Getting your money back if you paid by card or PayPal

You may be able to recover money paid by credit card, debit card, charge card or PayPal when, for instance, you did not receive what you paid for, it arrived faulty, or it was materially different from the description. General consumer rights against the trader remain important; see faulty goods and orders not arriving for context before you escalate to finance networks.

It is ordinarily sensible to contact the trader first. If they are unreachable or unhelpful, ask your card provider, issuer network or PayPal / BNPL platform whether their buyer or chargeback protections apply on your facts.

Contact the trader

Follow any published complaints procedure (typically on their website). Put your position in writing or email so you have a trail; attach order confirmations and photos. Expect to evidence dates, amounts paid and attempts to mitigate loss.

If you financed with buy‑now‑pay‑later (BNPL), check that provider’s help pages alongside the trader’s. Guidance on BNPL mechanics is summarised impartially by MoneyHelper (outside our control). If you checkout through PayPal Balance or branded PayPal routes, dispute rules sit inside PayPal’s resolution centre unless law gives you stronger card protections.

PayPal, BNPL & deciding between Section 75 and chargeback

For sums paid straight from your PayPal balance or via PayPal‑facilitated payments, opening a dispute through PayPal’s website is commonly the mandated first step subject to PayPal Ltd’s user agreement. Typical consumer guidance allows about 180 days from payment to escalate a qualifying dispute unless their terms shorten it — verify the current deadline in your dashboard.

Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 can make your credit card issuer jointly liable with the supplier for breaches of contract or misrepresentation when the statutory relationship between you, lender and trader is satisfied. A familiar pair of hurdles is paying over £100 but not more than £30,000 for the financed supply and preserving the correct debtor‑creditor‑supplier link along the funding chain — exact figures and intermediary platforms are frequently disputed, so issuer guidance and authoritative leaflets remain essential.

You often cannot rely on Section 75 if, for example:

• a payment intermediary or aggregator breaks that triangular link — some marketplace checkouts resemble this;
• the purchase was financed through a BNPL plan or PayPal option that substitutes a different creditor (scheme rules prevail); or
• no single item you seek to vindicate breached the £100 floor even though checkout totals exceeded it (see illustration below).

Chargeback is primarily a contractual / scheme reclaim operated by Mastercard, Visa etc. Typically use it where you paid by debit, charge, or prepaid card, or by credit card only if Section 75 is unavailable or incomplete. Issuers occasionally label it “disputed transaction”; request chargeback explicitly to trigger the Scheme rules engineers recognise. BNPL users sometimes ask card issuers for chargeback on underlying cards: success is patchy because two finance layers intervene.

Illustration (Section 75 thresholds): Olga paid £80 for a phone, £20 for earbuds and £5 delivery (£105 altogether) on one credit card voucher and nothing arrives. No line exceeded £100, so many issuers conclude Section 75 is out of scope; Olga pivots toward chargeback on the credits network or contractual refund from the trader.

Raising Section 75 with your credit card issuer

Write (“certificate of posting” or tracked) to the company that sends your monthly statements quoting “Section 75 claim”. For joint cards the lead account‑holder ordinarily corresponds. Explain contract breach or misrepresentation, attach corroboratory papers and demand reimbursement of:

• payments made or equitable repair sums if goods are deficient;
• compensation for poorer quality than promised or deceptive sales patter tied to financed goods;
• where applicable, foreseeable damage stemming from defective goods aligning with CPA / CRA themes (flooring ruined by leased washing machine).

Illustration: D’Angelo financed a leaking washing machine; it destroyed kitchen flooring — credible Section 75 correspondence may seek both appliance rectification monies and ruined floor reinstatement sums once defect and causal chain evidenced. Successful reimbursement generally credits his card account.

If legislation and precedent line up, issuer teams must investigate; escalate with dated follow‑ups referencing FCA DISP if stalled. If more than one payment method serviced one purchase map each component — Chargeback ordinarily returns only monies taken on that specific card rails, not contemporaneous cash.

Making a chargeback request

Tell your issuer you want chargeback (they may menu it under “disputed transaction”). Submit authorisation IDs, ARN and narrative matching the scheme reason (goods not received, defective / not as described, credit not processed, etc.—naming conventions vary). You may recover:

• sums actually debited via that card — not cash, bank transfer or a different instrument used for the remainder; or
• a partial amount where only part of the order failed.

Illustration: Cassandra bought a £90 dress, £30 T‑shirt and £5 postage (£125) on debit. The dress arrived but not the shirt and the trader will not reply. She could ask her bank to charge back the £30 T‑shirt portion (timing and evidence rules permitting).

Illustration: Hercules prepaid £250 washing machine (£50 Visa debit deposit, remainder cash). Washer faulty — chargeback realistically limited to returning £50 card leg; leftover £200 reclaimed only through trader negotiation or converting to Section 75 if he had financed fully on Visa credit instead.

If you purchased not directly through the trader’s own merchant ID (aggregators / agents / certain auction intermediaries), factual Section 75 and chargeback entitlement frequently needs tailored analysis — summarise every hop in funds flow honestly to your issuer.

Winning the claim vs later trader pushback

Refunds provisional under chargeback schemes can face merchant representment. Your bank should notify challenges; retaining returned funds untouched for multiple statement cycles avoids having to repay if arbitration reverses provisional credit. Ask internally whether appeal / arbitration escalations exhausted network timelines.

Complaints beyond the issuer

If Section 75 is refused unjustly you can ask the independent Financial Ombudsman Service to investigate (subject to their eligibility criteria and deadlines from your final issuer response letter). For unsuccessful chargebacks, ask whether the issuer exhausted the scheme appeal; if they decline to escalate to the merchant’s acquiring bank unjustifiably that may itself be fodder for an Ombudsman complaint. Outcomes remain fact‑specific — you may still recover nothing after review.

Separate alternative dispute resolution schemes may exist for the trader (retail adjudication, CTSI portals) concurrently with statutory rights. Court small claims stays available but proportionality matters especially sub‑£500 losses.

Related guides

• If something you ordered has not arrived
• If goods you bought online differ from the photos or description

All consumer resources