Hello fellow sellers,

I am reaching out for guidance on a recent A-to-Z appeal rejection. We acted immediately upon a customer’s request to resolve a transit damage issue, but were penalized for not following a strict procedural timeline on the original order, despite communicating the resolution to the buyer.

Summary of Events:

Original Order [Insert Order ID]: Shipped on time but sustained damage during transit by the courier.

Customer Request: Customer contacted us, confirming they wanted a replacement unit sent and specifically requested we do not process a refund.

Our Action (Procedural Error Acknowledged): We immediately packaged and shipped a new replacement unit (R-1) via Royal Mail Tracked and provided the customer with the new tracking number in the Amazon messaging thread.

A-to-Z Claim: Approximately 12-18 hours after we provided the replacement tracking, the customer filed an A-to-Z claim on the Original Order ID.

Appeal Result: The claim was granted to the buyer, and our subsequent appeal was rejected.

Amazon's Stated Reason for Rejection:

"We have reviewed all of the available information and have determined that the merchandise was not shipped in a timely manner. In this case, the order should have been received by the buyer no later than

Original Delivery Date/November 7 2025."

The Conflict and My Question:

It appears the A-to-Z review team focused solely on the delivery timeline failure of the Original Order ID and ignored the compelling evidence in the buyer-seller message history: the customer's explicit request for a replacement, and our immediate action to ship it (with tracking provided) before the A-to-Z claim was filed.

We understand that the procedural best practice is to refund the original order and request a new purchase, but in attempting to provide fast customer service based on the buyer's explicit request, we are now out of pocket for two units, two shipping fees, and have an account defect.

Question for Experienced Sellers:

When appealing a decision like this, what is the most effective way to phrase the argument so the reviewer focuses on the Resolution Timeline (i.e., we shipped the resolution before the claim was filed) rather than just the initial shipment's failure?

Is there an alternative appeal path or email for situations where the decision appears to have ignored direct buyer-seller message evidence?

Any guidance on overturning this specific decision based on the customer communication evidence would be highly appreciated. Thank you.

Had a good few years on amazon but sales have now completely collapsed. Nothing changed and simply dont know why the sudden loss in sales. So we are closing the shop and solely replying on our own website. Has anyone else closed their amazon store and gone solo with their own website? We are sick of the continuous jumping through hoops, customers fraudulently making claims, bad service by royal mail, and the DD+7 payment disbursements. Its simply not worth selling on here. Cost of advertising is through the roof as are the fees. Anyone else gone through similar?

On January 9th, we placed Removal order for certain brand-new and undamaged products. One shipment showed on January 14th as “Package is undeliverable and returning to sender because it is damaged.” This shipment contained 9 units of Product A and 7 units of Product B. We submitted an investigation request to Amazon Support regarding this shipment and applied for compensation.

From January 28th to present, we have charged over £1,000 in Reversed Reimbursement, directly reducing our store's profit by more than £1,000. Upon our verification, we discovered that 9 units of Product A were received into inventory but were flagged in Amazon's system as “Fulfilment Issue: Returns” and “Lost: Warehouse.” During verification, we also found that some “Fulfilment Issue: Returns” orders dated back over a year! This is utterly outrageous!

Originally, removing orders for returns should only require restocking the returned items without any charges. Even if products from removed orders were lost, we should have been compensated according to regulations. But Amazon performed an unbelievable maneuver! They converted our restocked items into “Reversed Reimbursements,” effectively charging us additional fees. Over £1,000 has already been deducted (from reversed reimbursements, which customer return orders are charged based on sales value). Even if the removed shipment is later deemed lost, compensation will only be based on their assessed product value—not the actual sales price!

We have yet to receive any response from the Amazon team.

Attached is the case ID: 12052241592. I request support from forum members to investigate this matter and provide me with a reasonable solution!

@Seller_Udi0JNbTrsmUV@Seller_06JS7friV1yzw@Seller_khUF6HPR2AHxu@Seller_WD80mtpYHjvBN

I'd like to know where they keep the funds and do they earn interest from it or is in a Client Account which are non interest bearing (I used to work in business banking)

Its often far more than DD + 7 especially for overseas they seem to keep for around 60 days.

Most of us are on what they call DD+7, so money should be available 7 days after the EDD, BUT Amazon do also keep an amount in reserve, in case of returns or refunds.

What is the violation for ? - you should have been told.