A Section 75 Claim Letter is a formal written demand made to a credit card provider under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ('CCA 1974'), asserting the consumer's statutory right to a refund or other remedy for a purchase that has gone wrong. This letter formally invokes the joint and several liability of the credit card company alongside the merchant, requiring the provider to investigate the claim and provide a remedy as though it were the supplier itself.

Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is one of the most significant consumer protection provisions in English law. It was enacted to address the fundamental imbalance between consumers and suppliers, particularly in circumstances where the supplier has become insolvent, ceased trading, or is difficult to pursue. Under s.75(1) CCA 1974, where a consumer has a claim against a supplier for misrepresentation or breach of contract in relation to a transaction financed by a regulated credit agreement (i.e. a credit card), the consumer has an equal claim against the credit card company. The credit card company is therefore jointly and severally liable — meaning the consumer can pursue the credit card company for the full remedy without first exhausting their rights against the merchant.

The purchase must satisfy the threshold conditions in s.75(3) CCA 1974: the cash price of the goods or services must be more than £100 and not more than £30,000. These thresholds apply to the price of each individual item, not the total transaction. Importantly, even if only a deposit or partial payment was made by credit card, the full s.75 protection still applies to the entire purchase price — as confirmed by the Court of Appeal in Office of Fair Trading v Lloyds TSB Bank plc [2006] EWCA Civ 268.

The Section 75 Claim Letter also triggers the credit card provider's obligations under the Financial Conduct Authority's Dispute Resolution (DISP) sourcebook, which requires the provider to acknowledge the complaint promptly and issue a final response within 8 weeks. If the provider rejects the claim or fails to respond within 8 weeks, the consumer may escalate to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) free of charge.

A Section 75 Claim Letter is appropriate whenever a consumer has purchased goods or services using a credit card and the purchase has gone wrong in a way that constitutes a breach of contract or misrepresentation by the merchant, provided the purchase price falls between £100 and £30,000.

The most common situations in which a Section 75 claim is appropriate include the following. First, where the merchant has failed to deliver goods or services — for example, a retailer has gone into administration without fulfilling your order, or a holiday company has become insolvent after you booked a package holiday. In these cases, the credit card company's liability under s.75 CCA 1974 provides recourse that would otherwise be unavailable since the merchant no longer exists to be pursued.

Second, where goods delivered are defective, damaged, or do not match their description. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, goods must be of satisfactory quality (s.9), fit for a particular purpose (s.10), and as described (s.11). Where these implied terms are breached, you have a right to reject the goods within 30 days under s.22 CRA 2015, or to claim repair, replacement, or a price reduction under ss.23–24. These statutory rights constitute the breach of contract necessary to found a s.75 claim against the credit card company.

Third, where services have been performed to a substandard level or not at all. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, services must be performed with reasonable care and skill (s.49) and within a reasonable time (s.52). A failure to meet these standards gives rise to rights to repeat performance (s.54) or a price reduction (s.56), which in turn support a s.75 claim.

Fourth, where a misrepresentation was made before the purchase — for example, a car dealer described a vehicle as having full service history when it did not, or a tour operator described accommodation that did not match the photographs used to advertise it. A misrepresentation is a false statement of fact that induced you to enter the contract, and gives rise to rights under both the Misrepresentation Act 1967 and the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

The letter is also appropriate when the merchant refuses to engage, ignores your complaints, disputes your entitlement to a refund, or when any negotiation with the merchant has broken down without resolution.

A well-drafted Section 75 Claim Letter must contain several key elements to be effective and to demonstrate compliance with the applicable legal framework.

The first essential element is clear identification of the legal basis for the claim, citing s.75(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 by name and section number. The letter should explain that the credit card company is jointly and severally liable with the merchant and that the consumer is exercising their statutory right to claim directly from the provider. This legal framing signals to the credit card provider that the consumer is aware of their rights and cannot be fobbed off with a simple rejection.

The second element is precise identification of the transaction: the date of purchase, the name and address of the merchant, a clear description of the goods or services purchased, and the exact amount charged to the credit card. The card account should be identified by the last four digits. This information enables the credit card provider to locate the transaction and investigate it efficiently.

The third element is a clear and specific description of the breach of contract or misrepresentation. The letter should explain precisely what the merchant did wrong — whether goods were not delivered, were defective, did not match their description, or services were not performed — and should reference the applicable provisions of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (ss.9–11 for goods; s.49 for services) to establish the underlying legal basis for the breach.

The fourth element is an account of the attempts made to resolve the matter with the merchant. While there is no strict legal requirement to have first attempted to resolve the matter with the merchant, documenting these attempts demonstrates good faith and strengthens the claim. Where the merchant has ceased trading or gone into administration, this should be stated explicitly.

The fifth element is a clear statement of the remedy sought — typically a full refund of the amount paid by credit card, credited back to the account — together with any alternative remedy the consumer would accept (such as replacement goods or a partial refund).

The sixth element is a list of supporting documents enclosed with the letter: the original receipt or order confirmation, the credit card statement showing the transaction, any correspondence with the merchant, photographs of defective goods, and any independent expert reports. Enclosing documentary evidence at the outset reduces the time taken for the credit card provider to investigate the claim.

Finally, the letter should specify the response deadline and reference the Financial Ombudsman Service as the next step if the claim is not resolved, demonstrating that the consumer knows their escalation options under the FCA DISP rules and the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.