Does washing and bathing include drying self off?

Clt showers without assistance, but is then too tired and in too much pain to dry himself afterwards. Does this count as him needing assistance to wash and bathe? I’d like to argue that most people would consider drying yourself off to be part of washing and bathing, but I’m wondering whether this has been addressed somewhere before. I can’t find any caselaw on it.

Clt cannot get in and out of a bath unaided so we are already looking at 4e, but wondering whether we have a shot at anything higher.

I note that the PIP Assessment guide https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/personal-independence-payment-assessment-guide-for-assessment-providers/pip-assessment-guide-part-2-the-assessment-criteria#daily-living-activities specifically excludes drying

“Shaving or the ability to dry oneself is not considered in this activity.”

So wash yourself and then hope you can shiver enough to shake the water off your body!

Whether or not this absurdity has been tested in law I don’t know.

If showering causes that amount of pain it is strongly arguable that your client cannot perform the activity to an acceptable standard

As for case law,i n PS v SSWP [2016] UKUT 0326 (AAC) CPIP/665/2016, Judge Markus held at [ 11]

11. What the Appellant was saying in his written and oral evidence was that he suffered pain when he walked, that he would walk slowly for a short distance despite the pain but that it would get worse until the pain would stop him. It could not properly be assumed that, because the Appellant managed to keep going for a certain distance, any pain he experienced while he was walking was not relevant. If a claimant cannot carry out an activity at all, regulation 4(2A) does not come into play.  Where a person is able to carry out an activity, pain is clearly a potentially relevant factor to the question whether he or she can do so to an acceptable standard.

In PM v SSWP (PIP) [2017] UKUT 0154 (AAC), Judge Gray held at [ 20]

To the extent that this definition was interpreted to exclude the appellant’s choice as to how often she would ‘move around’ (in the words of the schedule; I might use the expression ‘walk’) and replace that choice with an objective test of how often she needed to do so, that was wrong. I reiterate my observations in EG cited above. If the tribunal looked at the concept ‘repeatedly’ on one walk to a local shop and then back home each day, which an appellant could accomplish at one stretch, perhaps because it felt that she would be able to pick up what she needed on such an outing, that would be to assess her on an overly limited basis: she may wish to walk on to the park, or meet a friend, and why should she not? That extended walk may necessitate rest periods thus the concept of repeatedly is wider. Using Judge Jacobs point in relation to dressing, to which I also refer above, a tribunal does not need to accept the genuineness of an extreme routine put forward in an apparent attempt to “generate” points, but if it is accepted that somebody would like to walk further or more frequently, and such activity is not inherently unreasonable then that wish should be factored in to the calculation of how often the activity being assessed is reasonably required to be completed. To address this matter otherwise would be to calculate entitlement upon the tribunal’s view of what the disabled person’s activities should be. Directly in the PIP context I draw support for that proposition from the comments of Upper Tribunal Judge Hemingway in CE-v-SSWP (PIP) [2015] UKUT 643 (AAC) at [34]:

It seems to me it makes no sense to say a person is able to perform an activity as often as reasonably required if they cannot do so for a part of the day in which they would otherwise reasonably wish or need to do so. (my emphasis).(

I pick up on a different aspect of that comment in my closing remarks. I also consider pertinent the dicta of Lord Slynn of Hadley in Secretary of State –v- Fairey (R(A) 2/98); although made in the context of the Attendance Allowance scheme the assessment was of attention “reasonably required”.

‘ In my opinion the yardstick of a “normal life” is important; it is a better approach than adopting the test as to whether something is “essential” or “desirable”. Social life in the sense of mixing with others, taking part in activities with others, undertaking recreation and cultural activities can be part of normal life. It is not in any way unreasonable that the severely disabled person should want to be involved in them despite his disability. . What is reasonable will depend on the age, sex, interests of the applicant and other circumstances. To take part in such activities sight and hearing are normally necessary and if they are impaired attention is required in connection with the bodily functions of seeing and hearing to enable the person to overcome his disability. As Swinton Thomas LJ in the Court Of Appeal said “Attention given to a profoundly deaf person to enable that person to carry on, so far as possible in the circumstances, an ordinary life is capable of being attention that is reasonably required.”

Plenty there to support your contention that your client cannot shower to an acceptable standard.

Thank you both!