Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
Is the cooking test still alive & kicking under PIPs
Your memory is better than mine.
I will peruse later over my Fray Bentos pie & Microchips tea.
c. Cannot cook a simple meal using a conventional cooker but is able to do so using a microwave.
By awarding this descriptor, isn’t this an acceptance that the client cannot ‘prepare food’ ie.
“prepare”, in the context of food, means make food ready for cooking or eating, and therefore should be awarded 8 points.
It is an acceptance, but I don’t understand how that gets him 8pts for not being able to prepare and cook a simple meal. You appear to accept that he can heat food in a microwave. That, for Pip, is cooking (ie heating food at or above waist level). So he cannot prepare food but he can cook it. Descriptor 1(c) does not appear to be interested in whether he can or cannot prepare food, despite the name of Activity 1 itself being “Preparing Food”. The food could be prepared for him by a carer or he could use pre-chopped vegetables or he could prepare food as well as anyone.
I think Mike makes some good points about always considering each descriptor against the safely, reliably etc criteria. In the present case, the claimant would be expected to use any aids/appliances that he could reasonably be expected to use to prepare a simple meal (Reg 4(2)(b)). If he could, using those aids/appliances, safely and reliably prepare food to an acceptable standard, taking no more than twice as long as a person without his physical/mental condition normally would*, he would rightly satisfy descriptor 1(b). If he didn’t satisfy that descriptor, even using aids, eg because it took him a lot longer than normal using the aid or because he needed assistance to be able to use it, then he’d be likely to satisfy 1(e) - needing assistance to prepare.
I’m not suggesting a “bottom up” approach mind, ie starting at the lowest scoring descriptor and stopping at the first one satisfied. It seems that a decision needs to be made in respect of every descriptor in an activity in order for the ones that are satisfied to then compete under the scoring rules to see which one becomes the scoring descriptor. I’ve only seen a few PIP medical assessment reports to date in appeal papers and it doesn’t seem that that is happening. For instance, only one descriptor is ever identified as being satisfied in those reports. Interested in others’ experience of this.
Because “preparing” and “cooking” appear to be considered separately, at least until descriptor 1(f), it seems more than one descriptor could be satisfied under Activity 1 at the same time. But I think 1(f) would only ever be satisfied if none of the other Activity 1 descriptors applied at the same time. So if 1(e) applied, he’d be able to prepare a meal albeit with assistance so it would not be possible to say that, for 1(f), he “cannot” prepare a meal. I’m not saying that 1(f) would never have to compete against the other descriptors, eg, there may be periods of remission of symptoms when someone satisfies a lower scoring descriptor.
* I’m not sure what “maximum period” means in the definition of “reasonable time period” found in Reg 4(4)(c).
“reasonable time period” means no more than twice as long as the maximum period that a person without a physical or mental condition which limits that person’s ability to carry out the activity in question would normally take to complete that activity”
Non-disabled people obviously take different times to do things but I thought the inclusion of “normally” ironed those differences out, ie it represents an average. It seems to me that “maximum period” and “normally” are contradictory. Could be wrong.
[ Edited: 9 Jul 2015 at 01:33 pm by Tom H ]Many thanks for the update…
“I’m not suggesting a “bottom up” approach mind, ie starting at the lowest scoring descriptor and stopping at the first one satisfied. It seems that a decision needs to be made in respect of every descriptor in an activity in order for the ones that are satisfied to then compete under the scoring rules to see which one becomes the scoring descriptor”
Therefore if all the descriptors apply then the 8 pointer would be awarded under 7(1)(b)...
Scoring: further provision
7.—(1) The descriptor which applies to C in relation to each activity in the tables referred to in regulations 5 and 6 is — (a)where one descriptor is satisfied on over 50% of the days of the required period, that descriptor;
.
(b)where two or more descriptors are each satisfied on over 50% of the days of the required period, the descriptor which scores the higher or highest number of points;
Yeah but Reg 7(1)(b) could never apply to descriptor 1(f) because it would never be possible for another descriptor and descriptor 1(f) to each apply for more than 50% of the time. See the point in my last post about no other descriptors applying at the same time as 1(f). Remission of symptoms might mean 1(f) applies for 40% of the year and 1(b) and 1(c) each apply for 60% of the year, meaning a score of 2pts under Reg 7(1)(b).
Tom - many thanks for your reply. I agree that 1(c) is not interested in ‘preparing’ but that’s the gist of the argument. 1F does treat preparing and cooking separately because if you fail to do one of these actions then the descriptor is satisfied. Secondly why can you not be both able to microwave and unable to prepare food at the same time and for the same amount of time etc. 1(c) is just a red herring!
How about 1E! If you need someone to supervise or assist with preparing and/or cooking then again you cannot do this activity alone and 1E would again be awarded.
“assistance” means physical intervention by another person and does not include speech; Therefore it you need the physical intervention of someone to cook then you cannot cook in all intense and purposes.
Lastly re prepare”, in the context of food, means make food ready for cooking or eating; So you may be able to prepare the food for cooking (heating at waist level) but what about making food ready for actually eating it eg getting it out of the oven or removing food from pans, placing it on plates, moving around the cutlery and salt etc
Tom - many thanks for your reply. I agree that 1(c) is not interested in ‘preparing’ but that’s the gist of the argument. 1F does treat preparing and cooking separately because if you fail to do one of these actions then the descriptor is satisfied. Secondly why can you not be both able to microwave and unable to prepare food at the same time and for the same amount of time etc. 1(c) is just a red herring!
How about 1E! If you need someone to supervise or assist with preparing and/or cooking then again you cannot do this activity alone and 1E would again be awarded.
“assistance” means physical intervention by another person and does not include speech; Therefore it you need the physical intervention of someone to cook then you cannot cook in all intense and purposes.
Lastly re prepare”, in the context of food, means make food ready for cooking or eating; So you may be able to prepare the food for cooking (heating at waist level) but what about making food ready for actually eating it eg getting it out of the oven or removing food from pans, placing it on plates, moving around the cutlery and salt etc
I can’t find condiments in the descriptors, are they in the interpretation?
John (McKendrick) you’ve lost me now. You’re either an absolute genius and you’re seeing those descriptors in ASCII code or you’re missing something when reading them.
1F does treat preparing and cooking separately because if you fail to do one of these actions then the descriptor is satisfied.
How do you work that out? 1(f) uses “and”. If someone chops up my vegetables and puts them in the microwave for me and I can then operate the controls satisfactorily, how can you say I cannot prepare and cook?
Secondly why can you not be both able to microwave and unable to prepare food at the same time and for the same amount of time etc..
There’s absolutely no reason why not. See my vegetables above.
How about 1E! If you need someone to supervise or assist with preparing and/or cooking then again you cannot do this activity alone and 1E would again be awarded.
No one’s saying otherwise.
Therefore it you need the physical intervention of someone to cook then you cannot cook in all intense and purposes.
No, you can cook albeit with assistance.
Lastly re prepare”, in the context of food, means make food ready for cooking or eating; So you may be able to prepare the food for cooking (heating at waist level) but what about making food ready for actually eating it eg getting it out of the oven or removing food from pans, placing it on plates, moving around the cutlery and salt etc
If you cannot make it ready for eating, eg for a cold meal such as salad, then you’d score for preparation. I agree that preparation does not have to be with a view to cooking yes. But I don’t see you’re wider point. Someone who cannot prepare a salad would score a descriptor recognising that difficulty in preparing. But they’d only score 1(f) if they couldn’t cook as well.
[ Edited: 9 Jul 2015 at 05:53 pm by Tom H ]Can I be the first to say how much I enjoyed the phrase ‘see my vegetables above’?
Can I be the first to say how much I enjoyed the phrase ‘see my vegetables above’?
Less worried about the chopping than, on reflection, the fact it’s only a small meal.
Again it is my belief that 1C and 1E are nothing more than ‘red herrings’ in that 1F will always prevail over 1C and 1E as this is what 7(1)(b) tells us because if you cannot either prepare or cook food ‘alone’ then 1F is the correct descriptor. Preparing can include two (2) separate actions ie making food ready to cook and then making the food ready to eat having been cooked which can be more strenuous that just preparing to cook.
Again thinking about it how can 1E ever be satisfied as you either require assistance to prepare or cookie…
‘the physical intervention by another person and does not include speech’ OR
supervision…‘the continuous presence of another person for the purpose of ensuring C’s safety’
Then surely if you need this person present in the kitchen to continually ensure the client’s safety then it stands to reason they cannot cook/prepare a meal “safely.”
Again thinking about it how can 1E ever be satisfied as you either require assistance to prepare or cookie…
‘the physical intervention by another person and does not include speech’ OR
supervision…‘the continuous presence of another person for the purpose of ensuring C’s safety’
Then surely if you need this person present in the kitchen to continually ensure the client’s safety then it stands to reason they cannot cook/prepare a meal “safely.”
As an example - a situation where a family member comes over once a week with a load of precooked meals that are then put in the freezer and defrosted one by one over the rest of the week.
Alternatively somebody with a moderate learning disability who would need to be supervised whilst preparing (chopping safely, getting the right amounts of ingredients etc) but who is able to put a preprepared meal in the microwave and set the timer correctly.
You keep saying that 1F is satisfied where somebody can’t prepare but can cook or visa-versa but as far as I can see this is incorrect - 1F is only satisfied where somebody cannot prepare and they cannot cook (even using a microwave). This is the point Tom was making above and you aren’t being very clear why you disagree with this reading?
For me the microwave is the clincher - I would suggest that only those with very high levels of disability (whether physical or mental) would be unable to put a meal in a microwave, set the timer, and then take it out again. The only ‘out of the box’ example I can think of is someone with visual impairment who is unable to read the timing information on the packet.
Descriptors 1A to 1F concern simple meals for one .....
“simple meal” means a cooked one-course meal for one using fresh ingredients;
Descriptor 1F concerns preparing and cooking FOOD!
Does this descriptor then mean the applicant is expected (or not expected) to prepare and cook more than a mere one course meal eg a three course meal or several meals for several other people and if so would the reliably and safely argument again be in question. If the DWP fall back on the microwave will do, then this descriptor may involve the use of several microwaves at the same time!
What is the actual difference between a simple meal ie a one course meal oppose to food.
Microwave ‘ready meals’ that you buy from the shops and cold snacks e.g. sandwiches are not simple meals for the purposes of the legislation. In the first case it does not involve fresh ingredients. The second example may use fresh ingredients but does not involve cooking.
It actually raises an interesting point I had not thought about up until now - the descriptors distinguish between using a cooker and using a microwave but I hadn’t thought about the argument about what constitutes ‘fresh ingredients’. I’d argue that a frozen pizza cooked in the oven certainly would not count. Rice and pasta cooked on their own on the hob would not either as they are a single ingredient. But what happens when somebody boils pasta/rice on the hob and has it with cold meat, or meat that has been heated in the microwave, or if a stir-through sauce is added? Is rice/dried pasta a ‘fresh’ ingredient? Does a meal constituting dried pasta cooked on the hob, a frozen supermarket breaded chicken fillet cooked in the oven and some fresh vegetables count as a ‘simple meal’? In that case could you argue that as only one ingredient (the vegetables) was ‘fresh’ then it is ‘food’ and not a ‘simple meal’?
To follow on then what does ‘using’ mean in the sentence using fresh vegetables!