Had a truly dreadful appeal yesterday, client effectively interrogated for over an hour and my attempts on clarifying conflicting evidence (poor completion of review form)plus an inaccurate EMO report and GP report proved impossible. There was GP's support confirming the problems experienced submitted in appeal process but this did not seem to carry any weight. I have requested a full statement of reasons, but feel that it will be water tight, apart from the way she was questioned on the cooking test. I understand that using microwaves is now considered by tribunals, but the 'labour intensive' activities should be explored. I do feel this part was not explored, tribunal member suggested scraping a few potatoes, no reference to peeling, chopping, opening cans or the real issue of safety.
I would appreciate any views of pursuing leave to appeal on this issue, really want the opportunity for a rehearing. I have always advised clients that even if they do not win their appeal, they should always feel as if they have had a fair hearing, but after my experience yesterday, it felt like an uphill battle to prove the way a disability impacts on someones daily life...lots of suggestions of how to overcome these problems by tribunal.

if they considered a microwave, i think they were wrong - but really, you'll need the full statement of reasons before you can think about this further.

but you're in early! it must have been bad..

Well I thought they had to consider conventional method of cooker and using oven as well as the top, but when I checked Commissioners Decisions, there is reference to microwaves, using cooker top only, but if they are restricted to the traditional way of cooking (including prep of food) then would be good. Thanks for your prompt (early) response Clare....but it was an hour later, still early tho!!

Hi
Yep there have been some recent decisions on cooking using a baby belling;

CDLA 4351 2006

Involves the case of a gentleman who suffers a disability which restricts his growth with particular reference to his height. The appeal found that the use of the term 'traditional cooker' could include the use of a baby belling cooker and a microwave to meet the task. See the excerpt below:

'section 72(1)(a)(ii) does not specify how the meal is to be cooked. There are now a number of commissioners’ decisions that it can be cooked in a microwave oven provided it is prepared and cooked and not simply a pre-prepared meal which is heated up. Thus, in CDLA/2367/2004, Commissioner Jupp said that the claimant’s ground of appeal that the use of the microwave in preparing a cooked main meal should be disregarded was an oversimplification of the position. The test is whether a claimant “cannot prepare a cooked main meal for himself if he has the ingredients”.

Moyna v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (formerly against the Social Security Commissioner)(Appellant)(2003) – (reported as R(DLA)7/03) is a further case on the issue of cooking and how the task can be performed. This case had implications as it overturned previous caselaw by determining a 'regular' pattern of cooking could constitute a meal being cooked only once a week. Both cases significantly widen the cooking test meaning for many clients who perhaps can manage a microwave but not a cooker could find themself failing the test - Moyna in particular cites the test is a theoretical one and may not follow conventional patterns of what we regard as cooking. The starting point it was argued was the cycle should encompass the 9 month period of the backwards and forwards test.The test scope says nothing about how often a person may cook rather focuses on a recognisable cycle of cooking with main ingrediants within the time frame. Moyna also focused on how with some adaptation the client might be able to perform the task of cooking for example using lighter pans.

........and thus causing great stress for us advisers!!!!!!!!
(source - my seminar posting on the Staffs university advice study degree)
cheers Caroline