I'm not sure that the cooking test is satisfied if it is solely an inability to use an oven that is the problem - CDLA/5686/1999:
"14. The Secretary of State's written submission also suggested that the "cooking test" necessarily involved the use of an oven, but, as was conceded in the claimant's grounds of appeal, the Commissioner who decided R(DLA) 2/95 has held that not to be so (CDLA/1469/95). Mr Rutledge submitted that the test was intended to be a test of, among other things, bending. I disagree. No doubt, in the many cases where it is considered reasonable for a claimant to use a conventional oven at a conventional height the test will involve a test of bending, but that is not necessarily so. The legislation makes provision for a test of preparing a meal and, if it is reasonable to expect a claimant to prepare a meal without bending, it is unnecessary to consider his capacity to bend. Mr Rutledge suggested that statements in Parliament supported his view and he referred me what was said by the Minister of State in the House of Lords (HL Vol. 526, col. 1546). Similar statements were made by the Secretary of State in the House of Commons (HC Vol. 181, col. 313). I do not consider that there is any ambiguity in the legislation such as would entitle me to have regard to what was said in Parliament (Pepper v. Hart <1993> AC 593) but, in any event, I do not consider that the Parliamentary statements support Mr Rutledge's case. The cooking test was said to be "abstract", in the sense that people would not be excluded merely because they would not in practice ever have wished to cook for themselves, and it was said to be intended to be amenable to self-assessment. Nothing was said about deeming people to be unable to prepare a main meal when in fact they could do so by using special devices or stratagems."
But mightn't your client's poor grip and propensity to drop things result in problems with other aspects of cooking and preparing food?
|