C'mon Rottie - are you going to let them off the hook because it may cost them a little to maintain records and cross-reference them?
No, I am being realistic. Businesses do NOT keep records forever, and a CA would certainly not have motivation to keep this information once the account is out of their hands.
I expect them to remember that they have been told that any calls to me at any location are inconvenient at any time and the fact that they have two accounts for me instead of one doesn't change that fact. They are on notice, I told them, FDCPA does not stipulate that notice of inconvenient collection forum is debt-specific.
The FDCPA does not require that the CA keep any such information once they are no longer 'working' the account. Since the IRS does not care whether a consumer told the CA to "stop playing on their phone" or not (and neither does state law, the SEC, etc.), the CA has no motivation to spend that money in anticipation of future collection accounts from the same individual. Collection accounts that may never show up in their system.
Flying, you know that CA's HATE spending one more red cent than they have to. Heck, Ebeneezer Scrooge (before he reformed) would have been more likely to endow a charity hospital ward than the average CA would actually invest their "hard-earned" profits in a record keeping system that would actually do what you would want it to as a "just in case".
Another point: I doubt that the Congress was thinking of multiple debt files--from different creditors-- being assigned to the same CA at different times back in 1976; that's why the FDCPA is silent on this point. I have not seen case law that answers on point yet, either. Have you?
In fact, a stronger argument could be made the other way - that it is blanket.
The way the law is written? Don't think so. In fact, I bet this point would be a matter of first impression (precedent-setting) if it gets to litigation.
