Paying a garage by card: section 75 and chargeback

You paid by card and the repair is wrong — do these three things first

You paid on a card. The job is wrong, or the car is still broken. A friend has told you to charge it back or to use section 75. Those are not the same thing.

The card route sits alongside your complaint to the garage; it does not replace it. The sections below keep the same official sources. They do not calculate a deadline for your facts.

Checklist

• Find which card you used and whether it was credit or debit.
• Keep the invoice, the booking and your written complaint to the garage; the same file serves both routes.
• Read the credit-card and debit-card sections below before you contact the card provider, because the two routes are not interchangeable.

Why how you paid is a separate question from what went wrong

Your claim against the garage under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 is one thing. How you paid can give you a second, additional route to the same money, aimed at a different organisation. The two run alongside each other; the card route does not replace the statutory remedies against the garage. Sources: ^{[1] [17]}

The Financial Ombudsman Service says that when a bank or lender looks at one of these claims it should consider the contract agreed between the parties, including relevant consumer law, and that the Consumer Rights Act 2015 is often relevant — including its requirement that services be performed with reasonable care and skill. Sources: ^{[1] [17]}

The Financial Conduct Authority describes claims against a card provider as one of several possible routes to getting money back, and says each route has its own limitations and its own potential benefits. Sources: ^[11]

This page covers only the payment route. The remedy against the garage depends on which Consumer Rights Act term was breached. The separate repair-rights guide maps section 49 and performance-related section 50 breaches to repeat performance and, where the section 56 conditions are met, price reduction; non-performance-related section 50 and section 52 breaches to direct price reduction; section 51 to its different route; and the other remedies preserved by section 54(6)–(7).

Nothing here requires you to choose. Working out whether the garage is in breach is the same job either way, and the evidence you gather serves both routes.

Section 75: a legal claim against the credit card company

Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 says that if the debtor under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement falling within section 12(b) or (c) has any claim against the supplier for misrepresentation or breach of contract in relation to a transaction financed by the agreement, the debtor has a like claim against the creditor, and the creditor and supplier are jointly and severally liable. Sources: ^[2]

Joint and several liability is what makes this useful. The FCA states that the customer can pursue a claim against the seller, or the credit card issuer, or both, and that the credit card issuer cannot insist that the customer claims first against the seller. Sources: ^[12]

Section 12 defines the debtor-creditor-supplier agreement that section 75 depends on. It covers restricted-use credit under pre-existing or contemplated arrangements between the creditor and the supplier, and unrestricted-use credit made under pre-existing arrangements between the creditor and a supplier in the knowledge that the credit is to finance a transaction between the debtor and that supplier. This is the three-party link: you, the card issuer, and the garage. Sources: ^[4]

The FCA says that the three-party description is only a starting point. Whether the required debtor-creditor-supplier relationship exists depends on the specific commercial arrangements and their effect. A payment intermediary or third-party processor may break the necessary link and make section 75 inapplicable, but its involvement does not automatically decide every case. Ultimately, only a court can give a conclusive view on the relationship in an individual case. Sources: ^[12]

For the cash-price test in section 75(3)(b), the single item must have a cash price of more than £100 and not more than £30,000. Sources: ^[2]

The statutory boundary is more than £100 and not more than £30,000. Because it is the cash price rather than the amount put on the card that counts, the FCA says that a £25 deposit paid on the card can still fall within a section 75 claim. Sources: ^{[2] [12]}

The Financial Ombudsman Service makes the same point from the consumer side: it is the cash price of the goods or services that matters, not what you paid on the credit card, so section 75 can apply even if you only made part of the payment using credit. Sources: ^{[12] [17]}

Section 75 does not apply to a claim under a non-commercial agreement, and there is a separate exclusion for certain running-account credit agreements with short payment periods repaid in a single payment. Sources: ^[2]

The FCA says a claim can only be made where the purchase using the card was by the debtor under the card agreement, rather than by an additional card holder or authorised user added to the account. Sources: ^[12]

Section 75 applies even though the debtor, in entering into the transaction, exceeded the credit limit or otherwise contravened a term of the agreement. Sources: ^[2]

The card company is not being asked to absorb the loss. Section 75 entitles the creditor to be indemnified by the supplier for what it pays out, and in any action brought against the creditor it is entitled to have the supplier made a party to the proceedings. Sources: ^[2]

The Financial Ombudsman Service lists what section 75 does not cover: payment by debit card or charge card, credit given under an overdraft or a general-purpose bank loan, and payment by cash, credit card cheque or bank transfer. Sources: ^{[11] [17]}

Where the cash value of the goods or service is more than £30,000, section 75A can make the creditor liable under a linked credit agreement, but only where the supplier cannot be traced, has not responded, is insolvent, or the debtor has taken reasonable steps to pursue the claim without obtaining satisfaction — and it does not apply where the linked credit exceeds £60,260. Sources: ^[3]

If the debtor under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement falling within section 12(b) or (c) has, in relation to a transaction financed by the agreement, any claim against the supplier in respect of a misrepresentation or breach of contract, he shall have a like claim against the creditor, who, with the supplier, shall accordingly be jointly and severally liable to the debtor.

What to do

• Check that the cash price of the single item or job you are complaining about — not merely the invoice total or the amount put on the card — is more than £100 and not more than £30,000.
• If the card was in someone else's name and you were an additional cardholder, expect the card provider to raise that; the claim belongs to the account holder.
• If the payment passed through an intermediary, digital wallet or third-party processor, ask the card provider to explain how that arrangement affects the debtor-creditor-supplier link; do not assume that the link either survives or fails automatically.
• Confirm the current figures on the card provider's or the regulator's own page before you rely on them.

Chargeback is not section 75, and the difference matters

This is the single most misunderstood point on this page. The FCA states plainly that chargeback is not a statutory right. It is an arrangement under which a card provider reclaims money from the trader's bank in specific circumstances set out in the card scheme rules. Sources: ^[11]

Because the rules belong to the card schemes rather than to Parliament, they differ between schemes. The Financial Ombudsman Service says your card will likely be with one of the main card schemes and that each will have different chargeback rules, so you should check them with your bank or lender. Sources: ^[17]

A bank or lender does not have to raise a chargeback, although the Financial Ombudsman Service says it can be good practice to do so where valid reasons exist. Sources: ^[17]

The Financial Ombudsman Service says you usually have around 120 days to raise a chargeback about goods or services, which might run from the date you expected to receive them or the date you got something defective or not as described, and that time limits might be longer or shorter depending on the circumstances. Sources: ^[17]

Chargeback has no equivalent of the £100 floor. The FCA describes the scheme as usually having no minimum spend requirement, which is why it is the route for a small bill that section 75 cannot reach. Sources: ^[12]

What you can recover is narrower. The FCA says that with a chargeback claim a consumer can only reclaim the amount paid on the debit or credit card, and not any other consequential losses. Under a section 75 claim a consumer may be eligible to claim for certain consequential losses, though not all consequential losses are covered. Sources: ^[11]

A chargeback is also reversible. Citizens Advice warns that the trader can challenge your refund even after you have had the money back, and suggests keeping the money aside for a few weeks in case the challenge succeeds. Sources: ^[18]

The Financial Ombudsman Service says chargebacks can fail and that it is not always reasonable to raise one at all, and that when it looks at a complaint about how a bank handled a chargeback it will usually consider whether it was fair not to raise, or to discontinue, the chargeback. Sources: ^[17]

Chargeback scheme time limits, court limitation or prescription for pursuing a section 75 claim, and the DISP time limits for referring a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service are different clocks. England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland each have their own court regime; this guide does not calculate a court deadline from a chargeback window. Sources: ^{[6] [7] [8] [10]}

Put simply: section 75 is a statutory claim with a cash-price threshold. Chargeback is a non-statutory scheme process with no equivalent floor; it is time-sensitive and does not guarantee a refund. Do not use one route's time limit as the deadline for another route.

What to do

• Ask the card provider in writing to identify the card scheme, the chargeback reason code, the event and date from which time runs, and the final deadline. Do not assume that every claim runs from the purchase date or the date of the failed repair.
• If you may have both routes, raise the matter with the card provider early enough that the chargeback window is still open, and say you want both chargeback and section 75 considered.
• Do not treat a chargeback refund as final until the challenge period has passed.

If you paid by debit card

Section 75 requires credit. The FCA's guidance states that section 75 does not include cases where the goods or services were bought with a debit card, charge card or prepaid card. Sources: ^[11]

Chargeback is the route that remains. The FCA describes chargeback as a voluntary scheme for refunds of debit card payments in which the main card schemes participate, enabling customers to claim a refund from their card provider where the goods or service is not provided or is faulty. Sources: ^[12]

The Financial Ombudsman Service confirms the same split: where you paid with a debit card or a charge card, section 75 does not apply, although your card provider may still be able to help through the chargeback process. Sources: ^{[11] [17]}

This is not a reason to regret how you paid. It is a reason to move promptly, because chargeback is now your only card-based route and its scheme-specific time limit may expire quickly.

How to raise it: write to the card provider, not the garage

The claim goes to the organisation that gave you the credit or the account, not to the garage. The FCA describes the process as the customer writing to the credit card issuer, stating what they bought, where and when they bought it and how much they paid, including proof of purchase, explaining why they consider the supplier to be in breach of contract or to have misrepresented, and saying what they want from the issuer. Sources: ^[12]

The Financial Ombudsman Service suggests telling the bank or lender that you want them to help resolve an issue with something you paid for using a card or loan they provided, and asking them to consider both the chargeback and the section 75 process. Sources: ^[17]

The Financial Ombudsman Service lists the supporting information that may help: receipts, invoices or other proof of payment; contracts and terms and conditions; marketing materials or screenshots about what you were buying; correspondence such as emails; photos or videos indicating the work was not as expected; and independent assessments, reports or expert opinion where needed. Sources: ^[17]

The Financial Ombudsman Service says a bank or lender will ask for supporting evidence before starting the chargeback process, and that you often need to show you have tried to resolve the problem with the supplier first. Sources: ^[17]

Citizens Advice advises that it is usually best to try to contact the trader first and to follow the trader's complaints procedure, and that it is best to ask the card provider in writing. Sources: ^[18]

Citizens Advice says that if you have a joint credit card the main card holder should contact the card provider, and that a card provider may call chargeback something else, such as 'disputed transactions'. Sources: ^[18]

The FCA expects credit and debit card providers to handle section 75 and chargeback claims in a reasonable timescale, and says that if there are delays firms should clearly explain the reason for the delay. Sources: ^[11]

Checklist

• Identify the card or credit account you actually paid on and find that provider's written complaints or claims address.
• State clearly which route you want considered — section 75, chargeback, or both.
• Give the date of the work, the invoice total, the price of the specific job you are disputing, and the amount paid on that card.
• Attach the estimate or quote, the invoice, the payment record and any correspondence with the garage.
• Attach anything independent: a second opinion, a diagnostic report, photographs, or a record of the fault recurring.
• Say what you want — a refund, the cost of putting the work right, or costs caused by the faulty work.
• Keep a copy of everything you send and the date you sent it.

Financial Ombudsman Service — problems with goods and services bought using a debit card or credit

If the card provider refuses

The escalation route is the Financial Ombudsman Service. Part 16 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 provides for a scheme under which certain disputes may be resolved quickly and with minimum formality by an independent person, administered by a body corporate known as the scheme operator. Sources: ^[5]

The Financial Ombudsman Service states that its service is free and easy to use, and that it can look at complaints that a bank or lender unfairly rejected a section 75 claim, did not pursue a chargeback when it would have been good practice to do so, did not investigate properly or consider all the evidence, or took too long. Sources: ^[17]

You must complain to the card provider first. For a complaint that is not an EMD complaint or a PSD complaint, DISP 2.8.1R allows referral to the Financial Ombudsman Service after a final response or summary resolution communication, or once eight weeks have elapsed since the provider received the complaint. The Ombudsman's public guidance describes eight weeks as the period for most complaints. Sources: ^{[10] [16]}

If all or part of the complaint is an EMD complaint or a PSD complaint — the FCA categories for certain e-money or payment-services complaints — DISP 1.6.2AR requires a final response by the end of 15 business days. Only in exceptional circumstances beyond the provider's control may it instead send the prescribed holding response by then and a final response by the end of 35 business days. Under DISP 2.8.1R, referral can be made after 15 business days where no such holding response was received, or after 35 business days where one was received. Ask the provider which classification it is applying rather than assuming every card complaint follows the same timetable. Sources: ^{[9] [10] [16]}

Separate referral time limits then apply. Under DISP the Ombudsman generally cannot consider a complaint referred more than six months after the date the respondent sent its final response, or more than six years after the event complained of, or if later three years from the date the complainant became aware or ought reasonably to have become aware of the cause for complaint. Sources: ^[10]

The six-month clock is only started by a proper final response, and that response must tell you about the six-month limit you have to refer the complaint. Sources: ^[10]

The Ombudsman may decide the time limits do not defeat a complaint where, in its view, the failure to comply resulted from exceptional circumstances, or where the firm consents to the complaint being considered. Sources: ^[10]

If the Ombudsman upholds the complaint it may tell the bank or lender to refund you in part or in full, arrange a repair or replacement, arrange for services to be carried out properly, refund interest, charges or repayments, or do nothing if it thinks enough has already been done. Sources: ^[17]

Citizens Advice notes a practical limit on the chargeback side: if the card provider says it appealed to the trader's bank and the appeal failed, there is nothing further to do through chargeback, but if it says it will not appeal at all you can complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service. Sources: ^[18]

The FCA says that where a card provider declines a section 75 or chargeback claim it should explain the reasons clearly and fairly and explain any further options the consumer might have. Sources: ^[11]

Checklist

• Ask the card provider for a final response in writing, and note the date it was sent.
• Diarise six months from that date as your Ombudsman referral deadline.
• Ask whether the provider is treating the complaint as an ordinary complaint or as an EMD or PSD complaint, and which response deadline and Ombudsman referral trigger it says apply.
• For a complaint outside the EMD/PSD categories, eight weeks without a final response is the usual trigger. For an EMD/PSD complaint, check the 15-business-day trigger where no prescribed holding response was received and the 35-business-day trigger where one was received.
• Send the Ombudsman the same evidence pack you sent the card provider, plus the provider's response.

A proposed Ombudsman change is before Parliament, but is not in force

Following its review of the Financial Ombudsman Service, the government proposed an absolute time limit of 10 years for bringing complaints to the Ombudsman, while giving the FCA the ability to make exceptions for particular products. Sources: ^[13]

The Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL] (bill 4129) was introduced in the House of Lords on 19 May 2026. Clause 6 of the Bill as introduced would make the applicable compulsory-jurisdiction time limit the earlier of 10 years from the relevant act or omission and a time set by FCA rules, while allowing rules to specify later times in particular circumstances. Sources: ^[14]

As at 13 August 2026, UK Parliament recorded completed Lords committee-stage sittings through 8 July and listed report stage as the next stage. The listed September report-stage sittings were future dates, not completed events, on the review date and may be provisional. Sources: ^[15]

As at 13 August 2026, the Bill had not received Royal Assent and was not an Act, so clause 6 was not law or in force. The Bill's commencement clause would in any event leave clause 6 to be brought into force on a day appointed by Treasury regulations. The current DISP 2.8 rules therefore still govern Financial Ombudsman Service referral time limits. Sources: ^{[14] [15] [10]}

Treat the Bill as a proposal, not as a current deadline. If you are reading this after the review date at the foot of the page, check both the Bill's current Parliamentary status and the current DISP rules.

Important

This page names no bank, card issuer or card scheme as preferable, and OBDCode UK receives no payment from any of them.

Neither route guarantees your money back. Whether section 75 applies to your particular payment depends on the facts of the arrangement between you, your card provider and the garage.

Do not drive a vehicle that the reviewed safety conclusion says should not be driven, whatever stage your card claim has reached.