Surface Pro 11 – Business conduct following repeated failure to carry out repairs

I would like to report a repeated case of non‑performance in the Microsoft Support process for my Surface Pro 11 and ask whether others have experienced similar behaviour.

Below is a concise timeline of the case:

• May – chargeable repair Surface Pro 11 sent in for a display repair (accidental damage).

• Device returned – immediate Shell error Start menu/search unusable, focus jumping between icons.

• Second repair attempt Device sent in again, error documented. Returned with the same error.

• Third repair attempt Device sent in again. Returned with the same error.

• Replacement device Microsoft sent a replacement unit. After setup, the same Shell error appeared. Detailed documentation and videos submitted.

• Chat support Support offered a new device. I asked why this would help, given the repeated failure. Support referred to workarounds and requested further troubleshooting. I declined further back‑and‑forth and asked for a technical explanation.

• Technical explanation Technical Support stated there were current ARM‑related issues without a solution.

• Refund assessment procedure I asked what happens after repeated non‑performance. Technical Support mentioned an internal refund assessment process. I explicitly requested that this process be initiated.

• Then: more than one month of silence No response, despite repeated enquiries and deadlines.

• Transparency issue I did not continue using the replacement device to avoid influencing the support process. A brief test today shows the Shell error seems to have disappeared — presumably due to later Windows updates.

• Ticket closed without comment Microsoft closed the case: – without notifying me – without stating that the error appears resolved – without any decision regarding the refund assessment process

This leaves the question of how Microsoft handles cases where there is a legally relevant pattern of repeated non‑performance, the error later disappears by chance, but the customer was left without a working device for months.

Is this really the expected procedure — that customers must pursue legal enforcement to obtain a resolution?