Anyone got any helpful pointers on this to use it in an appeal. I thought I could use it to back up the assertion that dealing with soiled clothes/bedclothes, changing them and possibly rinsing them could count as attention. After reading the House of Lords record of teh judgement, I'm not so sure.

The Cockburn judgement did go round the houses a bit, but was not the essence of the decision that the changing of bedlinen and nightclothes did count as attention, as did the removal of the soiled bedding and nightwear to a place where they would normally be washed the following day - I think the arguement they used was it was not acceptable for reasons of hygiene to leave these items merely lying on the bedroom floor. However that the washing (which would also include rinsing) of them could not count as attention because it was not of an adequate personal nature, as this would be carried out in the absence of the claimant. Leastways, that's as I recall the gist of it..........

Ramsden v Sec of State for Work and pensions 2003 made a distinction between immediately dealing with the effects of incontinence, which could be attention and included the immediate changing of bedclothes and immediate rinsing etc, and the later washing of the bedclothes which was not attention as the latter was not carried out in the presence of the applicant.