims can extend beyond the amount charged to the card where the legal conditions are met.
Intermediaries can complicate Section 75
Some payment processors, digital wallets, marketplaces and third-party booking arrangements can affect the required debtor-creditor-supplier chain. The outcome depends on the structure of the transaction, not only on the logo shown at checkout.
Chargeback: a card-scheme process
Chargeback is not a statutory right equivalent to Section 75. It is a process under the rules of card schemes such as Visa, Mastercard and American Express. It can be available for debit, credit and some prepaid-card transactions.
Common chargeback situations include
- goods or services not supplied;
- a promised refund not received;
- goods materially not as described or defective;
- a duplicate or incorrectly processed card transaction; and
- a merchant ceasing to trade before performance.
Time limits are important and commonly involve 120 days, but the start point and final cut-off can vary according to the dispute reason and card-scheme rules. A consumer should contact the card issuer promptly instead of assuming every case has the same deadline.
A provisional chargeback can be challenged by the merchant. The card issuer may therefore ask for the contract, correspondence, proof of non-delivery, expert evidence or confirmation that the consumer first tried to resolve the issue.
APP scam reimbursement: authorised bank transfers
An authorised push payment scam occurs when a person is deceived into instructing their bank or payment provider to send money to an account controlled by a fraudster. The customer authorised the transfer, but did so because of deception.
Mandatory reimbursement protections for in-scope Faster Payments and CHAPS payments took effect on 7 October 2024. They cover many consumers, microenterprises and charities, subject to the detailed rules and exclusions.
The current core protections include
- a claim should be reported as soon as possible and normally within 13 months of the final scam payment;
- most eligible claims should be reimbursed within five business days;
- a provider can pause the timetable for necessary information, but should reach an outcome within 35 business days;
- an optional excess of up to £100 can apply, but not to a vulnerable consumer under the relevant test; and
- the mandatory maximum reimbursement is £85,000, although a firm can choose to pay more.
A failed purchase is not always an APP scam
A genuine civil dispute with a real seller is not automatically converted into fraud because the trader fails to perform or refuses a refund. Banks examine whether the payment resulted from a fraudulent scheme within the reimbursement rules.
Unauthorised transactions are a fourth category
If the customer did not authorise the card payment or bank transfer at all, the claim falls under separate payment-services rules. It should be reported immediately as an unauthorised transaction rather than described as an APP payment the customer was tricked into making.
How to choose the route
Ask these questions
Was the payment made by credit card, debit card, another credit product or bank transfer?
Did a real supplier breach a contract, or was the entire arrangement fraudulent?
Did the customer authorise the payment instruction?
What was the cash price of the individual item or qualifying set?
Was an intermediary involved between the customer and supplier?
Which time limit applies, and when did it begin?
If the bank rejects the claim
Ask for a final response explaining the facts, rule and evidence relied upon. A rejection should not consist only of a label such as “civil dispute” or “merchant matter” without addressing the substance.
A consumer can complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service after the firm issues its final response or the applicable response period expires. Referral deadlines apply, commonly six months from the final response, so the letter should be checked immediately.
The ConsumerWise verdict
Payment protection is not one universal refund scheme. Section 75 attaches statutory liability to qualifying credit transactions. Chargeback uses card-scheme rules to reverse eligible card payments. APP reimbursement addresses defined authorised-transfer scams.
Name the right process, supply the evidence it requires and do not let a rejection under one route prevent consideration of another route that genuinely applies.
Official sources and further guidance
- MoneyHelper: Section 75 and chargebackOfficially backed guidance comparing the two card-payment routes.
- Consumer Credit Act 1974, section 75The statutory connected-lender-liability provision.
- Payment Systems Regulator: APP reimbursementCurrent consumer guidance on scope, timing, excess and maximum reimbursement.
- FCA: fraudulent paymentsGuidance on authorised and unauthorised fraudulent payments.
- Financial Ombudsman Service: how to complainEscalation route when a financial firm does not resolve the complaint.
