I’m really sorry you’re dealing with this. After 1.5 years of pushing through all the usual Amazon problems and only just starting to make some profit, something like this can really knock the wind out of you.

I had something a bit similar when I was 100% FBA. In my case, some buyers ordered the same item more than once and then returned it. I also had one London wholesaler order all the child variants under one parent, keep the cheapest one, and return the rest. When I looked more closely, I even noticed the consignee name had been changed, which honestly made it feel very uncomfortable.

At the time Seller Support told me to raise an abuse case. I did try a few times, but the form kept failing because the text box kept turning red, and in the end I gave up because the whole thing was too frustrating.

So my case was not exactly the same as yours, but I do understand that feeling of being pushed right to the edge by repeated behaviour from the same buyer, and then not being able to get any proper help from Amazon. That part can make you feel very alone.

What makes it worse is that the damage is not only the shipping cost, refund, return charge, or A-to-Z impact. If the same ASIN keeps getting returned, that can also affect the ASIN itself and push it down in the system, so one bad buyer can end up damaging future sales as well. That is what makes this kind of thing feel so unfair.

I also wanted to ask the moderators a few system-level questions, because I think this is bigger than just one difficult buyer.

• If an item is physically returned, does that count as relevant evidence when Amazon reviews a non-receipt A-to-Z claim? I am not saying a returned item automatically proves the buyer received it, because it could also be a carrier failure or return to sender. But it is still an important trace event, and from the seller side it is impossible to tell whether that is being considered at all.

• Also, what exactly does Amazon mean by “delivered to an invalid address” in this context? From the seller side that wording is very unclear. It could mean a real address problem, a carrier scan issue, or some other delivery-failure classification, but as it stands it is very hard to audit what actually happened.

• And if the same buyer returns the same ASIN multiple times with the same or very similar return reason, does Amazon still treat those as normal customer returns when calculating ASIN performance?

That seems important, because repeated returns from one buyer could easily be read by the system as a product-quality issue, when actually it may be a high-risk abuse pattern. But if the system ignores that behaviour completely, then it could also miss a genuine abuse signal.

The same thing applies to return reasons. Customers do not always choose the return reason that best reflects what really happened. Sometimes they pick the easiest one, or one that avoids return costs. So if repeated same-buyer returns with the same reason are treated as straightforward proof of product dissatisfaction, that could distort the ASIN picture as well.

So does Amazon distinguish between:

• repeated evidence of poor product quality

• repeated behaviour from the same buyer that may indicate abuse

Both matter, but they should not be treated as the same thing. Otherwise the ASIN, the seller, and even Amazon’s own platform metrics could be distorted by behaviour that is not actually representative of normal customer experience.

I don’t have a perfect solution, but I just wanted to say I do believe you, and I do not think you are overreacting. Sometimes the hardest part is not even the money. It is when the pattern feels obvious to you, but nobody at Amazon seems willing to actually look at it properly.

It is extremely naive to think that way.. Obviously not as I don't have it at 100%

Seller_ZQyopdiwkUHOZ

I can say with certainty you can have a 100% OTDR with Royal Mail because we do.

@Seller_XUNeUuvrQDpgP @Seller_8hQgfj6OVZYse@Seller_CnfW62x6yxvJw@Seller_mIRnuhdx7l5sN

I am seeking assistance or a moderator’s review regarding a shipping refund issued for FBA order.

The customer was refunded £4.99 because Amazon missed the Guaranteed Delivery Date (GDD). While I understand Amazon’s policy to compensate customers for late deliveries, this £4.99 has been debited directly from my seller account balance. As an FBA seller, I have no control over the logistics, carrier choice, or delivery speed. Since Amazon is the carrier/fulfiller in this instance, a failure to meet a delivery promise should be an Amazon-funded concession, not a debit against my product revenue.

Seller Support has stated this is a "non-reimbursable customer service concession," but this effectively means I am being financially penalised for a fulfillment error that is 100% Amazon’s responsibility under the FBA service agreement. Has anyone else successfully appealed a shipping refund debit for an FBA order, or can a moderator please clarify why a seller is being held financially liable for an Amazon logistics failure?

CASE ID: 123651 95582

I know Evri’s reputation for getting things wrong, which is exactly why I never choose to use them myself. But you might think they can't be that bad. Unfortunately, I had three orders this week that were all supposed to be delivered by Evri, and every single one has gone missing.

One was from a wholesaler, who has already sent a replacement. Another was an eBay order, already refunded and the third was from Amazon, which I am still waiting to be refunded for.

So, statistically, what are the chances of Evri losing a package? In my case, 100%.

Honestly, they make Royal Mail look good.

Frankly speaking @Seller_b2AIUT8dwcS0Z the restocking fee is simply an appalling policy, I don't know if your aware or Amazon are for that matter but restocking charges are against the distance selling regulations in the UK so are deemed Illegal, they may by fine in the USA but not here.

Restocking fees are ok in the UK if you're selling 'over the counter' like an electrical wholesaler does but that's when you return an item outside their return window and they put it back on their shelf, but Amazon is not doing that are they? They have not sold it in the first place so they have no right to charge or deduct a fee for restocking.

British electrical wholesalers or shops for that matter, would not take back a used or damaged part, period, but we have to because of the refund at first scan (RAFS) system, a system that is wide open to buyer abuse, fraud and deception, Amazon know this but still persist with this dubious policy.

A buyer who sends back a damaged item or one that they have swapped 'new for old' should not be entitled to a refund, eBay don't allow it and we don't allow it on our website, only Amazon allows this to happen because of their 100% buyer bias.

I reiterate, Amazon are perfectly entitled to charge a restocking fee on their own supplied goods but not on a third parties product that they are not handling