Three Complete Power Failures, Three Depot Returns — Request for Senior HP Review

[SamTechUser]

Three Complete Power Failures, Three Depot Returns — Request for Senior HP Review

I am asking an HP moderator to bring my existing CRT Escalations case to the attention of senior escalation management.

My HP Envy 17 has experienced the same serious complete no-power/no-charging failure three times over approximately three months. The case has involved three Depot returns, a motherboard replacement, extensive diagnostics and testing, an NTF return, a third failure captured continuously on video, and two extended escalation processes.

At this stage, the issue is no longer simply whether HP can reproduce an intermittent failure during a particular test session. The issue is whether HP can provide a credible permanent resolution after repeated repair, testing and escalation have failed to resolve the same recurring condition.

1. The first repair did not resolve the failure

After the first complete no-power failure, HP replaced the motherboard, reflashed/updated the BIOS and performed extensive testing.

Only days after the laptop was returned, the same complete failure occurred again: no power from AC or battery, no charging/power LED, and troubleshooting with HP Technical Support was unable to restore operation.

The laptop therefore went back to the Depot a second time.

2. The second return resulted in testing and NTF — not identification of the underlying problem

During the second return, HP performed extensive diagnostics and attempted to reproduce the reported Samsung-phone/USB scenario. The failure could not be reproduced and the unit was classified No Trouble Found (NTF).

This distinction is important:

An NTF result establishes that the fault was not reproduced or identified during that particular evaluation. It does not establish that no underlying intermittent fault exists in the computer.

I specifically raised this issue with HP before the laptop was returned. I explained that inability to reproduce the failure did not establish that the recurring condition had been resolved, and I requested further review rather than another NTF return.

3. The second return then entered a prolonged escalation process

When the Depot offered me the choice of having the laptop returned or escalating the matter to HP, I selected escalation on July 24.

I then had to follow up on July 31, August 7 and August 11 before CRT became involved.

During my August 7 call, an HP representative advised me that the escalation request appeared to have been rejected, said he was unsure why, and told me he would resubmit it. On August 11, I was told that a Case Manager would contact me. My assigned CRT Case Manager later confirmed that the case had reached her on August 11, and I received the first CRT contact on August 12 — 19 days after I selected escalation.

What remains unclear is what materially different investigation or technical review resulted from that escalation.

HP subsequently relied on the extensive testing performed on the laptop when responding to my escalation concerns. However, HP's own written response expressly stated that its TSM had already conducted that extensive testing “prior to escalating the case.”

Based on the information provided to me, the process continued to center largely on diagnostics, testing and attempts to reproduce the symptom. I was not given a clear explanation of what additional investigation was undertaken to determine why the laptop had twice entered a persistent complete no-power/no-charging state.

Passing diagnostics during a period when the fault does not occur does not identify the cause or establish that the recurring condition has been resolved.

Despite my escalation request and request for further review, the laptop was ultimately returned to me as NTF.

4. The third failure demonstrated exactly why the NTF distinction mattered

On August 27, the same complete no-power/no-charging failure occurred for a third time.

This occurrence was recorded continuously on video. The recording shows:

• the laptop operating normally on AC power;
• the battery at 100%;
• the phone restart;
• the immediate laptop shutdown;
• and the subsequent complete no-power/no-charging condition.

Normal recovery and power-reset procedures did not restore operation.

The third failure occurred after the motherboard replacement, extensive diagnostics, attempts to reproduce the failure and the NTF return.

It therefore demonstrated exactly why the distinction I had raised with HP mattered:

The problem had not disappeared simply because it had not occurred during Depot testing.

The same major condition returned.

For this third return, HP also received the laptop while it was still in the failed no-power state. The Depot subsequently advised me that operation was restored after the internal battery was disconnected/reseated.

This makes the third return materially different from simply reporting another intermittent symptom: HP received the machine after the documented failure had actually occurred.

5. The third return now appears to be entering the same pattern

HP has had the laptop since August 31.

On September 2, the Depot advised me that an escalation request had been submitted for approval, including the repair history, diagnostic findings and correspondence, toward a permanent resolution.

The case remains unresolved.

More importantly, based on the information provided to me, the process again appears to have focused substantially on diagnostics, testing and attempting to reproduce the failure.

That raises what I believe is now the central question:

After three complete failures, a motherboard replacement, an NTF return, a third failure captured on video and the laptop being received by HP in the failed state, what materially different investigation or corrective action is now being undertaken to determine why this laptop repeatedly enters a complete no-power/no-charging state and to prevent it from happening again?

Recently, the delay was also characterized to me as resulting from my requesting “additional testing.” I corrected that characterization in writing.

I am not requesting testing for its own sake.

My request throughout has been for HP to identify and reliably correct the recurring failure—or, if HP cannot do so after these repeated failures and repair attempts, to provide an appropriate permanent alternative resolution.

6. What I am asking HP to do

I am not asking the Support Community to diagnose the laptop, and I am not seeking another cycle of:

failure → testing → cannot reproduce → NTF → return → recurrence

After three occurrences and three Depot returns, that is not a permanent resolution.

I am asking for senior management ownership of this existing escalation and a definitive outcome.

Specifically, I am asking HP either to:

• identify the underlying cause or credible contributing cause and perform a repair that HP can reasonably explain will address the recurring complete no-power/no-charging condition; or
• if HP cannot reliably identify and correct the problem after three occurrences and multiple repair attempts, provide an appropriate permanent alternative resolution.

I also need the repair-warranty position protected. HP confirmed that the first repair carries a 90-day warranty for the same issue, while a substantial portion of that period has elapsed during repeated Depot handling and escalation. I have already raised this concern with HP in writing.

Could an HP moderator please bring this existing CRT case to the attention of the appropriate senior escalation or management team?

I can provide my case number, service-order numbers, complete correspondence, repair documentation and video evidence privately.