Readers who have the unfortunate daily penance of commuting in London may like me find some form of diversion in picking up a copy of the Evening Standard newspaper. If you had yesterday, you may have seen an article pointing out the wide disparity in the life expectancy of London men, depending on which area of London they hail from (the article is entitled: “How living in London is seriously harming men’s health”).
Apparently average male life expectancy in the Capital can differ by up to 17 years. The more affluent areas obviously top the poll, with Queen’s gate in Kensington & Chelsea coming out top at 88.3 years, and with Broad Green in Croydon last on 72.1 years. Apart from causing me to reconsider moving out of Maida Vale (6th highest at 85.2 years) it caused me to consider the relevance to the calculation of whole life multipliers.
At a recent Chambers seminar, much interesting discussion was generated with the delegates as to the effect of geographical, cultural, racial and familial factors on the Ogden figures. These discussions were brought out in a number of provocative case scenarios, such as the woman killed at 55 who smoked 40 a day since she was 15, but who has parents of 85 and grandparents of 110 still alive (and working)!
Whilst it is pretty clear that all such factors play an important part in the poll referred to by the Evening Standard (it was undertaken by the GLA Intelligence Unit), should a claimant who fits the “typical” demographic of a particular are of the City, such data could prove a useful shortcut to assessing whole life multipliers and potentially prove at least persuasive to a court.