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?

My Brand registered product was approved and selling well for 4 months. Just sent another top up of 400 units to FBA. They went live.

I then tweaked my listing title. This unfortunately triggered the problem. Listing was made inactive and products are now stranded. It’s telling me I need approval to sell, but won’t let me request approval and says:

‘We are not accepting applications to sell:

Other health & personal care category in used, refurbished, collectible conditions

Other Pet ingestible products in new, used, refurbished, collectible conditions’

HOWEVER, my product has absolutely nothing to do with those categories. It is FLOOR CLEANER.

When I made the title change, I added ‘made with woodland probiotics’. I am assuming and automated system has picked up the word ‘probiotics’ and assumed it is an ingestible product (rather than a cleaning product).

Seller support keep sending me the same automated, generic response without actually understanding the issue.

What can be done? This is going to cost me thousands of pounds. This is so stressful.

Can anyone help me please?

Alright!

I am the only FBA seller with FBA inventory live!

and 500 sessions are recorded in business report in 2 days means people are clicking on product but due to no direct buying option they are going back!

This is mutual loss of both me and amazon so waiting for internal review @Seller_rX0LOsTSK2Zer

Is it worth backdating stuff from months ago? I've got a few more A-Z's granted with seller funded refunds. One was worth £500 but I gave up trying to get Amazon to respond without a generic reply.

This page isn’t working [Moderator edit: removed external URL] is currently unable to handle this request.

HTTP ERROR 500