ASUS: Two official documents concerning the same RMA contradict each other. What would you do in this situation?
I would like to hear from other ASUS users and people with experience with laptops, computer hardware, and warranty/RMA cases.
I have an ASUS ExpertBook P1503CVA that was submitted to an authorized ASUS service center through the store where it was purchased.
I was not a customer of the service center. The store that submitted the laptop was the service center's customer.
The problem is that I received two official ASUS records concerning the same RMA that contain mutually contradictory information.
The official ASUS RMA system states: “Repair completed.”
However, the official “Repair Report” for the same RMA states that:
- no repair was carried out,
- no parts were replaced,
- the reason given was: “Customer resigned from repair (external screen / monitor works),”
- the case was classified as CID (Customer Induced Damage) without any technical assessment being carried out.
At the same time, the documentation confirms that the manufacturer's warranty for my ASUS P1503CVA remains valid.
As a result, I have been left with a defective ASUS ExpertBook, a business laptop designed to comply with the MIL-STD-810H standard.
For about a month, I have been trying to obtain a substantive explanation from ASUS/ASUSTeK regarding this discrepancy. I have contacted ASUSTeK Headquarters and official corporate channels. So far, I have not received a clear explanation of why two official ASUS records concerning the same RMA describe completely different outcomes.
This is no longer simply a question of repairing the laptop. My main concern is the discrepancy between the official information contained in ASUS's own service documentation, including the classification of the case as CID without a technical assessment.
Has anyone here experienced a similar situation — particularly one where the ASUS RMA status indicated “Repair completed”, while the official repair report stated that no repair had been carried out and the case was classified as CID without any technical assessment?
What would you do next in a situation like this?
I have the complete documentation of this case available for review, including the official ASUS records and correspondence.
The full background of the case is also described on my Reddit profile.