Yep, it’s finally happened to me.

Customer bought an item priced at £499.95. After receiving it, they opened a return under “incompatible use”, despite the title clearly stating compatibility.

They used the pre-paid return label automatically generated by Amazon (Evri), and the parcel was lost in transit. Amazon then approved an A-to-Z Guarantee claim and refunded the customer in full. No return, no product, £500 gone.

To make matters worse, I can’t even file a SAFE-T claim because A-to-Z has already processed the refund. My only option now is to chase Evri for a £20 compensation claim, which doesn’t even cover a fraction of the loss.

Here’s where it becomes even more confusing. The customer’s own messages in the return thread confirm that they had already sent the item back. Yet, in Amazon’s final A-to-Z verdict email, they wrote:

“In this case, the customer claimed an issue with the delivery and tracking information that you provided was either insufficient or the order was not actually received by the customer.”

That is factually incorrect. The original delivery was made using Amazon’s internal pre-paid Royal Mail Signed For service, chosen because it offered extra protection. The tracking clearly shows it was delivered and signed for by the named recipient. The customer received it, returned it through Amazon’s Evri label, and that return was lost.

Despite this, Amazon refunded the customer in full under the reason that the order was not received.

Here’s where it becomes outrageous:

• Sellers are automatically enrolled into Amazon’s pre-paid return label scheme with no real choice of courier or insurance cover. I might be mistaken, but I’m unaware of any way to change this or opt out.
• Amazon decides the courier, sets the insurance cap, and then washes their hands when that courier loses a high-value parcel.
• Despite the buyer’s contractual obligation to return the goods, Amazon still issues a full refund when the item isn’t actually returned.

So legally and practically speaking, Amazon is allowing the buyer to breach the terms and conditions, and then rewarding them for it. Meanwhile, sellers remain bound by those same terms, carrying the entire financial burden for a decision we had no control over.

In plain terms, Amazon cuts all liability and openly favours the buyer, even when the buyer has failed to fulfil their legal obligation. It is effectively discrimination against sellers, especially given we are the ones funding these “guarantees” through lost stock and unpaid reimbursements.

And to top it off, we still pay for the original delivery of the now-lost item. You could not make it up.

Has anyone here managed to challenge an A-to-Z decision like this or get Amazon to reimburse when the buyer never actually returns the item?