Section 75 is a legal protection
For a qualifying credit-card purchase, the card provider can share responsibility with the supplier for misrepresentation or breach of contract.
Protection, evidence and public rules
Can chargeback or Section 75 help after a scam?
Chargeback and Section 75 can sometimes help with card payments connected to a scam, but they are different remedies. The payment method, purchase, parties, evidence and reason for the dispute find out which route may apply.
Page P-025Guidance pageReviewed 29 August 2026
Key Guidance
Contact the card provider promptly and describe exactly what you bought, who you paid, how the payment was made and what went wrong. Ask it to consider chargeback, Section 75 and any other protection that fits. Do not assume that using a card guarantees reimbursement.
Start with Key Guidance for the short answer. Then read the sections that match what happened and what you need to do.
Understand the issue
Why this matters to you
The word scam does not decide a card claim. Providers examine the transaction and the legal or scheme conditions behind the loss.
Chargeback is a card-scheme process
A debit- or credit-card provider may try to reclaim a payment under scheme rules. It is not the same legal right as Section 75 and valid reasons and deadlines vary.
The payment chain matters
Payment processors, wallets, intermediaries or a different contracting party can affect whether the required relationship exists.
A scam can create several claim routes
The facts may concern non-delivery, misrepresentation, an unauthorised payment or a payment you were deceived into authorising. These are not assessed in exactly the same way.
Consequences and movement
What may happen next
Build the claim around the transaction facts. The provider needs enough information to choose the correct route and reason code.
Credit-card purchase
Section 75 may apply where the cash price is more than £100 and no more than £30,000 and the necessary debtor–creditor–supplier relationship exists.
Debit- or credit-card dispute
Chargeback may be available for reasons recognised by the card scheme, including some goods-or-services disputes.
Payment through an intermediary
A wallet, marketplace or payment processor may change the contractual or payment chain, so give the provider the full route.
Rejected or delayed claim
Ask for the decision and reasons in writing. Use the provider’s complaint process and, where eligible, the Financial Ombudsman Service.
Practical response
What you should do
Act promptly and describe the evidence accurately. Do not force the incident into one remedy before the provider has assessed it.
- Contact the card providerUse the number on the card, statement or genuine app. Say that the payment is connected to a scam and ask which recovery and complaint routes apply.
- Identify the transaction routeRecord the card used, date, amount, merchant shown, full purchase price, payment processor and any later transfers.
- Preserve the agreement and claimsKeep adverts, order pages, invoices, contracts, messages, promised outcomes, cancellation attempts and evidence of non-delivery or misrepresentation.
- Ask for every relevant assessmentRequest consideration of chargeback, Section 75 and any separate fraud protection rather than treating one rejection as the end of every route.
- Watch the timeChargeback deadlines depend on the scheme and reason and are often time-limited. Contact the provider promptly even if you are still gathering evidence.
- Escalate a complaintIf the provider’s final response appears wrong or incomplete, follow the Financial Ombudsman Service route within its applicable time limit.
Look more closely
Payment protection depends on the transaction beneath the label
A card payment can involve several different contractual and processing relationships. Recovery depends on what was bought, who supplied it, what was represented and how the payment was made—not only on calling the event a scam.
A merchant or service appears genuine enough to support the purchase.
A card, wallet, marketplace or processor determines the payment chain.
The transaction creates possible scheme, legal or fraud routes.
The contract, representations and payment record support the correct claim.
The provider assesses each available remedy separately.
Selected history
Historical cases and lasting lessons
Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act
Qualifying credit agreements can make the creditor jointly liable with the supplier for certain misrepresentation or breach-of-contract claims.
Lasting lesson: The protection follows legal conditions and relationships, not a general promise that every scam payment will be refunded.
Chargeback
Card issuers may challenge qualifying debit- or credit-card transactions under the relevant card scheme rules.
Lasting lesson: A fast, evidence-based request helps the provider identify the correct reason and deadline.
Transferable understanding
Patterns over time
Payment method and purchase are separate facts
A card may fund the transaction, but the legal relationship and merchant route still find out protection.
Intermediaries complicate simple stories
The person named in messages, the merchant descriptor and the contractual supplier may not be the same party.
One rejected route does not answer every question
Section 75, chargeback, unauthorised-payment rules and scam-payment complaints have different tests.
Evidence should describe, not exaggerate
Clear records of what was promised and delivered are more useful than applying a broad scam label without transaction detail.
Plain-language answers
Common questions
Is Section 75 only about the amount charged to my card?
The qualifying threshold normally concerns the cash price of the item or service, not simply the deposit placed on the card. Other legal conditions still apply.
Does chargeback guarantee a refund?
No. The claim must fit the card scheme’s rules and can be challenged by the merchant or fail because the evidence or payment route does not qualify.
Can I claim if I authorised the card payment?
Possibly, depending on what was bought, represented and delivered. Authorisation does not by itself decide a goods-or-services claim, but the precise facts matter.
What if my provider says I used the wrong claim name?
Ask it to assess the facts under every relevant route and explain its decision. You should not need to diagnose the entire legal and scheme framework yourself.
Ask the provider to assess the transaction, not only the label
Contact the card provider promptly, provide the full purchase and payment chain, and ask for a written decision. Complain formally if it overlooks a relevant route or material evidence.
Scamology Insights
Recovery follows the payment architecture
These learning resources can help separate the story used to get payment from the card, merchant and contractual route that determines recovery. Links are intentionally withheld in this production version.
Continue understanding
Explore related guidance
Evidence and currency