Chargeback claims can help recover some card payments, but they are not a universal refund mechanism for fraud losses. Section 75 and authorised push payment fraud reimbursement provide separate routes, each with different conditions.
The correct starting point is the payment itself: did you authorise it, how did you pay, who received it and what were they supposed to provide?
This guide explains the position checked on 3 November 2026, including deadlines, evidence and the limitations affecting investment and cryptocurrency scams.
Chargeback Claims, Section 75 and APP Reimbursement
These routes should not be treated as interchangeable.
Chargeback operates under card-scheme rules. Section 75 is a statutory protection for qualifying credit-financed purchases involving supplier misrepresentation or breach of contract.
APP fraud reimbursement concerns qualifying bank transfers authorised by someone deceived into paying a fraudster.
A payment you never authorised is a different situation again. Tell your provider accurately whether you made the payment under deception or whether someone used your account without permission.
Ask the provider to assess every relevant route, rather than assuming one rejected claim settles all possible grounds.
Section 75: The Price Threshold and Legal Conditions
Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 can make a credit provider jointly liable for qualifying supplier misrepresentation or breach of contract.
The relevant cash price must be more than £100 and no more than £30,000. An item costing exactly £100 falls outside that price requirement.
The threshold concerns the qualifying item or purchase, rather than simply the amount charged to the card. Paying only a deposit by credit card can still qualify if the other conditions are met.
There must also be the required relationship between the customer, creditor and supplier. An intermediary can affect that relationship, so a credit-card statement alone does not establish eligibility.
MoneyHelper’s card-protection guidance explains the thresholds and examples.
Why Investment Fraud Is Not Automatically Covered
An investment loss does not become a Section 75 claim merely because the investor paid by credit card.
The provider must assess what was purchased, which supplier made the relevant representation, the contractual relationship and the applicable conditions.
A particularly important distinction arises when a genuine exchange supplies cryptocurrency that the customer later sends elsewhere.
In Ombudsman decision DRN-3533775, the final decision rejected a claim involving payments to cryptocurrency exchanges because the required relationship with the alleged scam suppliers was not established.
That decision illustrates a limitation, not a rule that every crypto-related complaint must fail. Any separate complaint about the payment provider’s conduct requires its own assessment.
How Chargeback Claims Work
Chargeback asks the card issuer to seek reversal of a transaction under the relevant card network’s rules.
It can apply to debit, credit and prepaid cards. Unlike Section 75, chargeback is not a statutory right to hold the creditor jointly liable for the supplier’s conduct.
The provider needs an applicable dispute reason and supporting evidence. A merchant can challenge the claim, so any initial credit should not automatically be treated as a final outcome.
Chargeback claims also concern the actual card transaction. If the merchant delivered the service purchased, a later loss involving another recipient may not provide grounds to reverse that earlier payment.
This is why identifying the merchant and promised service matters.
Chargeback Claims Deadlines
A commonly cited deadline is 120 days, but the relevant starting point depends on the circumstances and scheme rules.
For example, a payment for a future service may have a different trigger from an ordinary purchase. Other limits can also affect the claim.
Do not assume that the date you discovered a scam automatically resets the clock. Contact the card provider promptly and ask which deadline applies to each transaction.
Section 75 should not be assigned the same 120-day chargeback deadline. It has a different legal basis, although legal limitation periods still matter.
For chargeback claims, preserve the payment dates, expected delivery dates and the date the problem became apparent.
APP Fraud: Qualifying UK Bank Transfers
The mandatory APP reimbursement arrangements apply to qualifying payments made from 7 October 2024.
The Payment Systems Regulator explains that the protections concern UK account-to-account payments over Faster Payments or CHAPS. They cover eligible individuals, microenterprises and charities, subject to the rules.
The usual maximum reimbursement is £85,000 per claim. A provider may apply an excess of up to £100, subject to safeguards for qualifying vulnerable consumers.
These arrangements do not automatically cover overseas transfers, card purchases, cryptocurrency transfers or ordinary civil disputes with legitimate suppliers.
The PSR’s consumer guidance also explains exclusions involving complicity and gross negligence. Gross negligence is a high threshold, rather than simply having been deceived.
APP Reporting Deadlines and Assessment Times
Report suspected APP fraud immediately. The published reporting limit is generally 13 months from the fraudulent payment.
The PSR describes reimbursement within five business days, with provision for additional assessment time and an outcome within 35 business days where the rules allow the clock to be stopped.
These timings should not be confused with chargeback claims or Section 75 processing periods.
If a transfer does not qualify under the mandatory scheme, ask whether another reimbursement basis or complaint route applies. A payment outside one scheme is not automatically outside every possible remedy.
Evidence for Chargeback Claims and Other Recovery Routes
Give your provider a clear record of the payments and alleged wrongdoing.
Useful documents include:
- Statements, receipts and transaction references.
- The merchant’s identity and payment-recipient details.
- Contracts, terms and the specific promises relied upon.
- Messages, emails and relevant screenshots.
- Withdrawal requests and responses.
- A timeline distinguishing deposits, transfers and later demands.
For cryptocurrency transactions, include the network, receiving addresses and transaction hashes where available.
Describe exactly what was promised and what failed to happen. A falling investment price is different from a false statement or an undelivered service.
Provide records of attempts to resolve a supplier dispute where relevant, or explain why contact was impossible or unsafe. Never delay an urgent fraud report while seeking a scammer’s response.
If Your Bank Rejects the Claim
Request a written explanation identifying the route considered and the reason for refusal.
For chargeback claims, ask which scheme condition or deadline was not satisfied. For Section 75, ask whether the issue concerns price, the supplier relationship, evidence or the alleged breach.
If dissatisfied, make a formal complaint to the provider. An eligible unresolved complaint can then be referred to the Financial Ombudsman Service.
The applicable response period depends on the complaint. There is generally a six-month Ombudsman referral deadline after a valid final response, subject to exceptions. Check the official time-limit guidance.
A refusal is not proof that the bank acted wrongly, and escalation does not guarantee reimbursement.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can Chargeback Claims Be Made on Credit Cards?
Yes. Chargeback can apply to credit, debit and prepaid cards. Section 75 is a separate protection with additional legal conditions.
Does Section 75 Cover a Purchase Costing Exactly £100?
No. The relevant price must exceed £100 and must not exceed £30,000. Other eligibility requirements also apply.
Are Chargeback Claims Guaranteed to Succeed?
No. The dispute must meet scheme requirements, and the merchant may challenge it. An initial account credit may not be final.
Can I Claim After Buying Crypto and Sending It to a Scammer?
Possibly, but recovery is not automatic. The exchange may have supplied exactly what you purchased. Explain every stage and ask the provider to assess relevant grounds separately.
Must I Pay a Recovery Company First?
No paid representative is required to approach your bank or the Ombudsman. Treat guaranteed-recovery promises cautiously. Our recovery scam guide explains common follow-up risks.
What If an Online Relationship Led to the Payment?
Tell the provider how the relationship influenced your decisions and preserve the conversations. Our romance-to-crypto scam breakdown explains the pattern without determining any individual claim.
Conclusion: Match the Remedy to the Payment
Chargeback claims, Section 75 and APP reimbursement can provide recovery routes, but none guarantees repayment of every fraud or investment loss.
Report promptly, preserve evidence and ask for a reasoned assessment of the actual transactions. Do not send further money to unlock funds or secure a promised refund without independent verification.
Use our financial fraud reporting guide, checking current instructions with the relevant authority. Reporting wrongdoing is separate from requesting reimbursement.
You can also submit evidence to InvestorWatchdog. Our investigation methodology explains how we distinguish documented findings from allegations.