Results for "후불폰유심삽니다 탤ㄹㅐ문의 BANONPI 신불무직자연체자소액대출 바넌피선불유심내구제 만18세급전 은평구선불유심매입하는곳"
(61 results)
Sort by
Filters
Results for "후불폰유심삽니다 탤ㄹㅐ문의 BANONPI 신불무직자연체자소액대출 바넌피선불유심내구제 만18세급전 은평구선불유심매입하는곳"
(61 results)Urgent Appeal - Case 11979129352 - Request to Remove rp_3p_offer Restriction
@Seller_sSkzzHms7Kxs6
@Seller_mIRnuhdx7l5sN
@Seller_hwwu0taY2D6Xs
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 December 1st, 2025.
We believe this restriction was applied in error, and we have provided substantial evidence in Case 11979129352 (submitted on January 06, 2026, GMT+8 16:07) 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
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.
fix my listing
Can you please assist with my case ID 11964085372 to reinstae my asin? the product has been selling with 18+ attribute and age verification since july and there were no issue till today. asin has been blocked. i have units to sell and removal cost is too high.
Parent / Child issue using Build International Listings (BIL) - UK to Germany
Hey @Seller_0VOpuaMlnPkFc,
Thanks for the case ID and I'm sorry you had to explain yourself so many times. The last response provided by Seller Support instructed you to upload with an inventory file. When looking at your file uploads from your DE account, I see 1 from 20 Jan that did not process for 18 of the 19 SKU's submitted. Odd that the one that was successful was the Parent, but I am not seeing it in your DE catalog either. The error on your upload was all the child SKU's missing "Figure Type," and ""Size Type," so I am thinking the variation family cannot be built properly because the child SKU's on your upload were not processed successfully.
I recommend trying a new inventory file upload in DE and include Figurtyp (AL) = "Figure Type," and Größentyp (AM) = "Size Type," for the child SKU's.
If you have already done this, but it was still unsuccessful, I recommend opening a new case with Seller Support and provide the Batch ID of the failed upload. They will be able to view the error and direct you accordingly. If you are not sure how to get there, the instructions are on the Review my inventory results help page.
Please let me know how it goes.
Best, Dougal
Hi all, I’m hoping an Amazon moderator can help escalate this because I’ve exhausted normal appeals and I’m stuck in a loop.
Summary
Amazon upheld an A-to-z claim against me on the basis of “late delivery”, even though the buyer received the item and kept it, and even after the buyer later opened a return request but never returned the item. The end result is the buyer appears to have both the product and the refund, and I’ve been debited and hit with an ODR defect.
Order details
• Order ID: 204-5276501-9101921
• Item: Juicer
• Value: £139.99
• Carrier: Evri
• Tracking: H05QTA0140139381
• A-to-z claim opened: 03/12/2025
• Delivered: 06/12/2025 (tracking confirms Delivered; attempts 04/12 & 05/12)
• Return request opened: 13/12/2025 (accepted) — buyer never returned / no return received
• A-to-z decision upheld by Amazon: 18/12/2025
• Claim ID isn’t visible to me — everything is traceable via the order ID.
Timeline & what I did (good faith)
• 27/11/2025: Buyer messaged me saying delivery was delayed. This was the first time I became aware of a courier/shipment issue.
• I replied immediately, explained the situation, and offered the buyer two options:
1. cancel for a full refund, or
2. wait until next week for a replacement shipment.
• Buyer didn’t respond with a cancellation request.
• To resolve it fast, I shipped a replacement juicer at my own cost as soon as I could.
• 03/12/2025: Buyer opened A-to-z despite parcel already being in transit.
• 06/12/2025: Tracking shows the juicer was delivered and the buyer kept it.
• 13/12/2025: Buyer opened a return request, which I accepted, but the buyer never returned the item.
• Despite this, Amazon upheld the A-to-z and refunded the buyer / debited me, and the defect remains.
Amazon’s reason for denying appeals
Amazon repeatedly denies my appeals with wording along the lines of:
“After reviewing all available information we have determined to hold you responsible for this claim due to your failure to ship and deliver the item on time… the order should have been received by the buyer no later than 26 November 2025…”
I understand late delivery can trigger A-to-z eligibility. But what I don’t understand is:
Why this outcome is wrong / what I’m asking to be fixed
Even if Amazon believes the buyer was entitled to a remedy for late delivery, that should not result in the buyer keeping:
• the item (delivered 06/12 and not returned for over a month), and
• the money (refund issued).
At minimum, if the buyer keeps the refund, the system should enforce the return or reimburse the seller when the return never happens (especially since the buyer opened a return request on 13/12 that was accepted).
Right now, it looks like the buyer has been allowed to keep the juicer for free, and I’ve been forced to fund that outcome.
What I need from a moderator / Amazon rep
Could an Amazon moderator please:
1. Locate the A-to-z case for Order 204-5276501-9101921 (Evri tracking H05QTA0140139381), and
2. Confirm whether this should be handled as a “refunded but not returned” reimbursement scenario, and
3. Help escalate so that I am either:
• reimbursed for the refund amount (since the buyer kept the item), and
• the ODR defect is removed, and/or
• the buyer is required to return the item if they keep the refund.
I can provide screenshots of:
• Evri tracking showing Delivered 06/12/2025,
• Buyer-Seller Messages showing I notified the buyer and offered cancellation/refund,
• Return request opened 13/12/2025 (accepted) with no return received,
• and the A-to-z denial reason text.
Thanks in advance — I’m genuinely just looking for a fair resolution (either item returned, or seller reimbursed). This has dragged on far too long through normal appeal routes.
Products approved and then removed - UK seller Help required!!!!
Hi everyone,
I sell CBD ingestible products, and we’ve hit an incredibly frustrating loop with Amazon support and enforcement teams.
Our listings were originally flagged as *Restricted Products* when first uploaded, which is normal for this category. We followed the official process - contacted food-safety-cbd-approvals-uk@amazon.co.uk submitted all required documentation (FSA registration, SDS sheets, compliant product labels, etc.) and our products were **formally approved and reinstated on 18 July 2025
However, the same ASINs were removed again in November. reason given originally was restricted products which i know they are and require approval which we have. since then they have just been asking for further information we have already done the following:
1. Remove certain words and images as instructed.
2. Re-submitted all documents confirming the products are clearly **for ingestible use only**, not topical.
3.Product labels explicitly state *Food Supplement* and *Take oral drops as directed*
Despite all this, we’re now being told to provide evidence that the products are for "ingestion only* - which makes no sense given the documentation already submitted and the fact that these listings cannot even go live without prior approval from the Food Safety CBD Team, also the food standard agency only approve food and supplement products that you ingest not topical products. its bonkers how they cant see this.
It appears that the Appeals team or the agents handling these cases are just incompetent or don't understand the ingestible CBD category or is ignoring the internal approval already granted.
Has anyone else had approved similar issues or been asked for contradictory evidence like this?
And does anyone know if there’s a higher-level escalation route or contact within Amazon who can intervene when departments conflict like this?
Any guidance from other sellers be greatly appreciated - it’s been over a 50 days now of going in circles.
Thanks
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
Chargeback Claim Disputes
wow, so for prevention you suggest:
- take photos of all items before shipping
- reply to customer messages in 2 hours
honestly how much time do you think we have? this is fine if we sell maybe 10 items a week, but if we sell decent volumes there is no way we can do this.
I have an idea, how about Amazon look at tracking themselves, you have access to the same data we have. If tracking shows delivery then maybe Amazon sides with the seller for a change? You then either push back on the customer, or if you feel the customer is being honest then refund yourselves out of your 18% margin you make on the products. That feels a fair approach.
I know. its probably a crazy idea, but who knows it could work and help grow the Amazon marketplace ecosystem...
New Food and Safety requirements, so now you have to use Amazon's third party companies and send them the product???
I am sorry, but this is exactly the same as the third party service providers that Amazon has for everything else, a money spinner and farming out the compliance to facilitate the latest 13,000 redundancies in Amazon.
This is a free speech forum I assume, where I will not be deactivated for speaking my mind, therefore I will say that this is a blatant money making exercise for Amazon and a total neglect of the responsibility that they have in house.
In addition to that EVERY SINGLE item sold by third party sellers has its own compliance and safely documents Globally accepted by everyone except Amazon and now not only are they refusing to accept these they want sellers to pay their third party selection of companies that are paying Amazon to participate just to look at the already accepted documents.
It has been 18 months since GPSR requirements were sought by Amazon for EU listings and yet none have been acted on by Amazon despite it taking sellers up to 3 months to complete the process and to make it worse Amazon are adding the same products back on to the list again and requiring the same declaration up to 10 times for the same item.
This situation for third party sellers has not gone unnoticed by the likes of Temu, Wayfair and Walmart who are spending a lot of money to try and recruit Amazon sellers.
The writing is on the wall for third party sellers and Amazon will succeed in what it is doing which is to favour it's own range which is fair enough and the outside sellers who pay Amazon enough to be kept in the loop and receive special treatment, pay for play.
Inventory still stranded 1 week after bank info was successfully reverified
Fingers crossed mines been stranded 18 months and counting!
