That is not proper, but is not uncommon, either by way of sending of collection notices to the wrong party, or CA posting in the CR of the improper party.
What it means is the the CA did a crappy job of obtainining proper identification of the party and OC account association with the debt before sending the collection notice, and just took the quick and easy way out.
When a CA enters the picture, they almost never have full access to account information stored in the OCs account database. So they do a quick and dirty on iD'ing the party who owns the OC account. Rather than going back to the OC for postivie ID, they commonly do what is called a "skip trace" of CRA accounts that most broadly meet the criteria specified. If they only specify last name and address, a spouse or other family member may be identified.
I dont support such lazy practices for a second, for they can lead to lots of serious probems, beginning with improper collection notices, whcih you have seen, improper postings to ones CR, or even the bringing of legal action against a party who had no ownership of the debt at bar.
This needs to be regulated under the FDCPA, but currently is not. You have identified serious need for FDCPA, and even FCRA, reform.
A quick, and probably pretty effective, shot a first reform would be to amend FDCPA 809(a) to include, in any collection notice they send, the full SSN of the consumer, if known to them, the full name, including any suffixes, know to them, and the full address, along with a certification that the collection notice is being sent to you only after their good faith matching of each of these know criteria to their records.
