While you may have had or may obtain further deletions by disputing and requesting debt validation on the collections, neither of those processes require the debt collector to "prove" the legitimacy of the debt. Both processes require that they conduct a reasonable investigation, and proivde their determination.
If they determine that they have obtained adequate documentation to verify, they can do so without providing documetation in suppot of that finding, and there is no mechanism in either process for requiring the production of all evidence, or reaching a binding determination on contested views of the facts.
The DV process does not require response within any period of time, it provides consumers with a respit against continued collection activities until such time as the debt collector choses to provide the requested debt verification. However, a DV only provides a bar against continued collection activities if sent within the first 30 days after receipt of the dect collector's dunning notice. Presumably, the debt collectors sent the prior required dunnng notice, and more than 30 days has expired, so a DV at this time would most likely be untimely, and coutd simply be ingnored with no effect on the debt collector.
The disute process requires the consumer to show some inaccuracy in their reporting, and it is not sufficient to simply state that the consumer disputes their reporting.
What specific errors can be documented in their reporting that would support a dispute of its accuracy?
For legitimate debt, the normal process is to offer payment if the debt in exchange for deletion of their reported collection, thus obtaining satisfaction of the debt, and a possible score imrovment by removal of the affect of their reported collection.
Does he have supportable basis for showing any inaccuracies, or is the debt and thus their reporting legitimate?
