Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
Preparing Food - Reasonable Timescale
Have attended a FFT on Friday where the client only had use of his left hand as his right hand had been crushed in an ind injury several years ago. Client incidentally is also right handed. The Judge said it was reasonable for the client to peel potatoes using his left/weak hand on one of those peeling devices on the Boots web site. Has anyone successfully argued that if a client takes twice as long to prepare a meal (re peeling) compared with another person without the disability then the descriptor applies.
28th July 2015 DWP PIP Guidance 3.3.2
• In a reasonable time period – no more than twice as long as the maximum period that a non-disabled person would normally take to complete that activity.
What descriptor were you seeking to argue for? It seems clear he needs an aid/adaptation
I haven’t. However, it may be worth reading CDLA/4294/2012, which says peeling root vegetables isn’t necessary, which may come up if you challenge the decision in the Upper Tribunal, thus removing points for this, potentially.
Link to CDLA/4294/2012 here - http://www.osscsc.gov.uk/Aspx/view.aspx?id=4058
Though that of course is DLA and PIP is a completely different benefit. I agree with seand that he should definitely score for aids and adaptations.
The reasonable time period in reg 4 of the PIP regs applies to all activities so I think you can definitely argue that - so if he can’t cook a simple meal in less than twice the time of a person without the disability then he should score 4 points.
I think the issue goes much futher than peeling. It would very difficult to someone without the use of either arm let alone the dominant one to carry out many of the tasks involved in cooking safely and reliably in less than twice the normal time, certainly without aids and adaptions —stirring, cutting, chopping, measuring, lifting pots , open tins and jars for instance would all pose challenges…. (narrowly avoided having to edit this to change my initial ‘peeing’ to ‘peeling’!)
Dear Paul - I completely agree in that if a client takes twice the time to peel or chop or cut or wash (with regards preparation ) food then they can’t be taken to be able to prepare food in any event. Reg 7 PIPs Regs states the descriptor with the highest points must be awarded if several descriptors all apply together. The same client may be able to use a microwave to cook but at the same time takes twice as long as a person without a certain disability to prepare food then 1F applies. 1C is a red herring and it’s awarded to appease the applicant ie “Oh well 2 points is better than nothing”!
Dear Paul - I completely agree in that if a client takes twice the time to peel or chop or cut or wash (with regards preparation ) food then they can’t be taken to be able to prepare food in any event. Reg 7 PIPs Regs states the descriptor with the highest points must be awarded if several descriptors all apply together. The same client may be able to use a microwave to cook but at the same time takes twice as long as a person without a certain disability to prepare food then 1F applies. 1C is a red herring and it’s awarded to appease the applicant ie “Oh well 2 points is better than nothing”!
I’m not sure I agree with this specific example. Somebody who is unable to prepare vegetables but is able to do other tasks is likely to meet 1E - as somebody can chop the vegetables for them whilst they do the other tasks. I think 1F is a pretty high hurdle although I think it will take UT caselaw to establish exactly what level of assistance is required to constitute somebody being unable to cook/prepare. My starting point would be to argue that if overall the ‘assistant’ is doing more than half the tasks then the preparation part of 1F should be satisfied as it is the claimant who is now the assistant.
I also still don’t agree with your general reading of 1F. The structure of the other descriptors B-E speak of “either prepare or cook”. I think the change in language from that to “prepare and cook” makes it fairly clear that in order to satisfy 1F you must be both unable to prepare food and unable to cook it (even with a microwave) if it has been prepared for you by someone else.
Having said that I think there is maybe a argument that is worth trying along the lines of there are no lower descriptors for people who cannot prepare but can cook (or visa-versa), with all the lower descriptors talking about being able to do it with supervision/assistance but it still feels a bit flimsy to me if I’m honest. I’ll still give it a go if it comes up but I’ll be making clear to the client that it is a speculative argument.
Actually, how long is the maximum amount of time a person without a disability would take to prepare and cook such a meal? Are we to guess? Some people cook very quickly and some very slowly. Are we to assume the various elements (chopping, heating water, frying) are being done concurrently or consecutively? Does one look at each part individually and decide whether the person can complete them independently of each other - e.g. boiling rice - 10 minutes, chopping carrots - 10 minutes, boiling potatoes - 20 minutes, then aggregate them to give a total time (40 minutes)? There is scope for a great deal of inconsistency, where a “normal” amount of time is determined by the composition of the tribunal on the day, or the Department Case Manager.
There may be case law on it, but if there is, I haven’t seen it.