Fri 19-Dec-08 02:11 PM by ken
I think that a tribunal could argue there is sufficient case law that allows for the reasonable use of a microwave to help in in the 'preparation' of a main meal.
However, in terms of ingredients, the commissioner in R(DLA) 2/95 held that -
'The word 'prepare' emphasises a claimant's ability to make all the ingredients ready for cooking. This includes the peeling and chopping of fresh vegetables as opposed to frozen vegetables which require no real preparation.'
Commenting on this, the commissioner in CDLA/5686/1999 said -
'What, the Commissioner was pointing out in R(DLA) 2/95 is that it may be wholly unnecessary for such a main meal to be prepared and so help may not actually be required. That is because relying much of the time on largely pre-cooked meals may well be satisfactory as a means of keeping oneself fed. The ability to re-heat pre-cooked meals is not sufficient to prevent a claimant from satisfying the condition of section 72(1)(a)(ii).
In that sense, I would agree … that the test is not to see whether claimants can cope. However, none of that is relevant to the question whether a tribunal may have regard to unconventional methods of preparing a cooked main meal for one using basic ingredients. In other words, while the test is not a test of whether a claimant can cope with preparing a cooked main meal if the use of pre-cooked convenience foods is taken into account, it is a test of whether a claimant can cope with preparing a cooked main meal for one using basic ingredients. The statutory language is unambiguous.'
|