I have someone else's pension

Sandtree

Write "return to sender - addressee unknown" on each envelope and return them unopened - no need to add postage etc. Once this is done it'll trigger their tracing programme

Eldi_Dos

Clever people them Victorians it's not only their buildings that were designed to last.

dunstonh

I haven't written to Zurich (the pension provider). So far they have been sloppy, in picking the nearest address they could find when they lost touch with the pension owner, and then lazy by not dealing with the issue when I pointed it out to them on the phone. I really should formalise it by writing to them / their data protection officer / CEO - as well as the Information Commissioner.

Forget CEO - it will be passed to their complaints team.
Forget data protection officer - their complaints team will take care of it
Forget information commissioner as its not a data breach that affects you and on individual issues like this, the data protection issue will just notify Zurich and tell them to take care in future.
The complaints team at Zurich is the one to deal with.   The rest is just creating work for work sake.

Or just return it - not known at this address.

ratechaser

I would just add that if I were on the other end of this, i.e. the one that was getting my statements directed to someone else, I'd be quite grateful for any action the OP decided to take to try and sort it out. Yes - return to sender might be the right approach here, but I do think it's to their credit that they want to explore all possible options here...

MPD20

Why are you so anxious to interfere? This isn't your problem and the Information Commissioner will be quick to point that out if you waste your time contacting them: your data isn't being misused, nor is it your concern as to whether the pension and its owner are happily reunited in a future life.

You're right. This isn't my problem and I am not really concerned about data misuses. Nor do I wish to waste anyone's time. But I am truly concerned that my namesake is united with his pension. Realistically, I may never find out if he is or not, but to return mail just seems a little bit hit and miss, hence my desire to find a process that Zurich cannot just ignore, again.

noitsnotme

Marcon said:

MPD20 said:

Thank you, everyone.

I haven't written to Zurich (the pension provider). So far they have been sloppy, in picking the nearest address they could find when they lost touch with the pension owner, and then lazy by not dealing with the issue when I pointed it out to them on the phone. I really should formalise it by writing to them / their data protection officer / CEO - as well as the Information Commissioner.

My only worry is that it gets taken out of my hands, but I never know if the pension finds its true owner.

The DWP have reassured me that my records and the pension owner's records are both correct, but obviously can't supply details.

Why are you so anxious to interfere? This isn't your problem and the Information Commissioner will be quick to point that out if you waste your time contacting them: your data isn't being misused, nor is it your concern as to whether the pension and its owner are happily reunited in a future life.

You don’t have to be the affected party to report it to the ICO.  Just last week I reported one of the big energy companies to the ICO for emailing me someone else’s account details.  I had already tried to talk to the energy company about it but they just span a bunch of lies and brushed it off.  The ICO chap I spoke to was very supportive and told me exactly how I should report it.  

Why shouldn’t I report it just because it’s not my data?  It could be my data next time.

xylophone

hence my desire to find a process that Zurich cannot just ignore, again.

I think that the best you can do is to write to Zurich and make a formal complaint.

gerdo

Marcon said:

MPD20 said:

Thank you, everyone.

I haven't written to Zurich (the pension provider). So far they have been sloppy, in picking the nearest address they could find when they lost touch with the pension owner, and then lazy by not dealing with the issue when I pointed it out to them on the phone. I really should formalise it by writing to them / their data protection officer / CEO - as well as the Information Commissioner.

My only worry is that it gets taken out of my hands, but I never know if the pension finds its true owner.

The DWP have reassured me that my records and the pension owner's records are both correct, but obviously can't supply details.

Why are you so anxious to interfere? This isn't your problem and the Information Commissioner will be quick to point that out if you waste your time contacting them: your data isn't being misused, nor is it your concern as to whether the pension and its owner are happily reunited in a future life.

This isn't 'in your hands' and trying to get involved won't solve anything. As suggested above, return any future post unopened, marked 'not known here'.

Interfere???  The OP is just trying to help someone out who may be missing out on a pension. Some people are nice that way.

FaceHead

I disagree that return to sender is the right approach, which seems to be the consensus. The OP is receiving letters addressed in their name, so they duly open them. They've probably gotten to know Zurich's PO Box address on the back and font, but most are recommending they write 'not known here' on a letter with their own name on it. 

Agree that writing to Zurich is the right think to do. Even if it's not your 'concern', it's the right thing to do. Perhaps to the CEO as it might go into a special complaints pot with more competent handlers. Or you might be able to get hold of someone competent through twitter, facebook etc. 

p00hsticks

ratechaser said:

I would just add that if I were on the other end of this, i.e. the one that was getting my statements directed to someone else, I'd be quite grateful for any action the OP decided to take to try and sort it out. Yes - return to sender might be the right approach here, but I do think it's to their credit that they want to explore all possible options here...

Whilst I agree to a certain extent, I strongly suspect that the situation has arisen because the owner of the pension hasn't bothered notifying the provider when they moved, and post was therefore sent back 'return to sender'. The pension team has tried to locate the owner but ended up with the OP instead - them also returning to sender may well instigate them giving it another try at locating the correct person.