Section 75 and Chargeback When a Research Order Goes Wrong

If a UK buyer pays a research-materials supplier by card and the order never arrives or is not as described, which legal route exists, who qualifies for it, and what evidence does the card issuer ask for?

A card payment to a UK or overseas research supplier can be recovered by two different mechanisms, and they are not interchangeable. Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is a statute. It makes the credit card company jointly liable with the supplier, but only for credit card payments, only for a single item priced above £100 and no more than £30,000, and only where the buyer is an individual rather than a limited company ^[1][2].

Chargeback is not law at all. It is a dispute process run under the rules of the card schemes, available on most debit and credit card payments, including those that fall below the section 75 floor. Neither route depends on the supplier agreeing that something went wrong, and both depend heavily on the paperwork you kept.

Two routes, one decision tree

Start with the card you used, because that decides which route exists at all. If it was a credit card and the item meets the price test, section 75 is available. If it was a debit card, a charge card, or a credit card where section 75 does not apply, chargeback is the route to ask about ^[2].

The two can sit side by side. Where both are open, a buyer is generally free to ask the card provider to pursue whichever is stronger on the facts. Section 75 gives a legal claim against the card company; chargeback is a request that the card company try to reverse the payment through the scheme.

Who section 75 protects

Section 75 operates where a debtor under a particular kind of credit agreement has a claim against the supplier for misrepresentation or breach of contract. In that case the debtor has a like claim against the creditor, and the creditor and supplier become jointly and severally liable ^[1].

The word that matters in practice is debtor. Under the Consumer Credit Act a debtor is an individual, which is defined to include a partnership of two or three people that is not made up entirely of bodies corporate, and certain unincorporated bodies. A limited company is a body corporate, so a payment made on a company credit card falls outside the section. Many laboratory purchases are made on exactly that kind of card, which is why section 75 is less useful to institutional buyers than the general description suggests.

A sole trader or a self-employed individual paying on their own credit card is different. The section does not ask whether the purchase was for personal or business reasons in the way consumer law does; it asks whether the borrower is an individual. If you are in that position, check how your card provider treats the claim before assuming either way.

Citizens Advice also notes that section 75 usually cannot be used if you did not buy directly from the trader ^[2]. A payment routed through a third-party platform or an intermediary can therefore weaken a claim. Keep the chain of payment clear in your records.

The £100 threshold and how an order is counted

The statute excludes a claim so far as it relates to any single item to which the supplier has attached a cash price not exceeding £100 or more than £30,000 ^[1]. Citizens Advice puts it as paid more than £100 and no more than £30,000, applied to a single item and not to the whole order ^[2].

This is where multi-item laboratory orders go wrong. Ten items at £15 each make a £150 basket, but no single item exceeds £100, so none of them qualifies. By contrast, one item priced at £180 qualifies even if you only part-paid it by credit card. Citizens Advice states that you can claim the full cost of the item even if only part was paid on the credit card ^[2].

How the supplier presents the item can therefore matter. A carton sold as a single priced unit is one item. A set of separately priced units is several. Do not rely on a view of the basket total; look at the price the supplier attached to the specific item that went wrong, and ask your card provider how it counts a multi-unit pack.

What 'not as described' means for a labelled research reagent

A section 75 claim needs a misrepresentation or a breach of contract by the supplier. Non-delivery is the plain case: the contract was to deliver and nothing arrived. A reagent that arrives but differs from what was promised is harder, and it is worth being exact about what was promised.

The terms of the sale are the benchmark. If the listing named a specific compound, a quantity per vial, a stated purity or a certificate of analysis, those statements are part of what you contracted for. A research-use-only label does not remove the contract, and it does not prevent a claim that the goods were something other than what was described. It simply means the description is the whole of what the supplier committed to.

A mismatch between the certificate and the contents is the hard case to evidence. A supplier's own report cannot settle it, because it is the thing in dispute. Independent analysis of a retained sample, with a documented chain of custody and a report that names the laboratory, the method and the sample identifier, is far stronger than an assertion that the product looked wrong. Note that testing costs money and takes time, so consider whether the amount in dispute justifies it.

How chargeback works, and why it is not a right

Chargeback is a process run under the rules of the card schemes such as Visa and Mastercard. You tell your card provider that you want to dispute a payment; the provider raises the dispute with the supplier's bank; the supplier can contest it; and the scheme rules decide whether the money returns. Citizens Advice describes it as available for debit cards, charge cards, and credit cards where section 75 does not apply ^[2].

Because it is a scheme rule, there is no statute behind it and your bank is not obliged to raise it. Providers generally do, if the facts fit a recognised dispute reason such as goods not received or goods not as described. Time limits apply. A window of around 120 days is commonly quoted for card disputes, running from the transaction date or from the date the goods were expected, but the exact period and its start point depend on the scheme and the reason, so confirm the figure with your own provider on the day you discover the problem.

The supplier is allowed to answer. Citizens Advice notes that a trader can challenge a refund, and suggests not spending the money straight away if you can avoid it ^[2]. A chargeback that succeeds can be reversed again if the supplier's evidence is accepted, so treat a credit to your account as provisional until the process closes.

When the supplier is abroad

Section 75 follows the card, not the supplier's address. The House of Lords held in Office of Fair Trading v Lloyds TSB in 2007 that the section extends to purchases made abroad with a UK-issued credit card. A claim against an overseas supplier can therefore be pursued against the UK card company.

What changes is the difficulty of proof. A delivery dispute with a distant supplier depends on tracking history, customs records and the supplier's replies, and each of those is harder to obtain across a border. Chargeback has the same pattern: the process is global, but the evidence you can assemble is what carries it.

For overseas orders, also keep any customs paperwork and carrier correspondence. A parcel held at the border and a parcel never dispatched are different disputes, and the documents show which one you have.

Where the card route does not exist

Neither route exists if the payment was a bank transfer. A transfer is not a card transaction, so there is no section 75 claim and no scheme chargeback. The Payment Systems Regulator describes a separate reimbursement regime for authorised push payment fraud, and explicitly distinguishes it from civil disputes in which a legitimate supplier does not deliver or delivers something defective ^[3].

That distinction is why the payment method deserves thought before the first order. A separate article in this series sets out what the bank transfer rules do and do not cover. For now, note that choosing a method is also choosing which remedies you keep.

If the card provider refuses

A refusal is not the end. For section 75, Citizens Advice says you can ask the Financial Ombudsman Service to review your case, with the caveat that the outcome is not guaranteed ^[2]. For chargeback, ask the provider why it declined. If it tried and the supplier's bank defeated the dispute, there may be little more to do on that route. If it declined to try, you can complain and then refer the matter to the Ombudsman ^[2].

The sequence is usually a written complaint to the card provider first, then a final response or the passing of the provider's time limit, and then a referral to the Ombudsman within the period it sets. Check the current deadlines on the Ombudsman's own pages before relying on any figure quoted second-hand, including the ones in this article.

Eligibility to complain to the Ombudsman is wider than eligibility for section 75, and covers some very small businesses and charities as well as individuals. A limited company that falls within those size limits may therefore still be able to complain about how its bank handled a dispute, even though it never had a statutory claim.

Keeping the record that wins a claim

Claims are won on documents assembled before there is a dispute. The practical task is to capture them at the time of the order and again at the time of receipt.

1. The order confirmation and the listing as it stood when you ordered, saved as a PDF or a dated screenshot, including the stated identity, quantity and any certificate reference.
2. The payment record showing the card used, the amount, the date and the merchant name as it appears on the statement.
3. The supplier's terms and any delivery estimate at the point of sale.
4. Tracking history and the carrier's delivery record, including any failed-delivery notice.
5. Photographs of the outer packaging, the label and the contents on opening, taken before anything is moved or discarded, with the date visible.
6. Any laboratory report on a retained sample, with the sample identifier, the method and the laboratory's name.
7. Every message to and from the supplier, with dates, including the first complaint and any reply or silence.

Date everything. A claim that says the goods never arrived is strengthened by a first complaint sent soon after the estimated delivery date, and weakened by one sent after weeks of silence. Contact the supplier in writing first, and follow its complaints procedure if it has one ^[2].

What to check next

Before the next order, work out which route you would hold. Note the card type, the price attached to each item, and whether the account holder is an individual or a company. If the answer is that neither route applies, decide whether the supplier and the amount justify proceeding on that footing.

For an institutional buyer, the companion question is the contract itself. Business-to-business purchases are governed by the contract terms and by different statutory rules from consumer sales, and a purchase-order relationship changes who can claim and against whom.