Subject: Delivery Failure, Fact Confirmation, and Mandatory Application of an Improved Verification Method
I am responding to your message asking whether the item “arrived by 2026‑09‑28.”
The delivery on September 28 did not occur.
The driver requested a one‑time passcode without explaining the procedure, was unfamiliar with the structure of my iPhone, and left with the parcel after contacting your headquarters. I personally heard the conversation and the report made at the scene.
Amazon already knows that the delivery was not completed.
Under these circumstances, asking whether the item “arrived” places the customer in the position of proving a fact that Amazon already possesses. This wording creates confusion, emotional discomfort, and undermines the dignity of the customer.
On September 29, I remained at home for the entire day, waiting for a redelivery attempt. None occurred. The silence and lack of communication resulted in further disappointment.
On September 30 (today), I have a scheduled medical appointment at Griffith University Hospital in the morning. No one will be at my residence during that time, and any delivery attempt in the morning will inevitably fail.
Therefore, I request the following:
– No delivery attempt should be made on the morning of September 30.
– A clear and confirmed redelivery time should be provided, taking the customer’s schedule into account.
In addition, I require that this delivery be completed using a customer‑centered verification method, rather than the one‑time passcode system that caused the initial failure.
I will present my passport or driver’s license to the delivery driver.
The driver can capture a photo of the document using their device and send it to headquarters for immediate verification.
This method is faster, clearer, and more reliable than the one‑time passcode system, and it prevents unnecessary confusion and time loss caused by differences in device familiarity.
I request that Amazon apply this verification method for this delivery case without exception, and evaluate it as a practical and customer‑friendly alternative to the current procedure.
This requirement is based on direct experience and is a reasonable step toward preventing further errors and restoring trust.
