Ask the lender for a written final response explaining exactly why the Section 75 claim was rejected and what evidence would change the decision. If nothing is done, the rejection usually becomes the default position and the lender will treat the matter as closed. Keep the focus on the card purchase, the breach or misrepresentation, and the link between the supplier’s failure and the loss. If the lender will not change its position, move the complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service using the lender’s complaints route first.
What the problem is
A Section 75 claim rejected by a lender often lands after a card purchase has gone wrong and the supplier is not putting things right. It commonly affects people in the UK who paid at least part of the cost on a credit card and then face non-delivery, a cancelled service, faulty goods, or a trader that has stopped responding. The rejection usually appears after an initial claim is submitted and the lender replies with a brief “not covered” message, or after a partial response that offers a goodwill refund rather than accepting liability. It can also show up after a long wait where the lender asks for more documents, then closes the case without clearly stating what was missing.
In practice, the most difficult moment is when the supplier is still disputing the problem and the lender refuses to step in, leaving the cardholder stuck between two organisations each pointing at the other. Many people only discover the lender’s position after the supplier’s own complaint deadline has passed or the trader has become harder to contact, which makes the next steps feel more urgent than they need to be.
Why this happens
Rejections tend to happen for a small set of repeat reasons: the lender says the purchase does not meet the price rules, the payment route is not direct (for example, a third-party payment processor or an intermediary), the issue is treated as a service dispute rather than a breach, or the evidence does not clearly show what was promised and what was delivered. Another common cause is that the lender treats the problem as “buyer’s remorse” or a change of mind, especially where the supplier argues the goods were available or the service was provided in some form.
There is also a process incentive: Section 75 is not a quick “refund tool” for lenders, because accepting liability can mean paying out the full loss and then trying to recover it from the supplier. That encourages a cautious approach where the lender looks for a clean reason to decline, particularly when the supplier is still trading and disputing the facts. A typical organisational response pattern is that the lender asks for the same documents more than once and keeps the case in a holding position until a formal complaint is raised.
Some rejections are caused by how the claim is framed. If the initial message focuses on frustration, delays, or poor customer service rather than a clear breach of contract or misrepresentation, the lender may treat it as outside scope. Where the purchase involved add-ons, deposits, split payments, or a chain of companies, the lender may also default to “no direct relationship” unless the paperwork makes the link obvious.
Your rights in practice
In UK cases, the strongest leverage comes from treating the rejection as a complaint decision that must be explained, evidenced, and reviewed, rather than as a final verdict. Lenders generally respond better when the request is narrow and practical: which eligibility point failed, what fact is disputed, and what document would satisfy the lender’s test. Clear timelines help, because many disputes turn on what was promised by a certain date and what actually happened.
It also usually helps to separate two arguments: first, that the card payment route and purchase value meet the rules; second, that the supplier’s failure is a breach or misrepresentation that caused a measurable loss. Where the lender’s letter is vague, asking for a “final response” and the complaint file summary often prompts a more careful review, because it signals escalation without threats. If the supplier is still engaging, the lender may still be pushed to act where the supplier’s position is plainly inconsistent with the contract, screenshots, or written promises.
Practical leverage is often strongest when the remedy requested is realistic and tied to evidence: refund of the amount paid, cancellation without penalty, or the cost of putting the issue right where that is the normal outcome. Overreaching claims can make a lender dig in, particularly where consequential losses are included without clear proof.
Official basis in UK
The Financial Ombudsman Service is the main official route for challenging a lender’s handling of a Section 75 complaint. In practice, the Ombudsman looks at whether the lender applied the rules fairly, asked for reasonable evidence, and reached a decision that fits the facts of the purchase and the supplier’s breach. The lender normally needs the chance to issue a final response first, and the Ombudsman will usually want the rejection letter, the complaint timeline, and the key documents showing what was agreed and what went wrong. The Ombudsman process is designed for consumers and does not require court forms or legal language, but it does reward clear, organised evidence and a focused remedy request.
GOV.UK guidance explains how to take a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service and what to expect from the process.
Evidence that matters
The evidence that tends to shift a rejected claim is the evidence that pins down the contract and the breach. Lenders rarely change course because of general dissatisfaction; they change course when the paperwork shows a clear promise and a clear failure. Collect documents that show the supplier’s identity, the payment route, the amount charged to the credit card, and the exact description of what was bought.
Focus on items that are hard to dispute: the order confirmation, invoice, booking confirmation, terms at the time of purchase, and any written statements that influenced the decision to buy. If the issue is non-delivery or cancellation, delivery tracking, cancellation notices, and the supplier’s own messages about delays are usually more persuasive than summaries written later. If the issue is faulty goods, photos and an independent repair quote can help, but only where they link to the original description and show the fault is not normal wear or misuse.
What not to do matters as much as what to collect. Avoid editing screenshots, rewriting timelines in a way that conflicts with emails, or sending large bundles without signposting the key pages. Exactly three common mistakes keep appearing in rejected cases: sending only bank statements without the order confirmation, relying on phone-call recollections with no follow-up email, and mixing a chargeback-style “refund request” with a Section 75 breach argument so the lender treats it as unclear.
One thing not to do yet is to start a court claim against the lender before the lender has issued a final response and the Ombudsman route has been considered, because that can complicate the complaint path and increase pressure without improving the evidence.
Quick checklist
- Credit card statement line showing the merchant name and amount
- Order/booking confirmation and invoice or receipt
- Terms and description as shown at purchase (screenshots or PDF)
- Supplier emails/messages showing the failure (cancellation, refusal, delay)
- Clear summary of the remedy requested and why it matches the contract
What to do next
Get the decision
Ask the lender to confirm in writing whether the rejection is a final response to a complaint. If it is not, raise a formal complaint through the lender’s official complaints process (usually found by searching the lender’s site for “complaints” and “credit card complaints”) and attach the key documents rather than a full archive. State the purchase date, the amount paid on credit card, the supplier name, and the specific breach or misrepresentation, then ask for a final response letter if the lender maintains the rejection.
Fix the framing
Rewrite the core point in plain terms: what was promised, what happened instead, and what loss followed. If the lender’s reason is “payment route not covered”, check whether the card statement shows a third party rather than the supplier; if so, provide the contract showing who the supplier is and how payment was taken. If the lender says the issue is “a dispute with the trader”, point back to the written terms and the supplier’s own messages that show a breach, not a preference change.
Choose the route
If the lender is treating the matter like a card transaction dispute, it may be pushing the issue toward chargeback rather than Section 75. Where that is happening, it helps to understand the practical difference at the point of escalation, because the evidence and time pressure can differ; the comparison in Chargeback vs Section 75 is useful when deciding whether to keep pressing Section 75, run both routes in parallel where allowed, or switch strategy based on what the lender will actually process.
Use official escalation
If the lender issues a final response rejecting the claim, escalate to the Financial Ombudsman Service using its official complaint route, following the instructions on GOV.UK and the Ombudsman’s own site. Prepare the information the Ombudsman normally asks for: the final response letter, the timeline, the contract/terms, proof of payment, and the supplier correspondence that shows the breach. Do not paste personal data into unsecured web forms beyond what the Ombudsman requests, and do not send originals of documents where scans are enough.
Submission checklist
- Final response letter (or proof eight weeks have passed since the complaint)
- One-page timeline with dates and outcomes
- Contract/terms and the product or service description
- Card statement line and receipt/invoice
- Supplier messages showing refusal, cancellation, non-delivery, or fault handling
The normal response timeframe is that the lender should issue a final response within eight weeks of the complaint being raised, and the Ombudsman process then runs on its own timetable depending on complexity. If there is no final response after eight weeks, escalate to the Ombudsman with evidence of the complaint date and what was sent. One sentence describing a typical real UK outcome: Many complaints end with the lender being told to reconsider and pay a refund where the paperwork clearly shows a breach and a direct card purchase.
Related issues on this site
If the lender’s rejection is tied to how the purchase was paid for, the detail in Section 75 claim explained can help identify whether the problem is eligibility, evidence, or the way the supplier is structured. If the dispute is already hardening and the supplier is making statements that do not match the documents, it may also be worth considering how that plays out if the matter later becomes a defended claim, especially where paperwork is being contradicted.
FAQ
Partial card payment
A partial credit card payment Section 75 claim can still succeed if the purchase meets the usual value rules and the supplier relationship is direct. Provide the receipt showing the card portion and the full contract price.
Third party payments
A third party payment processor Section 75 rejection often turns on whether the card statement shows an intermediary rather than the supplier. Send the contract and invoice showing who sold the goods or service and how payment was taken.
Supplier still trading
A supplier still trading Section 75 dispute is usually treated as a normal breach argument rather than an insolvency issue. Focus on the written promise and the failure, not the supplier’s willingness to keep negotiating.
Refund already offered
A refund already offered but not received Section 75 complaint should include the supplier’s written promise and the dates payment was due. Ask the lender to treat the non-payment as the breach and to confirm the remedy sought.
Before you move on
Gather the key documents, ask for the lender’s final response in writing, and keep the complaint focused on the contract promise, the breach, and the remedy that matches the loss. Time pressure can creep in when a lender hints that the decision is fixed or pushes for a quick acceptance of a smaller goodwill offer.
Get help with the next step
Contact UKFixGuide — If the lender has rejected Section 75, share the rejection wording and the payment route used so the next escalation step can be chosen cleanly.
