Countries
Read only
Ask Amazon: Managing Returns – SAFE-T Claims
Hello Sellers,
Welcome to our Managing Returns – SAFE-T Claims Ask Amazon Event with the Amazon SAFE-T team, focused on your questions about SAFE-T claims.
This topic will be open until, September 12, 9 AM BST. We encourage you to use this thread to ask questions related to SAFE-T claims. We will be closely watching this thread throughout the day, discuss the questions with our relevant team and provide answers.
Some queries may be more complex, and in those cases, we will submit the response by Friday, September 13, at 5 p.m.
You can post any question you have regarding this topic here. However, we kindly request that you formulate only one question per post.
If one of your questions has already been asked by someone else, please give it a thumbs up, and we will ensure that the questions with the most thumbs up are prioritized.
Please note: This event is intended for general questions and we cannot provide advice or feedback on individual claims.
50 replies
Seller_XDzJ9YBdCj3SY
Can you explain why, when a buyer claims non delivery a SAFE-t claim will be granted on a Seller Fulfilled PRIME order using Royal Mail tracked shipping that shows delivery however will be refused on a Seller Fulfilled NON-PRIME order using Royal Mail tracked shipping that shows delivery.
The only difference is that the listing is allocated as Prime.
Seller_xU4h6ZbAduf0O
How can Amazon CS open a false reason to reimburse the customer and then deny a Safe-T due to the false reason.
I had a buyer get a refund under "item not received" and when challenging with full tracking, photo, etc.
The claim was refused as "non returnable"
The item was DELIVERABLE as seller fulfilled, why does Amazon say Non returnable when CS has opened a WRONG reason to circumvent its own policy.
If Amazon deem an item as non returnable (for whatever INSANE reason) why do they then reimburse a customer when they phone in and CS changes refund reason to scam the seller out of goods and funds, is this not illegal activity to actively defraud the seller, then deny a claim for Amazon's CS fraudulent behaviour?
I am building several case files with full evidence of this fraudulent abuse by Amazon of their own policies to defraud the seller.
All Safe-T claims are denied due to this abuse and escalation ignored.
Seller_N0kQDKMgwda6y
some event ! Loads of perfectly valid questions. Answers from Amazon ? Same old same old nothing.
Seller_ZQyopdiwkUHOZ
No, the primary cost we've incurred is the amount you refunded, as they were NOT ENTITLED TO A REFUND when they DIDN'T RETURN THE ITEM. There is no excuse for this, and in fact Amazon is engaging in theft when it recognises that the refund was invalid and yet DON'T REVERSE the refund.
Amazon is also acting against its own policy when it charges the seller for a returns label that WASN'T USED TO RETURN TE PRODUCT IT WAS ISSUED FOR. Acting against your own policy to the seller's financial disadvantage is both theft and fraud.
That has nothing to do with the point I raised AND IS WRONG. We are not responsible for the outbound postage. the buyer pays for that. The buyer pays for that regardless of whether the postage is a separate charge or is included in the price of the item. They are only entitled to that as a refund if they return the item in line with both our statutory rights and Amazon policy. The scenario I outlined did not match this criteria.
Shall I break out the maths to prove that wrong? You TOOK ALL OF THE MONEY FOR THE TRANSACTION FROM US. WE'RE WORSE OFF BECAUSE WE PAID TWO SETS OF POSTAGE AND THE COST OF MANUFACTURING THE ITEM.
The bottom line is we sold and sent an item which was not returned to us or was returned in a condition such that we are not required to refund it but you took the entire paid amount away from us. In exchange we MIGHT get a successful Safe-T claim that covers less than a quarter of just the manufacturing cost.
If the buyer got the intended use from the product then they owe us the full price of the item. You have no legal right to deny that to us.
That is neither its intent nor its effect. and even if it was, it would violate our statutory rights.
Every cost I have mentioned is incurred directly due to the abuse.
Clearly not.
If this was true Amazon would actually keep to their own policies, which they are demonstrably not.
As expected a totally worthless answer.
Seller_Tx4EJVPz6DqQX
Would you please explain how a Safe-T claim can be denied with the reason given "item is eligible for free return" when this is not stated on the listing and the item is not listed in a free return category. All claims denied with this reason have been appealed with approx. 50% being upheld and 50% being accepted and the claim approved. We find this whole process to be a game of chance.
Also, the reimbursement amounts for damaged or non-returned stock are not representative of the true cost and even when evidence of this is provided it is totally ignored. Please publish your justification for how you price reimbursements.
Seller_PU8ypkNZEJU9p
Why do buyers get Prior Refunds applied even before they have shipped the item.....which then they don't ship it back
2. If the return is lost or damaged in transit why do you refer us to Royal Mail? As we are not the Senders royal mail do not speak to us. I have had prior refunds before with items getting lost / damaged in transit and Safe - T don't touch it, why are us sellers not protected with returns?
Seller_wXsnXkMqIS7Ev
How do Amazon calculate the amount to refund the seller in the case of a SAFE-T claim?
It used to be quite simple sellers were refunded the amount of the order, say if a customer claimed to be returning a £20 item and instead returned a pile of stones, and were refunded at first scan, then on raising and winning a SAFE-T claim the seller was refunded £20.
Then Amazon realised this was costing them a lot of money and now it refunds the customer in full, and debits the full amount from the seller's account. It then refunds the seller a random amount.
What I want to know is how is this amount calculated and under what legal basis? Under English Law if Amazon refunds a customer in error, then takes that money from a sellers account then Amazon is liable to refund the amount debited as Amazon made the mistake. Similarly if a customer commits fraud against Amazon then Amazon cannot just pass that liabilty onto the Seller
Seller_zDUw7ekrB6OEy
a customer returned a polycarbonate cup to us with a cigarette burn on it which made it unsellable even as o used item. Can you explain why the Safe-T claim team decided that a £1.94 refund to us was sufficient on a £14.99 product?
Yet another area of Amazon that is not fit for purpose.
Seller_Fg2fqaWOnEtha
It’s unsurprising, though still disappointing, that not all questions were addressed, and those that were received vague responses. My strongest recommendation to Amazon is to have all managers and executives who interact with sellers spend time working as sellers themselves. This experience would prevent them from giving such inadequate answers, and Amazon would ultimately benefit by having leaders who truly understand the challenges. You can't effectively manage a reality you've never personally experienced.
Seller_OC4AKQTpHwKwL
We lose the outbound shipping, you keep your fees!
We have to administrate the orders, we have to pack items - properly, not how they are returned. This is all part of the cost of the order.
If you are human, you need to read properly & answer questions more professionally. If you are AI, someone needs to do some reprogramming. There is no support at all on this platform
Seller_ZVAz3d5lZuGid
@Julia_Amazon Julia, I hope that you see from this thread with the many comments, how disgruntled sellers are with the whole Safe-T claim system, but not just this but many other systems that need a complete overhaul and change.
Similar Discussions
