You have an issue of contesting the adequacy of their validation.
You assert that their validation is inadequate, while they apparently assert that they have provided adequate validation.
As background, several issues apply.
First, your DV request must have been timely in order to impose any restrictions on the debt collector.
Timely means it must be sent either prior to their dunning notice, or within 30 days after their dunning notice.
If not timely, they have no obligation to provide anything, and are free to continue their collection activities without providing any validation.
Was your DV request timely/
Second, even if timely, a DV request under the FDCPA does not impose any period for or requirement to send any validation.
The effect of a timely DV is that it imposes a cease collection bar, which then remains in effect until they send validation.
Thus, assertion by the consumer that any response does not comprise adequte validation simply means that the consumer considers the cease collection bar to still remain in effect. Violation does not occur based on an assertion of inadequate validation. Violation occurs if/when the debt collector resumes collection activites without having first provided adequate validation. Handling of a viiolation of a cease collection bar can be pursued by way of civil action, and thus obtaining the ruling of a judge as to the adequacy of the validation, or if you can get the CFPB to intervene, by way of complaint to the CFPB.
You are, if your DV was timely and you contest the adequacy of validation, in limbo until such time as they resume active collection on the debt, and you obtain concurrence by a reviewer that theri validation is inadequate.
