Misrepresentation by Seller Section 75 Claim Letter
Seller misrepresented what you were buying? False claim about specification, history, condition, or quality that induced you to buy? Under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, your credit card provider is jointly liable for misrepresentation as well as breach of contract. Claim direct.
Send a Section 75 claim letter from £2.79What You Need to Know
- ✓Section 75 covers misrepresentation as well as breach of contract. A false statement that induced you to buy is enough — you don't need the goods to be faulty.
- ✓Three types: fraudulent (deliberately false), negligent (carelessly false), innocent (false but genuinely believed). All three can support a Section 75 claim.
- ✓Remedy is usually rescission (cancel the contract, full refund) plus damages for any consequential loss. If rescission isn't practical, damages in lieu can achieve the same result.
- ✓Common scenarios: cars with hidden history, 'new' goods that are refurbished, properties without claimed planning permissions, items sold under false provenance or specification.
About the Claim
Misrepresentation is different from breach of contract. Breach of contract is about whether goods or services met the agreed standard — faulty, not as described, not fit for purpose. Misrepresentation is about whether the seller made a false statement of fact that induced you to buy. The goods can be 'as supplied' and there can still be misrepresentation, if the seller's statements were false. Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 expressly covers misrepresentation as well as breach of contract. The credit card provider is jointly and severally liable either way.
The Misrepresentation Act 1967 recognises three types. Fraudulent misrepresentation: the seller knew the statement was false, or didn't care whether it was true or false. Negligent misrepresentation: the seller had no reasonable grounds to believe it was true. Innocent misrepresentation: the seller genuinely believed it on reasonable grounds, but turned out to be wrong. All three support a Section 75 claim. The level of fault affects how strong the case is and what additional damages can be recovered.
The primary remedy for misrepresentation is rescission. The contract is cancelled. The parties are returned to the position they were in before. In practice this means a full refund of what you paid. Damages can also be claimed for consequential loss — the cost of finding a replacement, repairs to put the goods into the described condition, expert reports. If rescission isn't practical (you've used the goods extensively, too much time has passed, the goods can't be returned), the court can award damages in lieu of rescission. Section 75 makes the credit card provider liable for these remedies in the same way the seller would be.
Legal basis
- ·Consumer Credit Act 1974, s.75 (joint and several liability of credit card provider for breach of contract or misrepresentation)
- ·Misrepresentation Act 1967 (rescission and damages for false pre-contractual statements)
- ·Misrepresentation Act 1967, s.2(1) (negligent misrepresentation — damages available unless seller can show reasonable grounds for belief)
- ·Misrepresentation Act 1967, s.2(2) (court's power to award damages in lieu of rescission)
- ·Limitation Act 1980, s.5 (6-year limitation period; 5 years in Scotland from awareness)
- ·FCA Handbook DISP rules (Financial Ombudsman Service jurisdiction)
Which scenario applies to you?
Goods or product misdescribed at point of sale
The seller made specific claims that turned out to be false — year of manufacture, brand, condition (new vs refurbished), specification, included accessories, durability. You relied on those claims when buying. Misrepresentation. Section 75 lets you claim against your card provider for rescission or damages.
History or provenance falsified
A car with hidden previous owners or undisclosed accidents. Property described as having planning permission, building regs sign-off, or tenure rights it doesn't actually have. Art, collectibles, or branded goods sold under false provenance or authentication. Where past facts about the item were misstated and induced your purchase, misrepresentation applies.
Service or booking materially different from what was sold
Holiday resort marketed with facilities, location, or features that didn't exist. Course content materially different from the syllabus sold. Staff qualifications misstated. Even if the service was 'performed', it wasn't what you bought. Section 75 covers services as well as goods.
What the Letter Accomplishes
PostRight generates a formal Section 75 claim letter that sets out your legal basis, cites the relevant legislation, and creates a dated physical record sent by Royal Mail Tracked 24.
- 1Sets out the specific false statement, the source (advert, salesperson, marketing material, email, listing), and how you relied on it when buying
- 2Identifies which type of misrepresentation applies (fraudulent, negligent, innocent) based on what the seller knew or should have known
- 3Cites section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the relevant section of the Misrepresentation Act 1967
- 4Demands rescission (full refund) or, in the alternative, damages in the amount needed to put you in the position you'd have been in without the false statement
Your Rights
Misrepresentation vs breach of contract — different frameworks
Breach of contract: the goods or services aren't up to the standard agreed (Consumer Rights Act 2015 — quality, fitness, description). Misrepresentation: the seller made a false statement of fact that induced you to buy (Misrepresentation Act 1967). Different legal tests, different remedies. Section 75 covers both. The same situation often supports claims on both bases at the same time.
The four elements you need to show
For misrepresentation: (1) the seller made a statement of fact (not opinion, sales puffery, or future prediction); (2) the statement was false; (3) the statement was material (it would have influenced a reasonable buyer); (4) you relied on the statement when deciding to buy. Once those four are established, you're in misrepresentation territory.
Fraudulent, negligent, or innocent — all three count
Fraudulent: seller knew the statement was false or didn't care. Negligent: seller had no reasonable grounds to believe it was true (section 2(1) Misrepresentation Act 1967). Innocent: seller believed it on reasonable grounds, but was wrong. All three support Section 75 claims. The seller's level of fault affects damages but doesn't excuse the false statement.
Rescission and damages
The primary remedy is rescission — the contract is cancelled and you get a full refund. Damages can be claimed for consequential losses (replacement costs, repairs to put the goods into the described condition, expert reports). Under section 2(2) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967, if rescission isn't practical, the court can award damages in lieu of rescission, which can still produce a full or near-full refund depending on the case.
The 6-year time limit
6 years from the misrepresentation under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980 (5 years in Scotland from when you became aware of the falsity). For fraudulent misrepresentation, time runs from when you discovered (or could reasonably have discovered) the fraud. Don't assume you've missed the window — particularly with vehicles, property, and high-value items where false history takes years to surface.
Common Scenarios
1Car bought with false history or specification
Service history claimed but not real, previous owners hidden, modifications undisclosed, year or model misstated, mileage clocked. Misrepresentation Act 1967 applies. Section 75 lets you claim from the card provider for rescission and damages.
2Goods sold as 'new' but actually refurbished or used
Marketed as new but the box is opened, the device has prior usage, or the warranty has already started. False statement about condition that induced purchase. Section 75 covers it.
3Property or fixtures with falsified declarations
Estate agent or seller stated planning permission, building regs compliance, or fixture inclusions that turned out to be false. Where within the Section 75 limit, the card provider is liable alongside the seller.
4Holiday or service with materially false marketing
Resort facilities, course content, qualifications of staff, included extras — all materially different from what was sold. The service was 'performed' but not what you paid for. Misrepresentation applies.
5Authenticity or provenance disputes
Art, collectibles, antiques, or branded goods sold under false provenance, false authentication, or false history. Where the false statement induced purchase and the item was paid for on credit card, Section 75 covers it.
Send your Section 75 claim letter via Royal Mail
PostRight generates a legally accurate Section 75 claim letter tailored to your situation. Answer a few guided questions, review your letter, and PostRight prints and posts it via Royal Mail Tracked 24 within one business day. A posted letter creates a dated physical record that is far harder to ignore than an email or an online form.
- ✓Cites Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974
- ✓Sets a clear deadline for the card provider to respond
- ✓States the escalation path to the Financial Ombudsman Service if ignored
- ✓Printed on quality paper and posted by Royal Mail Tracked 24
- ✓From £2.79 -- no subscription required
Frequently Asked Questions
What's the difference between misrepresentation and breach of contract?
Different legal frameworks. Breach of contract is about whether goods or services met the standard agreed (Consumer Rights Act 2015 — quality, fitness, description). Misrepresentation is about whether the seller made a false statement that induced you to buy (Misrepresentation Act 1967). Section 75 covers both. The same situation often supports claims on both bases — for example, a car sold with false history (misrepresentation) that's also mechanically faulty (breach of contract).
The seller says they didn't know the statement was wrong. Does that matter?
Less than you'd think. Misrepresentation has three types: fraudulent (deliberate), negligent (careless), and innocent (genuine mistake). All three trigger Section 75. The seller's level of fault affects how strong the case is and what additional damages are available, but it doesn't excuse the false statement. If you bought on the basis of false information, you have a claim.
What counts as a 'statement' for misrepresentation?
Anything specific the seller said or wrote that induced you to buy. Adverts, marketing materials, salesperson claims, written specifications, listing descriptions, emails confirming details. NOT general sales puffery ('best car you'll ever drive'), opinions ('I think you'll love it'), or future predictions ('it'll definitely hold its value'). The statement has to be a representation of present or past fact, not opinion or prediction.
Can I get a full refund or just damages?
Often a full refund. The primary remedy for misrepresentation is rescission — the contract is cancelled and you're returned to the position you were in before. Damages cover any additional loss on top. If rescission isn't practical (long time passed, goods extensively used or modified), the court can award damages in lieu under section 2(2) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967, which can still amount to a full or near-full refund depending on the case.
Does Section 75 apply across the UK?
Yes. Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 applies UK-wide. The Misrepresentation Act 1967 applies in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Scotland has its own common law of misrepresentation with broadly similar effect. The minor jurisdictional difference is the limitation period: 6 years in England, Wales, Northern Ireland; 5 years in Scotland from awareness of the falsity.
Free Advice Resources
If you need free, independent advice about your Section 75 claim, the following organisations can help.
Citizens Advice
Free, independent advice on consumer rights, credit card claims, and Section 75.
Visit website →Financial Ombudsman Service
Free dispute resolution service for complaints against credit card providers. Can order refunds under Section 75.
Visit website →MoneySavingExpert: Section 75
Comprehensive guide to Section 75 claims, including template letters and step-by-step advice.
Visit website →GOV.UK: Consumer Credit Act
Official government guidance on the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and your rights as a consumer.
Visit website →Related Section 75 Letters
Ready to send your Section 75 claim letter?
PostRight prints and posts your letter via Royal Mail Tracked 24 -- no printing, no stamps, no hassle. From £2.79.
Send a Section 75 claim letter from £2.79From £2.79 · Printed & posted by Royal Mail Tracked 24 · Dispatched within one business day