Aids and appliances for preparing food and taking nutrition

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=aids+for+cutting+food+with+one+hand&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=AbcDV4jDCoe8aau7l9AJ#q=aids+for+cutting+food+with+one+hand&safe=strict&tbm=shop

I agree that assessors and DWP case managers should specify the aid or appliance in every case where one is recommended. The current system is opaque to say the least.

On the same topic; my client has been refused points for needing to have his food pureed or liquidised as “the type of food and drink is not a consideration for this activity”.  Surely a blender/liquidiser should be considered an aid or appliance?  Or am I going to have to argue that he’s unable to cut the food up into pieces before putting it in the liquidiser?

Mrs Mac - 06 April 2016 01:07 PM

On the same topic; my client has been refused points for needing to have his food pureed or liquidised as “the type of food and drink is not a consideration for this activity”.  Surely a blender/liquidiser should be considered an aid or appliance?  Or am I going to have to argue that he’s unable to cut the food up into pieces before putting it in the liquidiser?

Is this activity 1 or 2?  I think activity 1 is concerned with a nominal “simple meal” and wouldn’t include claimant-specific needs such as needing to liquidise food. I would have thought that descriptor 2(b)(i) would apply though.

It is activity 2 and I thought it should apply but DM thinks differently…  Worth going to appeal I think as he has 6 points otherwise so nothing to lose.

Needing assistance to cut food scores the same points as needing an aid, so with the apparent abandonment of the ‘lump sum’ idea, it isn’t material to the outcome. It is relevant to the dodginess of their stats on how many claimants score all their points through needing aids, however, which is why I still want to try and behead that particular zombie before it comes back later.

Needing to have food liquidized clearly requires at least an aid: the fact that specific food needs cannot be considered is an argument in the claimant’s favour where the specific need is for easier to eat food rather than harder.

It’s 1F that applies all the time - cannot prepare and then go onto cook food etc. 1A to 1E are all red herrings eg if someone can only use a microwave to heat up food then they cannot really prepare it!

Thanks for all the replies everyone.

Mr Finch is of course spot on in pointing out that the points in descriptor 2 are the same anyway, so it is just descriptor 1 about preparing food we will be arguing for.

J.Mckendrick’s interpretation is interesting but I’m not sure I would want to rely on that at a tribunal!

Yes, I don’t see that interpretation at all. It starts from an assumption that microwaves are only for ready meals or pre-prepared meals. That assumption strikes me as wholly incorrect.

I have to say, I struggle to be convinced by an argument that, for example, someone who will only bother cooking provided they receive appropriate prompting (1d) can therefore be held to satisfy another descriptor that states they cannot prepare and cook food (1f). Doesn’t stack up at all.

Mike Hughes - 07 April 2016 02:03 PM

Yes, I don’t see that interpretation at all. It starts from an assumption that microwaves are only for ready meals or pre-prepared meals. That assumption strikes me as wholly incorrect.

I agee.  There is plenty of DLA case law which confirms that a microwave can be taken into account providing that fresh ingredients are used.  Thus it is no surprise to see its incorporation into PIP.  Again, the test is the use of fresh ingredients.

peer advocate - 05 April 2016 12:57 PM

Hi all.

A decision maker has acknowledged that a claimant lacks sufficient strength and grip in one hand to do simple actions such as cutting up food and awarded points for needing an aid or appliance.

The claimant and myself are unaware of any aid or appliance that can make up for the use of a hand for a task like cutting up food and are intending to argue that what he really needs is assistance from another person in these situations.

Does our argument have merit?

One case we had in a similar situation scored 1b (2 points) for needing to use an aid cutting on the grounds he needed a spiked chopping board. This was used to argue against 1e. (4 Points) There are various contraptions that come as spiked chopping boards, and most look like they have come straight out of the Tower of London torture store.  Regarding peeling there are also aids for this as in the old Victorian apple peeler. By the time such arguments have finished the claimants kitchen would be so full of gizmos and contraptions it would look like a scene from Wallace and Grommit. Therefore any argument must of course focus on PIP reg 4 (2) regarding aids but also 4 (2A) on the criteria of safely, to an acceptable standard, repeatedly, and within a reasonable time period.  Removing your potato from the ‘Acme Apple Potato Peeler Corer Cutter Traditional Peeling Machine’ ($12.99 Ebay) to then impale it on your ‘J by Jasper Conran Oak spiked ring carving board’ (£35) to waft a’ Jamie Oliver 7.5” Chefs Knife’ (Chunky bolster provides superb balance & extra weight for ease of use Tesco £28.39)  around Errol Flynn style might not cut the mustard with Reg 4 (2), but that was before I found the ‘Heinz Keystone Mustard Dispenser from Sams Club a snip at $85.12.’

Er, many disabled people have houses full of aids, appliances and adaptations. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with that and, whilst they might look odd to other people or perhaps disrupt the feng shui of the kitchen or living space, few people are concerned about that if they do they job. I’m not sure we as advisers need to go down that road. I’ll happily acknowledge that many are indeed not the height of fashion but the numbers and what they look like are not relevant considerations.

What would be a consideration are ‘reasonable time’ and ‘safety. Generally speaking the tasks involved in making one fresh meal a day aren’t going to need to be repeated that day so I don’t think ‘repeatedly’ is a winner here and the whole point of aids is that they enable you to do something and do it ‘safely’. Any suggested aids would not be so if you couldn’t use them safely.

.Many people do use aids as an essential means to do every day tasks. That is not in question. What is the question is a potential argument being used that appellants can use an aid rather than have a need for assistance, and consequently score less points. Equally if, or when, the Government return to reform PIP the use of an aid may be grounds to essentially refuse an award. Repeatedly would be an issue if the continual use of one hand in any task if this impacted on the ability to carry out preparing a meal

As I understand regulation 4, there is still a requirement to consider whether ‘C could reasonably be expected to.. use’ a hypothetical aid, in addition to whether it is merely safe.