行政举报 · 戴尔（中国）售后服务档案管理违规事件 ｜ 事件说明正文（合并版）

本文档以第一组 1.md 为主骨架，合并后续文档中的新增事实与进展，新增内容以 [+] 标记。

一、维权主体与授权

本人为案涉戴尔笔记本设备实际使用人，本机为北京大有中城科技有限公司统一采购办公资产，设备所有权单位已出具加盖公章的《设备权属及授权委托书》，正式授权本人全权处理本次设备售后核查、行政举报、证据提交、配合监管调查等全部事宜，具备完整维权主体资格。

本机保修期内售后服务记录存在重大疑点，本人依法开展合规维权与行政线索举报。

二、投诉与举报路径演进

第一阶段：12315消费调解投诉（已终结）

此前本人就该设备质保问题通过12315平台提交消费调解投诉。市场监管部门依据《市场监督管理投诉举报处理暂行办法》第十七条相关规定作出不予受理决定，不予受理理由：经营方主张设备属于企业采购资产，并非个人生活消费用途，不适用于消费争议调解流程。

反馈时间：2026年7月24日 反馈内容： 经调解，商家表示投诉人机器为公司购买，非个人生活消费所需购买。依据《市场监督管理投诉举报处理暂行办法》第十六条的规定，我局决定不予受理。

[+]

第二阶段：行政举报（已受理）

调解途径终止后，本人依法转换维权路径，针对戴尔（中国）有限公司售后服务运营不合规问题发起行政举报。本次举报仅聚焦企业对外服务行为、售后档案管理规范、信息披露履行情况，争议审查事项与设备采购主体无关，配套企业盖章权属授权文件佐证本人处置权限。

行政举报提交日期：2026年7月27日 当前状态：12315官网显示已受理

[+]

三、核心事实

本次维权核心事实如下：

针对同一台设备同一段保修期内维修事项，戴尔官方先后出具两组相互矛盾的正式结论：

两组正式结论无法同时成立。

本人书面申请调取本机完整原始维修工单、备件出入库记录、工程师操作日志等溯源资料。戴尔（中国）以系统升级、数据迁移为由，无法提供相关原始档案。

[+] 2026年7月13日，戴尔官方社区专员Daniel V在戴尔美国社区公开回复：

"Most of tech support does not have access to the old system so they more than likely will be unable to view older service request details. That said, I do have this access and taking a look at the initial in-warranty work order notes, they indicate that the technician did indeed replace the motherboard for your initial issues."

即：Daniel V拥有旧系统权限，查阅首次保修工单备注后确认——维修工程师确实针对初始故障更换了主板。

此回复直接证明戴尔（中国）“系统升级无法查档”的解释不真实，构成境内外信息披露标准不一致的重大疑点。

[+]

本人通过戴尔全球英文官方渠道核验得知，境外客服后台可查询本机维修相关记录，使前述无法调阅档案的解释存在重大疑点，显现境内外信息披露标准不一致问题。

在多轮沟通期间，戴尔售后工作人员多次回避核心矛盾、转移争议焦点，始终未能针对维修记录相互冲突给出合理解释。

前述全部疑点，在上一轮消费投诉处置流程中未得到核查与正式回应。

本人已完整留存全套邮件往来记录、社区对话存档、技术材料、事件时间线、企业盖章权属授权文件等证据材料，全部凭证可核验、可溯源。

[+] 补充：戴尔社区帖子被移除

2026年7月15日，戴尔社区官方邮箱 noreply@dellcommunity.dell.com 发来通知，将本人在戴尔美国社区发布的帖子从《为什么戴尔中国官网论坛没有任何官方回复？》转移至新帖子《已移除内容专区》。

帖子被转移前，已获得以下有效回复：

• anne_droid（戴尔社区超级用户）：提供了供电干扰/接地环路的技术分析
• DELL-Daniel V（戴尔官方社区专员）：确认首次保修更换了主板

戴尔未就帖子内容本身提出任何违规说明，仅以“已移除内容专区”归档处理。

[+]

本站仅客观归档维权全过程事实材料，交由市场监管部门依法核查定性；页面内容仅作为个人维权记录留存，不存在商业用途，不带有炒作、刻意诋毁意图。

四、本次维权定位

1. 不再重复提交已办结终止的消费调解类投诉；
2. 配套企业出具的权属授权文件，证明本人合法处置权限；
3. 聚焦企业售后服务流程规范性、维修记录真实性、信息披露义务合规性；
4. 推动企业出示真实、完整、统一的原始维修档案；
5. 督促企业整改售后服务记录混乱、境内外服务标准不一致等问题。

[+]

五、当前案件状态（截至2026年8月）

[+]

六、附件

[附件1] [附件2]

附：英文版 / English Version

Administrative Complaint · Dell (China) After-Sales Service Record Management Irregularities · Case Statement (Merged Edition)

This document is based on the original 1.md from the first batch, with new facts and progress merged from subsequent documents. Additions are marked with [+].

I. Rights Holder & Authorization

I am the actual user of the Dell laptop in question. The device is a unified procurement office asset of Beijing Dayou Zhongcheng Technology Co., Ltd. The ownership entity has issued an official sealed Device Ownership and Authorization Letter, formally authorizing me to handle all matters related to this device's after-sales verification, administrative complaint, evidence submission, and regulatory coordination. I hold full legal standing for rights protection.

Significant discrepancies exist in the after-sales service records for this device during the warranty period. I am conducting lawful compliance rights protection and administrative reporting.

II. Complaint and Reporting Pathway Evolution

Phase 1: 12315 Consumer Mediation Complaint (Closed)

I previously submitted a consumer mediation complaint regarding this device's warranty issue through the 12315 platform. The market supervision authority issued a non-acceptance decision based on Article 17 of the Interim Measures for Handling Market Supervision Complaints and Reports, on the grounds that the device is a corporate procurement asset rather than for personal consumer use, thus not applicable to consumer dispute mediation procedures.

Feedback Date: July 24, 2026 Feedback Content: After mediation, the merchant stated the device was purchased for corporate use, not for personal consumption. In accordance with Article 16 of the Interim Measures for Handling Market Supervision Complaints and Reports, the bureau decided not to accept the case.

[+]

Phase 2: Administrative Complaint (Accepted)

After the mediation path was terminated, I lawfully shifted to an administrative complaint route, focusing on Dell (China) Co., Ltd.'s non-compliant after-sales service operations, record management irregularities, and information disclosure failures. This complaint focuses solely on the enterprise's external service conduct, after-sales record management standards, and information disclosure compliance, independent of the device's ownership entity. The corporate-issued authorization document supports my handling authority.

Administrative Complaint Submission Date: July 27, 2026 Current Status: Officially accepted by the 12315 platform (as of August 2026)

[+]

III. Core Facts

The core facts of this rights protection case are as follows:

For the same device and the same in-warranty repair event, Dell issued two mutually contradictory official conclusions:

These two official conclusions cannot both be true.

I formally requested access to the complete original maintenance work order, parts replacement records, technician operation logs, and other traceable after-sales archives for this device. Dell (China) cited "system upgrades and data migration" as reasons for being unable to provide the original records.

[+] On July 13, 2026, Dell official community liaison DELL-Daniel V publicly replied in the Dell US Community:

"Most of tech support does not have access to the old system so they more than likely will be unable to view older service request details. That said, I do have this access and taking a look at the initial in-warranty work order notes, they indicate that the technician did indeed replace the motherboard for your initial issues."

This confirms that Daniel V has access to the legacy system and, after reviewing the first warranty work order notes, confirmed that the technician did indeed replace the motherboard for the initial issue.

This response directly proves that Dell (China)'s explanation of "system upgrades preventing record retrieval" is untrue, revealing a significant discrepancy in information disclosure standards between domestic and international Dell operations.

[+]

Through Dell's global English-language official channels, I verified that overseas customer service back-end systems can access and retrieve complete repair records for this device, further undermining the credibility of Dell (China)'s "unable to retrieve records" explanation.

During multiple rounds of communication, Dell after-sales staff repeatedly avoided the core contradictions, shifted the focus of discussion, and consistently failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the conflicting maintenance records.

All of the above issues were not investigated or formally responded to during the previous consumer complaint process.

I have preserved complete sets of email correspondence, community conversation archives, technical materials, event timelines, and the corporate-issued authorization document—all verifiable and traceable evidence.

[+] Supplement: Dell Community Post Removed

On July 15, 2026, Dell Community sent a notification from noreply@dellcommunity.dell.com stating that my post—originally titled "Why has no reply been posted on Dell's Chinese official website forum?"—had been moved to a new post titled "Removed Posts."

Prior to removal, the post received substantive responses:

• anne_droid (Dell Community Superuser): Provided technical analysis regarding power interference and grounding loops
• DELL-Daniel V (Dell Official Community Liaison): Confirmed motherboard replacement during the first warranty repair

Dell did not provide any explanation of rule violations before archiving the post.

[+]

This site merely archives the complete facts of the rights protection process for regulatory review. The content serves as a personal record of rights protection activities, with no commercial purpose and no intent for sensationalism or deliberate disparagement.

IV. Positioning of This Rights Protection Action

1. Will not resubmit the already closed and terminated consumer mediation complaint;
2. The corporate-issued authorization document proves my legal authority to handle this matter;
3. Focus on the standardization of enterprise after-sales service processes, authenticity of maintenance records, and compliance with information disclosure obligations;
4. Push the enterprise to produce authentic, complete, and unified original maintenance records;
5. Urge the enterprise to rectify chaotic after-sales service records and inconsistent domestic/international service standards.

[+]

V. Current Case Status (as of August 2026)

[+]

VI. Attachments

[Attachment 1] [Attachment 2]