Majority of the time?

Client who has had nothing but a battle to get DLA and then PIP. Multiple complaints and appeals as well as involving the (near useless) PHSO. Got them standard rate of both for an ongoing period but they have scored 11 on daily living and in my view they should score 13. Contentious area is activity 1.

They have scored 2 points (correctly) for using aids. However, the aids they use have nothing to do with peeling and chopping vegetables i.e. lever arm taps and a perching stool.

My argument is that there’s no connection between 1b and peeling/chopping veg. Situation is that during the week the son cooks and freezes meals for her. She does no more than remove them from the freezer, defrost, cook and eat. On the weekend the daughter in law insists that fresh meals are consumed. Client can assist in a variety of ways e.g. selecting the vegetables; placing the chopped/peeled vegetables in a pan or tray but needs assistance from another person to help perform the task from beginning to end.

DWP MR decision wholly disregards the contribution of the son and therefore concludes that the daughter in laws contribution does not constitute the majority of the time.

So, what am I missing? Should the sons contribution be wholly disregarded and, if not, might there still be an issue over majority of the time? I will need to recheck this but I think he cooks and freezes multiple meals in a short period i.e. not 1 per day for the next day. If he takes, for example, 1 day to prep. 5 meals I think that shows a need for assistance under 1d for the majority of the time.

Thoughts please, and HNY by the way :)

I don’t think you are missing anything.

The claimant is unable to prepare and cook a meal from fresh ingredients. Her ability does not fluctuate - only the help actually available. At weekends, daughter-in-law is available to provide the intensive support that enables the claimant to participate (to some extent) in the preparation and cooking of a meal which, once it is cooked, is eaten. For practical reasons, that help isn’t available for the other 5 days - hence son’s cooking and freezing the meals. But those meals have not been prepared and cooked from fresh ingredients by the claimant.

We all get these Mike - things that seem (and in fact are) so obvious that when the Department argues the opposite we think we must be missing something…..you’re not, at least not as far as I can see.

Thanks. Have clarified that client orders fresh food online. Son helps chop, pack and freeze stuff and she then pulls it out to cook various combined components in a microwave as needed. So, his help is on the one day of the shop but is for all claimants subsequent midweek meals. Client has agreed to appeal but I am also lodging a complaint as the leaving out of the facts re: the son is such an obvious error.