I sent the following email to Amazon but have not received a response.

"I am writing to formally request that this issue be escalated to the appropriate department for thorough review and resolution. The Safe-T claim team has consistently denied claims related to being overcharged for return labels, despite Amazon historically approving such claims. This ongoing issue has left us with no choice but to seek a proper resolution through internal escalation.

The reasons for this escalation are as follows:

• Inconsistent Application of Policies: In the past, we have submitted claims for identical items and circumstances, and Amazon has reimbursed us for overcharges. However, recent claims have been denied without proper explanation. It appears the Safe-T claim team may be confusing the initial charge of the return label — which is eligible for reimbursement if the seller is overcharged — with the audited charge, where UPS audits and bills Amazon for additional costs. These audited charges are not eligible for reimbursement, but the initial charge of the label is.

• Lack of Proper Justification: We have appealed these decisions multiple times, only to receive repetitive and generic responses, such as: "All calculation methods and fees, including surcharges and adjustments, are set by the respective carriers, not Amazon. Amazon simply passes the information on to you for your convenience."

These responses fail to address the specific details provided in our appeals, offering no meaningful justification.

• Failure to Align with Amazon's Policies: The option to claim reimbursement for being overcharged on a return label remains selectable in the Safe-T claim form and is referenced in Amazon's help pages. The Safe-T claims department's failure to honor this policy directly contradicts Amazon's established guidelines, creating a breach of trust with sellers.

• Non-Compliance with Terms of Agreement: As sellers, we rely on Amazon to uphold its agreements, including adherence to its own stated policies. The Safe-T claims department's handling of these claims is inconsistent with these obligations, warranting further investigation.

To support our case, we have attached the following documentation:

• Screenshots of the relevant Amazon help page outlining the policies for overcharged return shipping labels.
• Two screenshots of claim denials for similar items, each providing different reasons for denial, highlighting inconsistency in decision-making.
• A screenshot of a previously approved claim for the same item under similar circumstances, demonstrating past adherence to Amazon’s policies.

We trust that this matter will be reviewed promptly and that Amazon's policies will be upheld moving forward.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to your response."

I also opened a Case [CASE 17402983781] and their response was

"Hello from Amazon Selling Partner Support,

This is a response from the leadership team.

Regarding your inquiry about the result of the SAFE-T claims given.

You can appeal a SAFE-T claim only once, so you must study the denial reason carefully and provide additional information that will support the appeal."

I responded back saying,

"Dear Amazon,

Thank you for your response. However, it seems there has been a misunderstanding regarding the issue I raised. I fully understand the appeal process and that only one appeal is permitted per SAFE-T claim. My concern is not about the ability to submit additional appeals but rather the handling of the claims themselves, which I believe warrants further investigation.

What’s particularly troubling is that these types of claims were consistently approved in the past under identical circumstances. The sudden shift in how these claims are being handled — without any clear change in policy — suggests there may have been a change in the Safe-T claim personnel or a gap in training. Specifically:

Misinterpretation of the Claim: The Safe-T claim team appears to be confusing two separate charges — the initial charge for the return label, which is eligible for reimbursement in cases of overcharging, and the audited charge applied by UPS afterward, which I understand is not eligible. My claim pertains only to the initial charge, yet the denial reasons do not acknowledge this distinction.

Inconsistent Policy Enforcement: As outlined in my previous message, Amazon has approved claims under identical circumstances in the past. The inconsistency in handling these claims, without any communication regarding a change in policy, is concerning.

Lack of Proper Justification: The responses I’ve received so far have been generic, failing to address the specific documentation and explanations I’ve provided. This further suggests that the team handling these claims may not be fully trained on the nuances of the policy.

I’m not requesting another appeal but rather asking for the case to be escalated to a team that can properly review these inconsistencies and ensure Amazon’s policies are applied correctly. I’ve already provided documentation supporting my case, including past approvals, denial inconsistencies, and Amazon’s own policy references.

I kindly ask that this matter be reviewed thoroughly to ensure that claims are being processed in line with Amazon’s established guidelines.

Thank you again for your time and attention. I look forward to your response."