The dispute process is really not the way to resolve "account not mine" issues.
When you dispute an account as not having been opened/authorized by you, the furnisher is required to investigate.
Presumably, they have some documentation in their records showing that you were the party who opened the account. Their documentation may be fraudulent, but it nonetheless exists. They have no duty or obligation to conduct a private investigation of fraud or identity theft. They can rely unpon resonable documentation.
In response to a dispute, they are required only to conduct a reasonable investigation and report the results, either to the CRA, or if a direct dispute, to the consumer.
They are not required to proivde their supporting documentation or "prove" the legitimacy.
So their verification is adequate if they have reasonable documents to support their finding.
Yes, second and subsequent disputes on substantially the same basis can be dismissed without the need for a second investigation of the same matter if no new information is presented.
So you are left with a proper verification.
Realizing the dilemma of neither party being able to factually prove an account not mine assertion, congress incorporated provisions in the FCRA that require blocking of any such information from a consumer's credit report without the need for proofs on either side. To initiate such a block, the consumer is first required to put their assertion into the form of a sworn police report, which carries penalties for knowingly false statements made therein.
File a police report asserting that you never authorized the account, and send the police/identity theft report to the CRA, along with proof of your identity.
The CRA is then required to block the asserted identity theft information from any credit report they issue. FCRA 605B.
Once you have the polce report, you can also send it to the OC, and compel them to provide all business records in their possession regarding the account. FCRA 609(e).
That mini-discovery right then provides the consumer some factual basis to challenge the OCs determination that you are the responsible party.
