Refund at first scan for seller-fulfilled returns


Do you not think you have enough polices to delight scammers? for fellow sellers check the USA forums to see how hard it is to get a safe-t claim to be granted in favour of the seller.
Since Amazon took over AUTOMATIC RETURNS WE HAVE HAD DOZENS OF RETURNS BUT ONLY 2 ARRIVED BACK HERE MOST ARE DELIVERED TO SOMEWHERE IN ENGLAND I am in Northern Ireland. under this new policy I now pay for the return and will not be getting my goods back this will be the final nail in my Amazon coffin.
ps you have made a spelling mistake in you header it should be


I read the bit about return postage differently. Doesn’t this refer to the postage cost of sending the item to the buyer which you have to refund by law if a return is requested within 14 days? I think the buyer still pays for the return postage if they select a buyer responsible reason regardless of how long after arrival they take to request a return. Problem is though we all know many buyers like to select a seller responsible reason to get free returns.


This wont be abused at all!

I do wonder sometimes if Amazon wants to have a Marketplace at all, or if they only want Chinese supersellers to sell?


But gives you another manual job of filing a SAFE-T claim.


Please don’t shoot me - just a thought

Currently if a buyer sends back anything - whether it be a different item or a damaged / used item, you cannot withhold 100% of the refund. And even withholding 99% leaves you open to a-z and the buyer gets away with it
In the new process, if a buyer returns wrong item / used item, and IF a safe-t claim is successfully granted to the seller, that ‘should’ mean a full refund to the seller, no risk of a-z and a black mark on buyers account

P.s I know there will still be issues with evri loosing returns - thats a different problem


That’s true but the service that we as sellers receive already from Seller Support and the AZ team etc is so poor that I don’t have any faith SAFE-T claims will be processed effectively at all.


Here’s the exact text:

For returns within 14 days from the day of the receipt with return reason as buyer-responsible, shipping costs and the amount corresponding to the standard shipping method are borne by you.

So I take from that with a return reason that’s usually buyer responsible, shipping costs are now bourne by sellers. This is not how it works currently - there will be no way to tick the box to charge the £3.30 anymore, because the customer will have already received a full refund long before the item arrives back here.


I think that is to do with the postage costs to send the parcel. ie if the customer has selected a premium shipping service you only have to refund the equivalent of the standard postage. I don’t think this is to do with the return postage costs - I don’t think this anything has altered there in terms of responsibility


But this is referring to the delivery shipping isn’t it? Buyers have always been entitled to a refund of the standard delivery shipping if they request a return within 14 days from the date of receipt.


It appears to me seller has no option to increase their prices to absorb the policy. This must be the only platform that that claims to help small businesses but does the opposite.


From the Evri website "The Evri journey began in 1974 as Grattan Mail Order in Bradford. We’ve grown over the years, with an increasing number of hubs and depots across the country, " etc
Like the Grattan Customer service hint :ok_hand:


Yes. The tracking for one item actually says item not found in their system, but we still had to refund, because we know Amazon will just comply with an A-Z claim.


You really don’t care about Sellers, do you Amazon. Nor do you care that come customers are actually criminals gaming your system, and this makes it easier.


When a return label is generated on Amazon using Royal Mail it automatically gets a tracking input of ‘Carrier picked up the package.’ would the buyer then get the refund ?

SAFE-T 60 day limit

Buyer does not return package or forgets and returns weeks / months down the line. SAFE-T refers you back to Royal Mail as it had a scan ‘Carrier picked up the package.’ items value is over the insurance limit of what RM will compensate so its a loss.

SAFE-T have been ok for me they have reimbursed the empty packages, the item did not arrive rubbish and the damaged stuff BUT you need make sure invoices sent to include serial numbers, package photo’s to include shipping labels and as many pictures as possible. The problem will be the 60 day limit, the ‘Carrier picked up the package.’ first scan and the time it takes to keep track of all returns to make sure you submit a claim within the 60 day limit if a buyer is getting a refund at first scan so in reality you might only get a week or 2 to process the claim.


no - it needs to have the carrier scan first


Refund at first scam.


:grin: Excellent - have you thought about working for Amazon?


They are very good for our hosts, they want customer ‘trust’ and it’s simply a percentage game in which they don’t stand to lose any revenue - it’s us mugs who will. The fraud seems to be of no concern to them, if a customer persistently abuses the system then the issue will eventually be flagged by an automated system. Eventually.
If I can still retain a referral fee percentage for MPS and/or FBA fees why would I care if you experience a total loss or have to spend extra fruitless time on safety claims where a buyer has abused the system?
It’s not about fair/reputable/efficient, it’s about how they can scrape percentage and offload risk whilst retaining customer bums on seats - if you look at Amazon policy from this persepctive a lot more things make a lot more sense.


This is a most poorly thought out policy, and just plays into the hands of the less than honest customers, and at the seller’s cost, especially if the buyer returns substitute item, or used etc.
As for making it simpler and less work - that is a joke as we then have to file the Safe-T claims.

Their own refund /return policy still mentions refund on RETURN of goods, so this new refund at first scan negates that.
What a farce.


Couldn’t agree more.