Apple faces £1.5bn law suit over app store fees
Many of these individuals took their own lives or, like Mr T, were discovered after having starved to death.
Others died within days of being found fit to work, by the Government’s Work Capability Assessment (WCA) process, which determines if claimants are entitled to sickness or out-of-work benefits.
Since 2014, four Prevention of Future Death (PFD) reports have been issued to the DWP by coroners following inquests into the deaths of benefits claimants.
One PFD report was submitted to the DWP after the death of single mother Philippa Day, of Nottingham, after a coroner found 28 errors were made in managing her case. The 27-yearold took a fatal overdose in 2019 after her benefits payments were cut.
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Therese Coffey, maintains the DWP ‘does not have a duty of care or statutory safeguarding duty.’
But human rights specialist Tessa Gregory, partner at law firm Leigh Day, said there was a ‘dissonance’ between the DWP’s legal stance and its role in some instances providing the sole income for vulnerable people.
These deaths have definitely not received
the attention they should have
She said: “When DWP decisionmaking goes wrong it can, as we have seen in far too many cases, have devastating and sometimes fatal consequences, so it is vital that decisions are taken with full regard to a person’s disability.”
Ken Butler, welfare rights adviser at the charity Disability Rights UK, said: “Even if it is legally correct that the DWP does not have a statutory duty of care, surely it would be better for it to operate on the basis that it does?”
Debbie Abrahams, Labour MP for Oldham and East Saddleworth, who previously read out the names of 29 individuals to have died during a Commons debate, said there should be an independent inquiry into the scale and number of deaths allegedly linked to DWP activity.
She said: “These deaths have definitely not received the attention they should have. I believe that the ones that you have collated are just the tip of the iceberg.”
A Department for Work & Pensions (DWP) spokesperson said: “We support millions of people a year and our priority is that they get the benefits to which they are entitled.
“In the vast majority of cases this happens but when, sadly, there is a tragic case we take it very seriously.
“In those circumstances it’s absolutely right we carry out an internal review to check if the correct processes were followed.”
APPLe is facing a billion-pound legal claim after being accused of breaking UK competition law by “overcharging” millions of people for apps on its App Store.
The tech giant has been accused of deliberately shutting out the competition in the store and forcing people to use its own payment processing system, generating “excessive” profits for itself in the process.
The claim, which is being brought on behalf of potentially millions of UK Apple users, has been filed in the Competition Appeal Tribunal and calls for Apple to repay UK customers it says have been overcharged because of the company’s practices, with damages of up to £1.5 billion being sought.
It says as many as 19.6 million UK users could be eligible for compensation.
The claim argues that
Apple’s policy of forcing developers to use Apple’s payment systems for in-app purchases and taking up to 30% commission on those transactions is unfair.
Apple is currently the subject of a court case in the US brought by Fortnite maker epic Games, which has accused the iPhone maker of using the App Store and the 15% to 30% commission it takes on in-app purchases in that store as a way of stifling competition.
The UK collective action has been brought by Dr Rachael Kent, of King’s College, London, who said: “The App Store was a brilliant gateway for a range of interesting and innovative services that millions of us find useful, myself included.
“[But]Apple guards access to the world of apps jealously, and charges entry and usage fees that are completely unjustified.
“This is the behaviour of a monopolist and is unacceptable.”
Apple is yet to comment on the new UK legal action.