× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Disability benefits  →  Thread

PIP - slow cooker as an aid?

A Stavert
forum member

Welfare benefits officer - Scottish Borders Council, Scotland

Send message

Total Posts: 44

Joined: 16 June 2010

I have a client with depression who lacks the motivation and concentration to cook a meal using a conventional cooker.  On the one or two good days she has each week she is well enough in the morning to prepare fresh ingredients and put them in a slow cooker.  She does this because she knows that if she leaves it until later in the day her mood might have changed and she won’t get started or won’t be able to cook safely.  The HP has seized on her ability to use a slow cooker and given zero points, but is the slow cooker being used in these circumstances as an aid? 
Descriptor 1(c) suggests only conventional cookers or microwaves as a means of cooking which would seem to support this. 

Has anyone tried to argue this point at tribunal?

Anne Higgins
forum member

Welfare rights officer - North Lanarkshire Council

Send message

Total Posts: 42

Joined: 17 June 2010

I have a case where woman cannot read or write and her sister has obtained a slow cooker and has preset it to required setting and my client can put ingredients in raw ingredients as she cannot read instructions.  I am arguing this is an aid.  Tribunal next week I will let you know result

Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 3138

Joined: 17 June 2010

I don’t see that 1c would apply as a slow cooker must surely come within the definition of a conventional cooker but also doesn’t fit the definition of aid or appliance. There is also the problem that one can slow cook in a conventional oven. If there are only 1 or 2 days when such a process is possible that would point me more towards d to f.

Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 3138

Joined: 17 June 2010

Anne Higgins - 18 August 2017 11:08 AM

I have a case where woman cannot read or write and her sister has obtained a slow cooker and has preset it to required setting and my client can put ingredients in raw ingredients as she cannot read instructions.  I am arguing this is an aid.  Tribunal next week I will let you know result

Sorry, your post popped up only after I posted mine. I’m not seeing how the slow cooker can fit into the definition of aid or appliance but I’m also wondering why a slow cooker would be specifically needed? Would it just be because the conventional oven they own doesn’t have a timer/turn off facility and thus the slow cooker is the cheapest way to get that?

ClairemHodgson
forum member

Solicitor, SC Law, Harrow

Send message

Total Posts: 1221

Joined: 13 April 2016

Mike Hughes - 18 August 2017 11:31 AM

Would it just be because the conventional oven they own doesn’t have a timer/turn off facility and thus the slow cooker is the cheapest way to get that?

you don’t need a timer to set an oven to the low setting required for slow cooking such as for a stew etc.  in fact, the longer the better.  my cooker has no timer (its an AGA) - and stews just go in the slow oven and are left to their own devices, often for several hours.  i of course have a separate timer, but not for slow cooking purposes…

i don’t see a slow cooker as an aid as such. 

 

Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 3138

Joined: 17 June 2010

ClairemHodgson - 18 August 2017 11:46 AM
Mike Hughes - 18 August 2017 11:31 AM

Would it just be because the conventional oven they own doesn’t have a timer/turn off facility and thus the slow cooker is the cheapest way to get that?

you don’t need a timer to set an oven to the low setting required for slow cooking such as for a stew etc.  in fact, the longer the better.  my cooker has no timer (its an AGA) - and stews just go in the slow oven and are left to their own devices, often for several hours.  i of course have a separate timer, but not for slow cooking purposes…

i don’t see a slow cooker as an aid as such. 

 

I know I’m a man but come on… :)

I was just trying to figure out if the claimant needed the oven to cook slow and then turn off at a specific point because they didn’t know when. Not all cookers have that facility but slow cookers and halogen cookers almost always do so it’s a cheap way to get the facility.

John Birks
forum member

Welfare Rights and Debt Advice - Stockport Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1064

Joined: 16 June 2010

In the case of difficulties reading & writing it was said in KP v SSWP (PIP) [2017] UKUT 0030 (AAC) aka CPIP/1769/2016 ‘...illiteracy which does not result from a physical or mental condition is not to be
taken into account in assessing whether a claimant scores points under the descriptors linked to
that activity. ‘

Although this was activity 8 I would say the principle applies - so it depends on why the illiteracy rather than the illiteracy itself.

and in AI v SSWP (PIP) [2016] UKUT 0322 (AAC) aka CPIP/190/2016 ‘..... “Aid or appliance” is defined in regulation 2 of the PIP Regulations to mean “any device which improves, provides or replaces [the claimant’s] impaired physical or mental function”. I cannot see that using a microwave to cook, or a conventional cooker for that matter, does any of those things. It merely provides one means of cooking.’

I’d guess the slow cooker is a convenience rather than an aid.

but….

SSWP v DT (PIP) [2017] UKUT 272 (AAC) aka CPIP/3739/2016

‘15. ... in principle where a claimant has limited intellectual incapacity which results in his only being able to prepare and cook a very restricted range of dishes that, of itself, will have a bearing upon the question of whether that claimant is able to do so to an acceptable standard. It would seem absurd if…one were to conclude that a claimant who for some reason was able to produce such a meal [fry up] but no other type of meal at all, would be regarded as able to prepare and cook to an acceptable standard. I stress that since I have not had argument as to this particular point, I do not regard myself as formally deciding or finally settling it ... That argument could easily have been put in that way had the SSWP wanted to.’

 

A Stavert
forum member

Welfare benefits officer - Scottish Borders Council, Scotland

Send message

Total Posts: 44

Joined: 16 June 2010

‘Conventional cooker’ is not defined.  The dictionary definition of ‘conventional’ is ‘based on or in accordance with what is generally done or believed.’  To my mind a conventional cooker has a hob with rings, a grill and an oven. 

Using that definition a slow cooker is not a conventional cooker.  But is it an aid? My client is using one as an aid, because the effects of her depression are that she cannot safely use a conventional cooker. 

 

ClairemHodgson
forum member

Solicitor, SC Law, Harrow

Send message

Total Posts: 1221

Joined: 13 April 2016

A Stavert - 18 August 2017 12:35 PM

’  because the effects of her depression are that she cannot safely use a conventional cooker. 

surely therefore you need to concentrate on the ways in which she is unsafe to use a conventional cooker?

John Birks
forum member

Welfare Rights and Debt Advice - Stockport Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1064

Joined: 16 June 2010

This may help:-

Judge Rowley agrees with guidance provided in PE v SSWP [2015] UKUT 309 (AAC) that there is a balance to be struck between the abstract test and consideration of ‘reasonable and practical alternatives’ (in that case a cardigan instead of a pullover for someone who has trouble raising their arms above their head). Judge Rowley applies the guidance to slip-on shoes, and concludes -

‘In my judgment slip-on shoes do constitute the kind of reasonable and practical alternative clothing envisaged by the Upper Tribunal Judge in PE. In so finding, I am of the view that the balance is struck in the appropriate place. It is right to disregard the limitation of function that would be caused by putting on shoes that required to be fastened due to the claimant’s dizziness. By using the slip-on shoes the claimant bypasses the impaired function. As in the example of the cardigan and pullover, slip-on shoes perform a similar clothing role to other shoes, in that they cover and protect the feet; and they are a commonly available, non-specialist item of clothing. I accept the Secretary of State’s submission that they are available in a range of styles for whatever need or occasion.’ (paragraph 28)

https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/welfare-rights/caselaw/item/need-for-aid-or-appliance-to-either-dress-or-undress-is-sufficient-for-desc

Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 3138

Joined: 17 June 2010

I agree it’s not defined but then the other way of looking at it might be to ask what is unconventional about a slow cooker? It cooks. It times. It’s smaller but it’s reduced size isn’t relevant. The lack of rings isn’t an issue. We already have case law saying a microwave isn’t an aid.

I think there’s general agreement it’s not an aid using the accepted definition for PIP. That’s a likely dead end.

If you haven’t already, you need to separate out the arguments about motivation and concentration. As your original post says, the claimant either doesn’t get started or won’t be able to continue safely. I don’t think you’re looking at c at all. It’s d to f.

[ Edited: 18 Aug 2017 at 01:13 pm by Mike Hughes ]
Dan_Manville
forum member

Mental health & welfare rights service - Wolverhampton City Council

Send message

Total Posts: 2262

Joined: 15 October 2012

The decision in CW might assist here; excuse me not citing it, I’ve shredded the file.

The test, broadly, is that if a normal person might use it to acheive a task in the normal course of events then it doesn;t count as an aid.

I’ll try and find the decision

edit: I didn’t know it had been reported as well; deffo not my finest hour! :-(

[ Edited: 18 Aug 2017 at 01:13 pm by Dan_Manville ]
Catblack
forum member

Benefits specialist - South Somerset District Council

Send message

Total Posts: 103

Joined: 31 March 2011

I would be exploring the “reasonable timescale” part of the activity as well. If a meal for one from fresh ingredients is required and she is only able to use a slow cooker, not a conventional cooker (you will need to explain why - motivation to stir, risk of burning, forgetting etc) then the average time is going to be a lot longer than someone using a pan on a hob. If she is then reheating food, this is not cooking from scratch so she wouldn’t be able to achieve the activity either way.
Doing a similar meal in the oven isn’t comparable as cooking is defined as heating food at or above waist height.
So basically you are arguing that using a slow cooker is not achieving the activity within a reasonable timescale and should be discounted and giving reasons as to why she would not be able to achieve this with a conventional cooker either.

John Birks
forum member

Welfare Rights and Debt Advice - Stockport Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1064

Joined: 16 June 2010

I don’t think the slowness of the slow cooking method would meet the test of the reasonable timescale.

It’s a side by side disability test - i.e. person without disability using a slow cooker v disabled person using a slow cooker.

A Stavert
forum member

Welfare benefits officer - Scottish Borders Council, Scotland

Send message

Total Posts: 44

Joined: 16 June 2010

Mike Hughes - 18 August 2017 12:52 PM

If you haven’t already, you need to separate out the arguments about motivation and concentration. As your original post says, the claimant either doesn’t get started or won’t be able to continue safely. I don’t think you’re looking at c at all. It’s d to f.

Yes, my main argument is around 1(d).  The HP’s opinion is that because she can use a slow cooler on one or two days a week she could use the slow cooker every day.  I’m just looking for a back up argument in case the tribunal agrees with that.