So, if a CA sent me validation, ie. a copy of services rendered, then when this collection was disputed with the CRA, the dispute came back "additional info. has been provided from the original source reqarding this item," they have violated privacy laws? The only additional info. that was provided to me was the services that were rendered for my child.
You're all asking a pretty loaded question here. There already is a system of attack for these kinds of debts but it's not guaranteed to work every time. It's all predicated on the issue of whether or not the MP does in fact have your written permission to share your data. In most MP offices it's incorportade in the paper work you sign when you first see the Dr. Begin by demanding a copy of these documents containing your signature. If they do have it you may be able to "rescind" your signature, but that may apply only to what happens AFTER you've done so. This may prevent the MP form providing info. to their "assignee", the CA. The forwarding of info from the CA to the CRA is a seperate issue. That is where I think we are going to get some results.
Previous thread by marie: http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?threadid=23942 Sassy
