Results for "탤래 TsbusiM 탬스뷰선불유심내구제후기 만18세급전 휴대폰미납소액대출 선불유심개통매입 대전초소액급전"
(63 results)
Sort by
Filters
Results for "탤래 TsbusiM 탬스뷰선불유심내구제후기 만18세급전 휴대폰미납소액대출 선불유심개통매입 대전초소액급전"
(63 results)fOR THE FIRST TIME IN 18 YEARS, MY OTD IS BELOW 90%!!!
I have been selling books on Amazon for 18 years and I have always had an above average performance.
Today, for the first time, my OTD was 75%.
I always ship on time, therefore, it is not my fault.
How is it possible? I have always used Royal Mail 48 hours tracked, in this period, yet here I'm.
From tomorrow ,till the end of the month, I will ship RM 24 hours tracked.
I'm considering also to change the estimated time of delivery.
Do you have any intelligent suggestion to improve my OTD quickly?
Guy
fOR THE FIRST TIME IN 18 YEARS, MY OTD IS BELOW 90%!!!
Hello GUY_S_BOOKS,
This is Zyan from Amazon, and I am here to assist you.
I understand you have been selling books on Amazon for 18 years with above-average performance, but today your OTD (On-Time Delivery) rate dropped to 75.00% for the first time. You always ship on time using Royal Mail 48 hours tracked, and you're considering switching to RM 24 hours tracked and changing your estimated delivery time.
I want to educate you on how OTD metrics work. The metrics will be flagged whenever orders in a particular time window are delivered after the delivery by date. Even though you ship on time, if the carrier delivers after the promised delivery date, your OTD will be impacted.
I want to educate you on an important point: the OTD metrics will be reverted back within 14 days from the day when the violation was flagged, but you will need to make sure that future orders are delivered on time as per the delivery by date. The target for OTD is above 90.00%, so you'll need to ensure your orders are delivered within the promised timeframe.
I also want to educate you that if orders are getting delivered late, you will need to make sure that the following 3 conditions are met to receive OTD protection:
- Condition 1: Automated Handling Time (AHT) shall be enabled
- Condition 2: Shipping Settings Automation (SSA) shall be enabled
- Condition 3: Amazon Buy Shipping labels shall be purchased
When all three conditions are met at the time of order fulfillment, you will receive protection from late deliveries caused by carrier issues.
Your plan to switch to RM 24 hours tracked from tomorrow until the end of the month is a good step to improve delivery speed. Additionally, adjusting your estimated delivery time to allow more realistic delivery windows will help prevent future late deliveries.
Here are some suggestions to improve your OTD quickly:
- Continue using RM 24 hours tracked for faster delivery
- Enable Automated Handling Time (AHT) and Shipping Settings Automation (SSA) in your account settings
- Purchase shipping labels through Amazon Buy Shipping to receive OTD protection
- Adjust your handling time settings to allow sufficient time for processing and shipping
- Monitor your orders daily to ensure timely dispatch
- Work closely with Royal Mail to understand any delivery delays in your area
The community and I are here to support you. Your OTD will improve within the 14-day window as you continue delivering orders on time with the proper protections in place.
Regards,
Zyan
Formal Escalation – Buyer Diverted Parcel, Collected After Refund (A-to-Z Misuse)
@Seller_Udi0JNbTrsmUV @Seller_ZyGdB49sb7An4 @Seller_XUNeUuvrQDpgP @Seller_j9Bd91CW3ZVpr @Seller_YeWcEeTwlVO93@Seller_l3eCP9f1PtJXC
@Seller_lmwzklfLOK2Ob @Seller_DNQGSsdC7DccM @Seller_z3k8APxGfbQEK @Seller_TSXM2A5nxWSuH @Seller_fgtTzyHQfOM1x @Seller_XUNeUuvrQDpgP @Seller_VJ4XoAkjDpjPH @Seller_b91S9zQ2eKxLt @Seller_Rv3kmJHEUMGJH @Seller_gAhPNiLrkfTcr
Order ID: 203-8804677-0142754
Claim date: 24 December 2025
Refund amount: GBP 31.14 (seller-funded)
ODR impacted: Yes
Summary
This A-to-Z claim was granted in error and now allows the buyer to retain both the item and the refunded funds, despite the fact that:
The buyer personally diverted the parcel to a ParcelShop
The original delivery estimate ceased to apply after diversion
The parcel remained in the courier network as a result of the buyer’s action
The buyer later collected the parcel on 30 December 2025
This is not a delivery failure. It is buyer-initiated diversion followed by unjust enrichment.
1. Dispatch and Original Timeline Were Compliant
Purchase date: 8 December 2025
Ship-by date: 12 December 2025
Original delivery estimate: 16–18 December 2025
Parcel handed to Evri: 15 December 2025
Valid tracking uploaded
There was no seller delay at dispatch.
2. Buyer Requested Parcel Redirection
Courier tracking confirms that on 17 December 2025 at 20:26, the buyer submitted a request:
“We’ve received your request to deliver your parcel to a ParcelShop.”
This was a buyer-initiated change.
Once a parcel is redirected at the buyer’s request:
The original delivery estimate no longer applies
Delivery timelines are recalculated by the courier
Any delay following redirection is not seller-caused
This was clearly explained to the buyer multiple times in writing.
3. A-to-Z Claim Opened Despite Buyer Redirection
Despite personally redirecting the parcel, the buyer opened an A-to-Z claim stating:
“Package didn’t arrive”
“The seller changed the delivery date”
This statement is factually incorrect.
The seller did not change the delivery date.
All date changes were generated automatically by Evri after the buyer’s redirection request.
4. Parcel Was Delivered and Collected
Tracking confirms:
Parcel delivered to ParcelShop
Collected by the buyer on Tuesday 30 December 2025 at 12:51
Status: Collected
This occurred after the refund was issued.
The buyer therefore retains:
The product
The refunded funds
This outcome directly contradicts the purpose of the A-to-Z Guarantee.
5. Policy Principle Breached – Unjust Enrichment
Amazon policy does not permit a buyer to:
Initiate a delivery change
Open an A-to-Z claim while the parcel is in transit due to that change
Receive a refund
Later collect the item
Allowing this result constitutes unjust enrichment and misuse of the A-to-Z system.
There is no seller fault in this case.
Required Corrective Actions
I formally request the following actions:
Immediate reimbursement of the seller-funded A-to-Z refund (£31.14)
Immediate removal of the associated Order Defect Rate (ODR) impact
Correction of the claim record to reflect buyer-initiated diversion and confirmed collection
Confirmation that this claim has been marked as buyer misuse
All supporting evidence (tracking, redirection request, delivery confirmation, collection timestamp, message history) is already available in Seller Central.
Notice of Further Action
If this matter is not corrected and reimbursement is not issued, I will pursue recovery of my financial loss through formal legal channels. The current outcome is unsupported by evidence, contrary to Amazon’s own principles, and allows the buyer to retain both goods and funds.
This is a request for correction, not goodwill.
Kind regards
Formal Escalation – Buyer Diverted Parcel, Collected After Refund (A-to-Z Misuse)
Have you raised an Appeal?
If not, you need to do so, as MODS seem to have gone completely on the Forums, as several have mentioned.
I would:
Write far less for A-Z, as they lose interest after 1 line.
a) provide a link to Evri with tracking.
b) Explain that the Evri tracking proves the Buyer re-directed the delivery on 17 December to go to a shop to be collected, so no longer to be on time on the 18 to the Buyers address on the order, as a new date was then provided.
c) Screenshot of the Evri tracking and highlight the fact that the Buyer actioned the divert, not you.
d) Prove that the Buyer collected the item from the shop (again a screenshot as proof). Explain to A-Z that the shop only gives the parcel with proof (eg Drivers Licence), so has to be this Buyer and no one else.
Good Luck!
A few questions:
Did the Buyer also contact you before the A-Z Claim?
- if yes, what was the reply?
What date was the A-Z Claim?
- if before 18 December, how was that possible?
What date did you process the order, so shows as shipped?
When was the first Evri scan?
- My only questionable statement of yours would be, you said: 'Parcel handed to Evri: 15 December 2025' - BUT, 'Ship-by date: 12 December 2025' - so was the 1st Evri scan on 12 December or before? - if not, then you did not send on time. If on 12 December or before, so shipped on time, point that out as well in the screenshot.
PS - As an aside though, I am aware that sometimes when a Delivery Driver is 'too busy' - they alter to divert to a shop/Post Office, etc, so not really the Customer doing that. Then the Driver can drop-off a lot of parcels there, so it seems like they are on time. They may also feel that is being helpful, rather than the delivery being delayed. I saw our local Evri Driver had literally an overloaded van full to the brim of small packages to deliver that day, they admitted impossible to deliver them all, but that is what they were given, so they said most would be late (or other Drivers may divert to a shop maybe?)
Formal Escalation – Buyer Misrepresentation, Confirmed Delivery, Unjust Enrichment
@Seller_Udi0JNbTrsmUV @Seller_ZyGdB49sb7An4 @Seller_XUNeUuvrQDpgP @Seller_j9Bd91CW3ZVpr @Seller_YeWcEeTwlVO93@Seller_l3eCP9f1PtJXC@Seller_lmwzklfLOK2Ob @Seller_DNQGSsdC7DccM @Seller_z3k8APxGfbQEK @Seller_TSXM2A5nxWSuH @Seller_fgtTzyHQfOM1x @Seller_XUNeUuvrQDpgP @Seller_VJ4XoAkjDpjPH @Seller_b91S9zQ2eKxLt @Seller_Rv3kmJHEUMGJH @Seller_gAhPNiLrkfTcr
Case Id: 11907756102 - 11925831872 - 11965864652
Formal Escalation – Buyer Misrepresentation, Confirmed Delivery, Unjust Enrichment
Order ID: 202-5357290-5713950
Claim date: 13 December 2025
Refund amount: GBP 40.60 (seller-funded)
ODR impacted: Yes
Summary
This A-to-Z claim was granted in error and currently allows the buyer to retain both the product and the refunded funds, despite:
Explicit buyer approval to proceed with delayed dispatch before shipment
Valid dispatch and tracking uploaded after approval
Confirmed carrier delivery before Christmas
No seller fault at any stage
This outcome is factually incorrect, procedurally flawed, and financially unjust.
1. Buyer Explicitly Approved Delayed Dispatch Before Shipment
On 8 December 2025 at 18:40, after being informed of a dispatch delay and offered a full refund alternative, the buyer explicitly confirmed in Amazon Buyer–Seller Messaging:
“That’s fine as long as will be here before Christmas xx”
This approval was given before dispatch and is clearly documented.
The seller did not ship until buyer consent was received.
Once approval was given:
The buyer accepted the revised delivery timeline
The original estimated delivery date no longer applied
The seller acted fully in accordance with the buyer’s instructions
2. Dispatch Occurred Only After Buyer Consent
Following the buyer’s written approval:
The order was dispatched in good faith
Valid tracking was uploaded
The parcel entered active transit
There was no unauthorised dispatch and no seller failure.
3. A-to-Z Claim Opened While Parcel Was in Transit
Despite approving shipment, the buyer opened an A-to-Z claim on 12 December 2025, while the parcel was already dispatched and in active transit.
The buyer’s claim statement was:
“Never arrived and is not dispatched”
This statement is demonstrably false.
4. Confirmed Delivery Before Christmas
EVRI tracking H0377A0013583878 confirms delivery on 14 December 2025 at 15:16, including:
GPS-verified delivery location
Delivery photograph
Correct delivery address
The item was delivered before Christmas, exactly as agreed with the buyer.
5. Buyer Retains Both Item and Refund
Despite confirmed delivery:
The A-to-Z refund (£40.60) remains seller-funded
The buyer has not returned the item
The buyer has not disputed delivery evidence
This results in unjust enrichment, which directly contradicts the purpose of the A-to-Z Guarantee.
Amazon policy does not permit a customer to retain both the product and the refunded amount where:
Delivery is confirmed, and
No seller fault exists
6. Required Corrective Actions
I formally request the following actions:
Immediate reimbursement of the seller-funded A-to-Z refund (£40.60)
Immediate removal of the associated Order Defect Rate (ODR) impact
Correction of the claim record to reflect no seller fault
Confirmation that buyer misrepresentation has been recorded
All supporting evidence (buyer approval messages, tracking, GPS confirmation, delivery photos) is already available in Seller Central.
@Seller_Udi0JNbTrsmUV @Seller_ZyGdB49sb7An4 @Seller_XUNeUuvrQDpgP @Seller_j9Bd91CW3ZVpr @Seller_YeWcEeTwlVO93 @Seller_l3eCP9f1PtJXC@Seller_lmwzklfLOK2Ob @Seller_DNQGSsdC7DccM @Seller_z3k8APxGfbQEK @Seller_TSXM2A5nxWSuH @Seller_fgtTzyHQfOM1x @Seller_XUNeUuvrQDpgP @Seller_VJ4XoAkjDpjPH @Seller_b91S9zQ2eKxLt @Seller_Rv3kmJHEUMGJH @Seller_gAhPNiLrkfTcr
I am requesting a moderator review and correction of an A-to-Z Guarantee claim that was granted incorrectly, resulting in financial loss and an unjust Order Defect Rate (ODR) impact, despite confirmed on-time delivery with valid proof.
Case id : 11923564632
Order ID: 026-3593311-4376301
Claim date: 18 December 2025
Refund amount: GBP 44.10 (seller-funded)
ODR impacted: Yes (multiple impacts)
1. Order Was Delivered On Time Within the Estimated Window
Delivery estimate: 6–9 December 2025
Delivered: Monday, 8 December 2025 at 15:15 GMT
Delivery occurred within the estimated delivery window. There was no delay.
2. Valid Proof of Delivery Exists
Independent courier confirmation from Evri confirms:
Delivery to the correct address
Timestamped delivery record
Delivery photograph showing the parcel placed at the recipient’s porch
Tracking ID: H0377A0013543355
This meets Amazon’s criteria for confirmed delivery.
3. Buyer’s Claim Statement Is Factually Incorrect
The buyer claimed:
“This parcel never arrived and has no available delivery date.”
This statement is demonstrably false, as delivery occurred on 8 December 2025, supported by carrier records and photographic evidence.
4. Refund Request Was Triggered by Amazon’s Customer-Side System Display
On 15 December 2025, the buyer wrote:
“Can I get a refund for this item as it never arrived and now says I’m eligible for a refund.”
This wording shows the refund request was triggered by Amazon’s customer-facing interface, which did not display full third-party courier details, not by an actual delivery failure.
Amazon’s UI limitation cannot override confirmed delivery or transfer liability to the seller.
5. Seller Responded and Supplied Evidence Promptly
Seller responded to the buyer on the same day
Delivery was verified directly with the courier
Buyer was informed that delivery was confirmed with photographic proof
All evidence was supplied in the A-to-Z appeal
Despite this, the evidence was ignored, and the claim was granted.
6. Resulting Outcome Is Incorrect and Unacceptable
The current outcome is that:
The buyer has the item
The buyer has the refunded funds
The seller has financial loss
The seller has ODR impact, despite no defect
This does not represent a seller failure under Amazon policy.
Request to Moderators
I respectfully request that moderators:
Review the carrier delivery confirmation and photo evidence
Confirm that delivery occurred on time within the estimated window
Recognise that the claim was triggered by Amazon’s tracking display limitation, not a delivery failure
Reverse the A-to-Z decision
Reimburse the seller-funded refund (£44.10)
Remove all ODR impacts associated with this order
This case represents a system-driven error, not a seller defect.
Thank you for your time and objective review.
Kind regards,
Urgent Appeal - Case 11652321202 - Request to Remove rp_3p_offer Restriction
@Seller_mIRnuhdx7l5sN
Hello
Thank you for your assistance. We are writing to urgently appeal the "rp_3p_offer" restriction placed on our, which has been unavailable for purchase since October 9th.
We believe this restriction was applied in error, and we have provided substantial evidence in Case 11652321202 (submitted on October 28, 2025, GMT+8 13:49) to support our appeal:
Product Design: Our product is primarily plastic with a minimal metal blade component. The exposed blade length is only 0.12 inches (under 3 mm), which is strictly for household utility use and does not constitute a weapon.
Compliance Measures: We have proactively added an 18+ age restriction to the listing.
Market Context: Similar products with comparable blade lengths are currently being sold on Amazon by other sellers without restriction, indicating an inconsistent policy application.
Despite our repeated attempts to resolve this through standard customer service channels, we have only received automated rejections without manual review.
Therefore, we kindly request your team to conduct a manual investigation, review our submitted evidence, and remove the "rp_3p_offer" restriction at the earliest. This blockage is causing significant disruption to our business.
We are happy to provide any further documentation or clarification needed. Thank you for your time and prompt action.
Sincerely,
DAQUN
Royal Mail returns - took how long!
Had a return from Royal Mail yesterday (5th Jan 2026) 'addressee gone away'
Intial thoughts were 'grhhh' and has the buyer already contacted me asking for a refund.
Low and behold they had and were refunded late May 2024.
I can just see on the original label that this had a post by the end of date of '15th May 2024'
That's right, this non delivered item took 18 months to come back to me.
PS: No surprise original order didn't make the customer as was sent to student digs!
A-to-Z Appeal Rejected Despite Tracking Showing 'Delivered' (Need Advice)
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.
Products removed After APPROVAL. HELP NEEDED
Hello RRF123,
This is Zyan from Amazon, and I am here to assist you.
I understand your CBD ingestible products (food supplements) were originally flagged as Restricted Products, which is normal for this category. Your products were formally approved and reinstated on July 18, 2025 after submitting all required documentation including FSA registration, SDS sheets, and compliant product labels. However, the same ASINs were removed again in November 2025, and you've been stuck in a loop for over 50 days despite removing the keywords that were impacting the violations.
I want to educate you on an important point: sometimes if the product itself violates Amazon's policy, simply removing claims or images from the listing will not resolve the violation. The issue may be with the product's compliance rather than just the listing content.
To resolve this matter, you will need to provide valid test reports or evidence documents that prove you are authorized to sell such products. Even though you were previously approved in July, the appeals team may require additional documentation to verify that your products meet all current compliance requirements for ingestible CBD products.
I recommend the following steps:
- Provide laboratory test reports confirming CBD content levels and THC compliance
- Submit certificates of analysis for each ASIN
- Include authorization documents from your supplier or manufacturer
- Provide clear evidence that products are labeled as food supplements for oral ingestion only
Since your products were previously approved by the Food Safety CBD Team, I recommend specifically mentioning this July 18, 2025 approval in your appeal and requesting that the appeals team review the original approval documentation on file.
Please gather the valid test reports and evidence documents to submit with your appeal, and reference your previous approval to help the appeals team understand your compliance history.
Regards,
Zyan
