In any dispute filed with a CRA, the CRA is required to forward the dispute to the furnisher of the information, and the furnisher is required to respond back to the CRA within the CRA's reinvestigation period. If basis for the dispute was that you dont recognize the account, the furnisher/debt collector was requried to reiew their documentation,and reach a reasonable determination as to whether it supports your obligation for the asserted debt. If they conclude that they have reasonable basis, they can verify the accuracy back to the CRA. They are not required to send supporting documentation, or "prove" the issue.
If that was the conclusion of the dispute, then you have their statement that they conducted a reasonable investigation, and affirm the accuracy of their reporting.
That ends the dispute. To compel them to produce their documentation, and provide your own contesting documentatiion, requires additional judicial review that is beyond the scope of the FCRA dispute process.
Having concluded a reasonable investigation a verification of the accuracy via a CRA dispute, they can dismiss any subsequent direct dispute without need to re-conduct an investigation.
The inherent problems in resolving factual disputes over "account not mine" is the reason that congress amended the FCRA by addition of the "identity theft" process.
That process avoids all issues over whether the consumer authorized the account. The consumer need only file a sworn affirmation before a law enforcement agency that they did not authorize the accunt, and thus that any reporting of such an account must have occured through use of their identity.
Mailing that police report to the CRA requires them to block that asserted identity theft information from an subsequent credit report they issue. FCRA 605B.
