Unemployed 41-Year-Old Loses Battle To Have Parents Pay Him Allowance For Life

Nov 04, 2021 by apost team

Faiz Siddiqui, a 41-year-old Oxford graduate who sued his parents to pay him more than the £400-a-week ($545) allowance he was already receiving, lost his appeal, according to a November 2021 Daily Mail report.

Siddiqui and his lawyers argued that his parents, Dubai residents Rakshanda and Javed Siddiqui, were violating his human rights once they stopped providing for his life in London. They took the case to court in 2020.

But James Munby of the High Court threw out Siddiqui’s case, which prompted the 41-year-old to take his claim to the Court of Appeals. However, Siddiqui lost his appeal, as the court threw out his case a second time.

The 41-year-old at the center of this unique legal battle studied at Oxford’s Brasenose College, graduating with a 2:1 in law. Siddiqui went on to practice at two top law firms, Burgess Salmon and Field Fisher Waterhouse, before working as a tax advisor at Ernst & Young, one of the prestigious Big Four accounting firms.

But since 2011, Siddiqui has been unemployed, relying on his parents to live a lavish lifestyle. According to the Mail, he lives rent-free in a £1 million ($1.3 million) London apartment near Hyde Park. On top of that, Siddiqui's parents paid for his utilities and gave him around £1,500 ($2,000) each month, according to the Siddiqui’s family’s lawyer, Justin Warshaw, who is quoted in the Mail’s piece. 

On the other hand, Siddiqui argued that his parents had “nurtured his dependency” on them and that by cutting off his maintenance payments, they were leaving it up to the state to provide for him.

According to the Mail, Siddiqui’s lawyer Hugh Southey argued that under the 1989 Children's Act his client is eligible to apply for maintenance because of his health issues, which classify him as a “vulnerable” adult.

The House of Commons Library describes the act as “a general duty on local authorities to promote and safeguard the welfare of children in need in their area by providing a range of services appropriate to those children’s needs.

In addition, it “sets out what a local authority must do when it has reasonable cause to suspect that a child in its area is suffering, or is likely to suffer significant harm.”

However, the former head of the Family Division James Munby has called the case “unprecedented,” adding that “the initial reaction of most experienced family lawyers would be a robust disbelief that there is even arguable substance to any of it.”

Siddiqui’s parents and their lawyers agreed.

“What Mr. Siddiqui seeks is to foist a relationship of financial dependency on parents who do not wish that relationship to continue,” Warshaw said.

“These long-suffering parents have reached their own view of what is suitable provision for their difficult, demanding and pertinacious 41-year-old son.”

Lord Justice Nicholas Underhill of the Court of Appeal agreed with Warshaw’s argument, ultimately throwing out Siddiqui’s lawsuit.

“It is the considered policy of Parliament that parents may only be ordered to provide support to their adult children in the context of relationship breakdown and that there should be no general discretionary power to require the provision of such support outside that context,” Underhill said.

apost.com

This isn’t the first time that Siddiqui has sued. According to the Mail, he also took Oxford University to court in 2018, suing the institution after he received a 2:1, which is roughly equivalent to a B-average in the U.S. The grade, Siddiqui and his lawyers argued, robbed him of a successful legal career and the opportunity to study at a prestigious university in the U.S. Moreover, the Oxford graduate blamed the institution’s “inadequate” teaching for his final grade. Siddiqui and his legal counsel estimated that the 2:1 grade led to a loss of earnings of  £1 million ($1.3 million).

A High Court judge threw out the lawsuit, ruling that “inadequate preparation” and ”lack of academic discipline” were behind his 2:1 grade and not the university’s inadequate teaching.

Siddiqui's most recent lawsuit isn’t just legally dubious; Apost.com readers have also taken issue with the 41-year-old’s case, with some criticizing Siddiqui and others blaming the parents:

“This is what happens when parents spoil their children and don't prepare them for life in the real world. Doesn't matter if you live in a mansion with a millionaire lifestyle or a tiny house on a low income,” Mary Wallington commented.

“What a sad man. Time for his parents to cut him off completely before it's too late for him to stand on his own two feet. I hope they are already divesting themselves of their fortune because this manchild will be gearing up to contest their wills if he doesn't get it all,” Julia McKendry added.

What do you think of Siddiqui’s case? Do you agree with the 41-year-old or his parents? Let us know, and be sure to pass this remarkable story on to friends and family members.