# One of the London Bombers leaves an estate in excess of $200,000 **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 7, 2006, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-of-the-london-bombers-leaves-an-estate-in-excess-of-200-000/338928 "2006-01-07T20:57:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Wallenstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b5a626/32.png) [@Wallenstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wallenstein)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2006, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-of-the-london-bombers-leaves-an-estate-in-excess-of-200-000/338928/21 "2006-01-08T16:24:18Z")
> [@amarone](#): > > But you could only count the full value of the house if he owned it with no mortgage. That would be unusual for any 22 year old, let alone a chip shop worker. Tanweer […] lived with his father, Muhammad Mumtaz, a fish and chip shop owner, and mother, Parvaz Akhtar. Quite possible that he was given money by the brainwashers in Pakistan on his last visit there. ---
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2006, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-of-the-london-bombers-leaves-an-estate-in-excess-of-200-000/338928/22 "2006-01-08T16:24:21Z")
House prices around here (Leeds) took off dranatically about five years ago, and in the last tow or three they went mad. My house in a nearby town went from £36K to £90K in about eight months, and houses in Leeds itself are more expensive. Certain parts of Leeds exceeded this trend, as they were near to renewal zones, but I would not think this would be true of Beeston, which is a dump and has low house prices and property values in general. My guess is that a lot of his money came from his parents who run a chippy, and this would be a way of avoiding taxes, by making tax free gifts in the form of various tax free savings schemes on his behalf, it is well within the bounds of possibility. It may even have been a way of laundering money too, shops in this area are not always economic, and a few have been closed down for being fronts. This could be all legit, or not, we’ll just have to wait until investigations are completed, but if it is connected with a gold seam I really doubt the intelligence agencies will release anything but the most basic information. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2006, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-of-the-london-bombers-leaves-an-estate-in-excess-of-200-000/338928/23 "2006-01-08T16:33:13Z")
Regarding property, mortgages, etc.: Don’t forget that Muslim rules prohibit investments which reward with interest, which means that more Muslims invest in property, often in shared ownership among families. One possibilty is that part of the £120k was such part-ownerships, for which he may not have made an initial investment (i.e. as gifts or loans from elder relatives). ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2006, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-of-the-london-bombers-leaves-an-estate-in-excess-of-200-000/338928/24 "2006-01-08T16:36:45Z")
> [@casdave](#): > > Certain parts of Leeds exceeded this trend, as they were near to renewal zones, but I would not think this would be true of Beeston, which is a dump and has low house prices and property values in general. According to [this report](http://www.hbosplc.com/media/includes/yorkshire&thehumberq22004.doc) (Word document), Beeston is an area where demand in the housing market has ‘outstripped supply’. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2006, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-of-the-london-bombers-leaves-an-estate-in-excess-of-200-000/338928/25 "2006-01-08T16:38:18Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > How about a link, or a quote? I’m not sure what you’re referring to here. I stated that “Civil claims generally are not barred by death – they proceed against the deceased’s estate.” You replied: “Have you evidence for this?” I provided the legal citation of the law that sets out that civil claims generally are not barred by death, and instead proceed against the deceased’s estate: Order 15, rule 6A, of the Rules of the Supreme Court. These rules are what the Supreme (superior) court in England use, which is the court through which people would sue the bomber. The relevant part of the sub-rule reads: > [@](#): > > (1) Where any person against whom an action would have lain has died but the cause of action survives, the action may, if no grant of probate or administration has been made, be brought against the estate of the deceased. > > (2) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), an action brought against ‘the personal representatives of AB deceased’ shall be treated for the purposes of that paragraph, as having been brought against his estate. > > (3) An action purporting to have been commenced against a person shall be treated, if he was dead at its commencement, as having been commenced against his estate in accordance with paragraph (1), whether or not a grant of probate or administration was made before its commencement. As to where you might find this on the WWW, your guess is as good as mine. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2006, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-of-the-london-bombers-leaves-an-estate-in-excess-of-200-000/338928/26 "2006-01-08T16:56:23Z")
**GorillaMan** , you might also wish to track down the appeal decision in CHELTENHAM & GLOUGESTER Plc, Plaintiff/Respondent v. (1) MOORE MANTON (A Firm) (2) ANDREW NEWBY and WILLIAM PARSONS, Defendants, [1998] E.W.J. No. 807, which reviews a decision made by the Leeds District High Court of Justice Queen’s Bench Division, and which goes into Rules of the Supreme Court Order 15, rule 6A. ---
**Author:** ![Campion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@Campion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Campion)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2006, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-of-the-london-bombers-leaves-an-estate-in-excess-of-200-000/338928/27 "2006-01-08T17:26:55Z")
**Muffin** , very interesting. The question that I have (and what I thought **GorillaMan** was getting at) is whether the UK recognizes what in the US is called a wrongful death suit – namely, whether a claim that you killed my decedent is proper. It seems to me that a wrongful death suit, by its very nature, is not the type of suit envisioned by the rule you cited – that seems to apply more to a personal injury suit that becomes a wrongful death suit. (Although I suppose the Rule would apply to a survivor of the bombings who sues, then dies during the pendency of the suit from causes other than injuries caused by the bombing.) Do you know whether the UK recognizes a cause of action for wrongful death? I had never thought about it – I assumed that they must, but now I’m curious and my ability to research UK law (never a strong suit) is no good this morning. Thanks for any help. > [@Lochdale](#): > > In Ireland it’s a chipper. Being Irish that’s the phase I would use. That said, it’s a London ‘chippy’ so I’ll defer to you. No offense taken by the way! In the US, as I recall, chippy is slang for a woman of uncertain virtue. ---
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2006, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-of-the-london-bombers-leaves-an-estate-in-excess-of-200-000/338928/28 "2006-01-08T17:52:37Z")
**Gorilla Man** from your link… > [@](#): > > In Leeds, the overall housing market has shown signs of levelling off after a very buoyant past few months in many areas. But there are a few exceptions, such as Morley and Beeston, where demand is outstripping supply. Many properties over the £250,000 stamp duty threshold are taking longer to sell, but realistically priced housing under £150,000 is still performing well. Buyers who are finding Leeds too expensive are increasingly looking to outlying areas with good transport links. All that actually means is that because the housing is relatively cheap in that area, there is a heavy demand. In Morley, the rules of supply and demand follow what you would expect and high demand has led to higher house prices, but then it was starting off from a low base. Beeston does not follow those rules, the prices still remain relatively low, compare a through terrace house in Beeston against one in Headingly, both being inner city areas and you’ll find at least £20k differance and in some small enclaves a good deal more, given similar houses. The average inner city price for a terrace house in Leeds is around £85k, but in Beeston this is less than £75k [http://www.bbc.co.uk/leeds/citylife/housing/house\_prices.shtml](http://www.bbc.co.uk/leeds/citylife/housing/house_prices.shtml) There are a couple of areas in Leeds that are lower priced, such as Wortley and Holbeck, but Beeston is one of the lowest prices areas around, this is because everyine in Leeds knows that this place is a dump. Here is what we are dealing with, personally I think this article is too kind, as it does not mention the extensive heroin use and consequent crime and violence. [http://www.chavtowns.co.uk/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=828](http://www.chavtowns.co.uk/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=828) ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2006, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-of-the-london-bombers-leaves-an-estate-in-excess-of-200-000/338928/29 "2006-01-08T18:43:22Z")
**Muffin** - thanks for the further information, that’s satisfied my curiosity (and once I had phrases to Google with, [this](http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1998/98313222.htm) was easy to find 🙂 ) I guess I’m surprised that any action can be brought against an estate in this way - unlike if, say, a murdered died before a civil claim for damages was concluded. ---
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2006, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-of-the-london-bombers-leaves-an-estate-in-excess-of-200-000/338928/30 "2006-01-09T21:23:14Z")
At work today I was talking to a colleague who takes the local Leeds Newspaper. It turns out that the subject had a semi-detatched house( duplex) which would be around this value. When you take out a mortgage over here, you must also purchase life assurance for the mortgage term, probably standard practice aroud the world. If the insurance had been taken out in good faith, which it seems it was, then the policy would pay out on the policyholders death, and this would pay off any outstanding amount on the mortgage, leaving the deceased with a house as part of the estate. It may stick in the craw, but it appears this is what happened. ---
**Author:** ![gigi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a587f6/32.png) [@gigi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gigi)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2006, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-of-the-london-bombers-leaves-an-estate-in-excess-of-200-000/338928/31 "2006-01-09T22:03:52Z")
> [@Campion](#): > > In the US, as I recall, chippy is slang for a woman of uncertain virtue. :eek: You’re right! I always used it to mean an air-headed flighty girl into girly things but I stand corrected. Ooops. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2006, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-of-the-london-bombers-leaves-an-estate-in-excess-of-200-000/338928/32 "2006-01-09T22:34:58Z")
> [@casdave](#): > > If the insurance had been taken out in good faith, which it seems it was, then the policy would pay out on the policyholders death, and this would pay off any outstanding amount on the mortgage, leaving the deceased with a house as part of the estate. I’m amazed that an insurance company paid out so willingly. It took a friend of mine three months to settle a claim on her mortgage after her husband died. And I’m also surprised that such insurance policies don’t exclude suicide. ---
**Author:** ![Bippy\_the\_Beardless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ac8455/32.png) [@Bippy\_the\_Beardless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bippy_the_Beardless)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2006, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-of-the-london-bombers-leaves-an-estate-in-excess-of-200-000/338928/33 "2006-01-09T23:12:50Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > I’m amazed that an insurance company paid out so willingly. It took a friend of mine three months to settle a claim on her mortgage after her husband died. And I’m also surprised that such insurance policies don’t exclude suicide. I’m also amazed, what life assurance policies exist that pay out for suicides? ---
**Author:** ![Wallenstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b5a626/32.png) [@Wallenstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wallenstein)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 8:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-of-the-london-bombers-leaves-an-estate-in-excess-of-200-000/338928/34 "2006-01-10T08:51:04Z")
> [@Bippy the Beardless](#): > > I’m also amazed, what life assurance policies exist that pay out for suicides? Has the coroner officially recorded that the death was indeed suicide? There seems reasonable circumstantial evidence that this was the case, but legally it might be still open pending further investigation? Even then I would imagine the policy would be placed on-hold until a decision? Perhaps it pays out on the proviso that if the verdict comes back as suicide they money is returned. There are some inconsistencies around the bombings - ie. whether all the men genuinely knew they were carrying bombs etc - I don’t know if these have been cleared in a court of law yet. ---
**Author:** ![Wallenstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b5a626/32.png) [@Wallenstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wallenstein)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 8:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-of-the-london-bombers-leaves-an-estate-in-excess-of-200-000/338928/35 "2006-01-10T08:53:02Z")
From a wikipedia article: “However, after a number of court judgments against the industry, payouts do occur on death by suicide” - usually when it can be shown that the policy-holder was about to benefit anyway, but there may other circumstances. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life\_Assurance](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_Assurance) ---
**Author:** ![Wallenstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b5a626/32.png) [@Wallenstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wallenstein)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 8:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-of-the-london-bombers-leaves-an-estate-in-excess-of-200-000/338928/36 "2006-01-10T08:55:52Z")
Sorry, one more… From HDFC Standard Life: > [@](#): > > The following exclusions apply: > > Term Assurance Plan > We shall not be liable to pay the benefit amount indicated in your policy schedule if the death of the life assured or the death of the first to die of the lives assured is caused directly or indirectly by suicide **within one year of the date of commencement** , or the date of issue of the policy, if later. Does this suggest that if the policy is over a year old it will still pay out in the case of suicide? ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 8:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-of-the-london-bombers-leaves-an-estate-in-excess-of-200-000/338928/37 "2006-01-10T08:58:15Z")
> [@e-logic](#): > > Has the coroner officially recorded that the death was indeed suicide? > > There seems reasonable circumstantial evidence that this was the case, but legally it might be still open pending further investigation? > > Even then I would imagine the policy would be placed on-hold until a decision? Perhaps it pays out on the proviso that if the verdict comes back as suicide they money is returned. > > There are some inconsistencies around the bombings - ie. whether all the men genuinely knew they were carrying bombs etc - I don’t know if these have been cleared in a court of law yet. I believe that the coronor keeps a case open when it’s part of an ongoing criminal investigation, as in this situation. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2006, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-of-the-london-bombers-leaves-an-estate-in-excess-of-200-000/338928/38 "2006-01-11T01:49:23Z")
> [@Campion](#): > > Do you know whether the UK recognizes a cause of action for wrongful death? I am not aware of a common law tort for wrongful death, but there is a statutory tort in England for wrongful death that permits dependants and close family members seek relief. See the Fatal Accidents Act 1976, Ch. 30 at s.1 (as substituted/amended by the Administration of Justice Act 1982, Ch. 53, s. 3): > [@](#): > > 1 (1) If death is caused by any wrongful act, neglect or default which is such as would (if death had not ensued) have entitled the person injured to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the person who would have been liable if death had not ensued shall be liable to an action for damages, notwithstanding the death of the person injured. > (2) Subject to section 1A(2) below, every such action shall be for the benefit of the dependants of the person (“the deceased”) whose death has been so caused. > (3) In this Act “dependant” means---- > (a) the wife or husband or former wife or husband of the deceased; > (b) any person who---- > (i) was living with the deceased in the same household immediately before the date of the death; and > (ii) had been living with the deceased in the same household for at least two years before that date; and > (iii) was living during the whole of that period as the husband or wife of the deceased; > (c) any parent or other ascendant of the deceased; > (d) any person who was treated by the deceased as his parent; > (e) any child or other descendant of the deceased; > (f) any person (not being a child of the deceased) who, in the case of any marriage to which the deceased was at any time a party, was treated by the deceased as a child of the family in relation to that marriage; > (g) any person who is, or is the issue of, a brother, sister, uncle or aunt of the deceased. > (4) The reference to the former wife or husband of the deceased in subsection (3)(a) above includes a reference to a person whose marriage to the deceased has been annulled or declared void as well as a person whose marriage to the > deceased has been dissolved. > (5) In deducing any relationship for the purposes of subsection (3) above---- > (a) any relationship by affinity shall be treated as a relationship by consanguinity, any relationship of the half blood as a relationship of the whole blood, and the stepchild of any person as his child, and > (b) an illegitimate person shall be treated as the legitimate child of his mother and reputed father. > (6) Any reference in this Act to injury includes any disease and any impairment of a person’s physical or mental condition. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-of-the-london-bombers-leaves-an-estate-in-excess-of-200-000/338928.md?page=1)