× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Disability benefits  →  Thread

cannot cook using a cooker but can using a microwave

BC Welfare Rights
forum member

The Brunswick Centre, Kirklees & Calderdale

Send message

Total Posts: 1366

Joined: 22 July 2013

Has anyone had experience of how this applies in practice? (PIP Activity 1, Descriptor C). I’ve got a couple of appeals where I am arguing that claimant needs supervision or assistance from another person (descriptor E, 4 points) due to mobility and balance difficulties in the kitchen but wonder whether I will be stymied by descriptor C (2 points).

Now I’m from the old school of cookery and can’t really see how you could cook an acceptable main meal just using a microwave - new potatoes boiled in the microwave anyone? - but would a tribunal beg to differ here?

The regs don’t say much and the guidance for healthcare providers just says: “may apply to claimants who cannot safely use a cooker hob and hot pans.” It also says: “factors such as nutrition and variety should not be considered as this activity is looking at the ability to prepare and cook, as opposed to planning a meal.” What about cultural needs in this context, such as a person who predominantly eats traditional East African food that has never been cooked in a microwave, could this be a line of argument? Or would the response be you can make scrambled eggs in the microwave so your alright?

Ros
Administrator

editor, rightsnet.org.uk

Send message

Total Posts: 1323

Joined: 6 June 2010

Hi - CDLA/2367/2004 held that -

’... we have moved from the position where a claimant might satisfy the criteria if s/he could not, most of the time, prepare a cooked main meal for one on a traditional cooker.

The better view now is that it is more a question of what the claimant does with the microwave most of the time which will enable the appropriate decision to be made as to whether s/he satisfies the criteria for an award. It is clear that if the only activity that a claimant carries out with the microwave is to pierce a plastic lid, place the item in the microwave and adjust the controls, this will not equate to the preparation of a cooked main meal for one. If, however, the range of activities conducted by the claimant is, in broad terms, much the same whether or not the meal is then cooked in or on a traditional cooker or in a microwave, there is no reason why the use of the microwave should not be taken into account. It will be borne in mind that it has long been held that it is not necessary for a claimant to be able to bend to the oven nor hold heavy pans to prepare a cooked main meal for one.’

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/briefcase/summary/Use-of-a-microwave-in-the-cooking-test

http://www.osscsc.gov.uk/aspx/view.aspx?id=1663

I guess similar approach might apply to PIP?

nevip
forum member

Welfare rights adviser - Sefton Council, Liverpool

Send message

Total Posts: 3135

Joined: 16 June 2010

Yes, the test is can he preapare a simple meal (not a snack) using fresh ingredients?

““simple meal” means a cooked one-course meal for one using fresh ingredients”; (PIP Regs, Schedule 1, Part1)

 

Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 3138

Joined: 17 June 2010

Problem with microwaves is that they’re located on work tops. So, can be issues with leaning in; making sure plates and dishes are located centrally and rotating properly. There are also issues about being able to navigate hot items in, out and in again in small spaces. Requires a bit more manual dexterity than “plonk on ring” partly because most microwaves are smaller than single ovens. 

I may be revealing more about my approach to cooking here than I might wish, but…

Also look at things like VI. Can the person read the buttons on the microwave and can they easily manipulate them. Again, not quite the same as “plonk on ring, put on gas”.

Personally, I’m waiting for the first halogen oven decision. “Cannot change light bulb without assistance and much swearing”!

Mr Finch
forum member

Benefits adviser - Isle of Wight CAB

Send message

Total Posts: 509

Joined: 4 March 2011

nevip - 16 September 2014 11:29 AM

Yes, the test is can he preapare a simple meal (not a snack) using fresh ingredients?

““simple meal” means a cooked one-course meal for one using fresh ingredients”; (PIP Regs, Schedule 1, Part1)

I have heard reports of being people being asked about putting a ready meal, or chips, in the microwave. If this is right, claimants are waiting six months or more for a fundamentally flawed assessment.

As far as I can see, cooking fresh ingredients in a microwave is likely to be more difficult and possibly more dangerous, although it may perhaps offer a speed advantage.

Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 3138

Joined: 17 June 2010

MrFinch - 16 September 2014 11:48 AM
nevip - 16 September 2014 11:29 AM

Yes, the test is can he preapare a simple meal (not a snack) using fresh ingredients?

““simple meal” means a cooked one-course meal for one using fresh ingredients”; (PIP Regs, Schedule 1, Part1)

I have heard reports of being people being asked about putting a ready meal, or chips, in the microwave. If this is right, claimants are waiting six months or more for a fundamentally flawed assessment.

As far as I can see, cooking fresh ingredients in a microwave is likely to be more difficult and possibly more dangerous, although it may perhaps offer a speed advantage.

Yes, I think there has been much fundamental misinterpretation of the current regs. “Fresh” is a key word but also open to interpretation unfortunately.

nevip
forum member

Welfare rights adviser - Sefton Council, Liverpool

Send message

Total Posts: 3135

Joined: 16 June 2010

nevip - 16 September 2014 11:29 AM

Yes, the test is can he preapare a simple meal (not a snack) using fresh ingredients?

““simple meal” means a cooked one-course meal for one using fresh ingredients”; (PIP Regs, Schedule 1, Part1)

It will be a question af fact in each case.  And, ready meals, frozen chips or microwaveable chips in boxes are clearly not fresh ingedients.

BC Welfare Rights
forum member

The Brunswick Centre, Kirklees & Calderdale

Send message

Total Posts: 1366

Joined: 22 July 2013

Thanks.

What about he cultural aspect of traditional food that may require various spices, vegetables that could not be cooked to an acceptable standard in a microwave, etc.? I’m vegetarian and don’t even know whether it is possible to cook fresh meat properly in a microwave, my feeling is that it would be minging but maybe I’m just a food snob??

If it is not a test to “ascertain whether the applicant can survive, or enjoy a reasonable diet without assistance” would that necessarily preclude a cultural preference for certain foodstuffs?

nevip
forum member

Welfare rights adviser - Sefton Council, Liverpool

Send message

Total Posts: 3135

Joined: 16 June 2010

In R(DLA) 2/95 the commissioner said, at para 9:

“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. However in my view a chop, a piece of fish or meat ready minced does not fall in the category of “convenience foods” and are permissible as basic ingredients. I should add for completeness that because the test is objective it is irrelevant that a claimant may never wish to cook such a meal or that it is considered financially impossible”.

The difference between DLA and PIP is that the DLA legislation did not include the word “fresh” whereas the PIP regulations clearly do.  We also need to remember Moyna where the HL said that the cooking test was a “thought experiment designed to calibrate the severity of disability”.  Whether that decision survives the legislative change is open to question.

BC Welfare Rights
forum member

The Brunswick Centre, Kirklees & Calderdale

Send message

Total Posts: 1366

Joined: 22 July 2013

Apologies for resurrecting this old thread but I’m struggling to get my head around where case law is with this.

In CPIP/190/2016 Judge Mesher says (as far as I can understand it) that because Descriptor C refers only to cooking food, not preparing it, that if a claimant can put a meal made from fresh ingredients but prepared by someone else into a microwave and cook it they can’t score higher than C. Yet that decision purports to agree with with Judge Gray’s decision in CPIP/1418/2015 which states “the mention of microwave cooking in descriptor 1C does not mean the heating of ready prepared microwave meals.”

The difference may be found in the definition of “fresh ingredients” but to me this seems to be a (microwaved) red herring; it makes no difference if someone is bunging a take away or a gourmet meal into the microwave, the functional ability to do this is the same.

Can anyone explain to me please?

ClairemHodgson
forum member

Solicitor, SC Law, Harrow

Send message

Total Posts: 1221

Joined: 13 April 2016

looking at the descriptors, C says nothing about “preparing” the meal to be cooked. 

But all the other descriptors say “prepare or cook” (B, D, E) or “prepare and cook” (A,F) (i.e, look to both the preparation of food and the cooking of food)

so one has to think that C assumes a person who is capable of the relevant preparation of the relevant fresh ingredients, unable to use an ordinary gas/electric cooker, but able to use a microwave.  irrespective of whether the relevant food can in fact be cooked in a microwave at all (which is bizarre in itself, as some things should never go in a microwave, and could assist someone who is e.g. allergic/intolerant of things that could be cooked in a microwave).

( i don’t cook in a microwave, since i don’t think they do a proper job and in any event can’t produce grilled/roasted/fried/etc food)

Daphne
Administrator

rightsnet writer / editor

Send message

Total Posts: 3537

Joined: 14 March 2014

Billy Durrant - 15 August 2017 02:05 PM

In CPIP/190/2016 Judge Mesher says (as far as I can understand it) that because Descriptor C refers only to cooking food, not preparing it, that if a claimant can put a meal made from fresh ingredients but prepared by someone else into a microwave and cook it they can’t score higher than C. Yet that decision purports to agree with with Judge Gray’s decision in CPIP/1418/2015 which states “the mention of microwave cooking in descriptor 1C does not mean the heating of ready prepared microwave meals.”

I think what Judge Mesher highlights at paragraph 6 of CPIP/190/2016 is that you have to consider all the descriptors in an activity. So if your client could do the cooking in a microwave they wouldn’t score on 1c but if they need prompting or supervision or assistance in the preparation of the food they could score under 1d or 1e.

nevip
forum member

Welfare rights adviser - Sefton Council, Liverpool

Send message

Total Posts: 3135

Joined: 16 June 2010

The crux of a lot of this is the interplay between 1c and 1e.  1e states:

“Needs supervision or assistance to either prepare or cook a simple meal.”

This scores 4 points.  So if a person can prepare food but can’t use a cooker safely then he might only score 2 points under the microwave test.  However, if he can’t prepare food and can’t use a cooker safely but can cook the prepared ingredients in the microwave he should still score the higher award of 4 points (that is not always as straightforward as it sounds either). 

I’ve already taken this to the UT on this issue and won the argument in that particular case and I’m currently awaiting another UT decision in another case on the interplay between these two limbs of the descriptor, and hopefully will have further clarification on the point then.

BC Welfare Rights
forum member

The Brunswick Centre, Kirklees & Calderdale

Send message

Total Posts: 1366

Joined: 22 July 2013

Thanks all, that helps.

nevip - 15 August 2017 04:41 PM

I’ve already taken this to the UT on this issue and won the argument in that particular case

Are you able to provide a copy of that decision Nevip?

nevip
forum member

Welfare rights adviser - Sefton Council, Liverpool

Send message

Total Posts: 3135

Joined: 16 June 2010

BC Welfare Rights
forum member

The Brunswick Centre, Kirklees & Calderdale

Send message

Total Posts: 1366

Joined: 22 July 2013

It has only taken me 3 years to fully understand this descriptor but now I do..

Many thanks to all on Rightsnet for your invaluable help in assisting a dimwit to finally get it

:-)