A Strange ODR Review
We delivered order 701-8797058-5752256 to the customer two days before the final delivery date, using Purolator tracking code HFI000422345.
On June 29, we received a return request claiming that “the item did not arrive on time,” and we authorized the return the same day. According to UPS tracking number 1ZR6869F9023310602, the package was handed over to UPS by the customer on July 2.
On July 10, the customer filed an A-to-Z claim, and despite the returned package being in transit, we received an email notification stating:
“In this case, apparently the item returned using the prepaid label issued for this order is lost or misplaced in transit. You may file a claim directly with the carrier to receive a reimbursement.”
At this point, the ODR impact was marked as “No.”
Of course, we appealed to this, because the return policy clearly defines a maximum return window of 30 days. We maintain service practices that are very strict about these timelines. Inspecting the condition of returned items and issuing refunds accordingly is one of the most fundamental principles of Amazon’s return process.
The strangeness mentioned in the subject line became evident after our short appeal describing the process. In the notification we received following our appeal, it was stated:
“We have reviewed all available information and confirmed that the merchandise for the order was correctly returned on 02/07/2025. Since you are responsible for this return, we have reimbursed the buyer and debited your seller account. We recommend that you follow up directly with your courier.”
In our Account Health dashboard, this claim’s ODR impact was then changed to “Yes.”
We have two questions here:
1. Does the fact that a product is returned using the correct method automatically entitle the buyer to a refund at the moment they request it?
2. How can an A-to-Z claim that initially had an ODR impact of “No” be changed to “Yes” following a seller’s appeal?
In addition, regarding this specific order, what exactly is our fault, considering that this complaint is categorized as a “Defective Order”?
We have made significant effort trying to understand this situation, but at this point we are left mostly with conjectures. It appears that A-to-Z claim processes are not always examined in detail. Your appeals are either not read or are disregarded. The notes taken by customer representatives during conversations with buyers seem unable to serve any purpose beyond the ideal of “100% Customer Satisfaction.”
We have suffered losses in this case related to the return process, yet the complaint screen states:
“Missed Estimated Delivery / Delivery estimate: June 20, 2025 – June 26, 2025.”
This is another oddity. In fact, it is almost comical, though we strive to remain professional. The “Delivery Estimate” should have been June 29. Moreover, this complaint is not about late delivery at all—and in any case, we did not deliver late.
We do not know whether other sellers have experienced these issues as well, but we strongly believe that Amazon employees should also have a “Defective Review Rate (RDR)” metric applied to their evaluations. Our experience has shown that the fairest reviews and proactive resolutions are often provided by the Seller Forums, and we wish to thank the forum moderators for this.
Thank you for taking the time to review this matter.
A Strange ODR Review
We delivered order 701-8797058-5752256 to the customer two days before the final delivery date, using Purolator tracking code HFI000422345.
On June 29, we received a return request claiming that “the item did not arrive on time,” and we authorized the return the same day. According to UPS tracking number 1ZR6869F9023310602, the package was handed over to UPS by the customer on July 2.
On July 10, the customer filed an A-to-Z claim, and despite the returned package being in transit, we received an email notification stating:
“In this case, apparently the item returned using the prepaid label issued for this order is lost or misplaced in transit. You may file a claim directly with the carrier to receive a reimbursement.”
At this point, the ODR impact was marked as “No.”
Of course, we appealed to this, because the return policy clearly defines a maximum return window of 30 days. We maintain service practices that are very strict about these timelines. Inspecting the condition of returned items and issuing refunds accordingly is one of the most fundamental principles of Amazon’s return process.
The strangeness mentioned in the subject line became evident after our short appeal describing the process. In the notification we received following our appeal, it was stated:
“We have reviewed all available information and confirmed that the merchandise for the order was correctly returned on 02/07/2025. Since you are responsible for this return, we have reimbursed the buyer and debited your seller account. We recommend that you follow up directly with your courier.”
In our Account Health dashboard, this claim’s ODR impact was then changed to “Yes.”
We have two questions here:
1. Does the fact that a product is returned using the correct method automatically entitle the buyer to a refund at the moment they request it?
2. How can an A-to-Z claim that initially had an ODR impact of “No” be changed to “Yes” following a seller’s appeal?
In addition, regarding this specific order, what exactly is our fault, considering that this complaint is categorized as a “Defective Order”?
We have made significant effort trying to understand this situation, but at this point we are left mostly with conjectures. It appears that A-to-Z claim processes are not always examined in detail. Your appeals are either not read or are disregarded. The notes taken by customer representatives during conversations with buyers seem unable to serve any purpose beyond the ideal of “100% Customer Satisfaction.”
We have suffered losses in this case related to the return process, yet the complaint screen states:
“Missed Estimated Delivery / Delivery estimate: June 20, 2025 – June 26, 2025.”
This is another oddity. In fact, it is almost comical, though we strive to remain professional. The “Delivery Estimate” should have been June 29. Moreover, this complaint is not about late delivery at all—and in any case, we did not deliver late.
We do not know whether other sellers have experienced these issues as well, but we strongly believe that Amazon employees should also have a “Defective Review Rate (RDR)” metric applied to their evaluations. Our experience has shown that the fairest reviews and proactive resolutions are often provided by the Seller Forums, and we wish to thank the forum moderators for this.
Thank you for taking the time to review this matter.
3 replies
Seller_y7W9ccUlauftE
An AtoZ is usually an automatic ODR bad mark unless it is denied or voided by AZ support. You appealling and losing the AtoZ appeal moved it from "No" to "Yes"
Amazon looked at the tracking and assumed that UPS has lost or misplaced the return in their Concord facility.
You need to contact UPS to see what's happening with the return.
As for 30 days. As I read it the Buyer has 30 days from time of delivery to make a return. Which they did. It does not say the Seller has 30 days to handle the return. Had the UPS tracking still showed movement, then the AtoZ would probably have had a different result.
-;-
