30/05/2026
📚 EDUCATIONAL POST – PIP ACTIVITY 1: PREPARING FOOD
Following our earlier post about our Fightback team securing 8 points for Activity 1, Preparing Food, at a recent Tribunal hearing, we have received many questions about the cooking test. We thought the following information from our legal team might be helpful.
For PIP Activity 1 (Preparing Food), the activity is defined as the ability to prepare and cook a simple meal for one person from fresh ingredients using a conventional cooker, safely, reliably, repeatedly, to an acceptable standard and within a reasonable time.
A pot noodle, microwave meal, sandwich, toast or bowl of cereal is not the legal test.
The test is whether you can prepare and cook a simple meal for one person from fresh ingredients. For the purposes of the assessment, the ingredients and utensils are assumed to be readily available and within easy reach. It is not intended to assess shopping, carrying ingredients, reaching into cupboards or extensive kitchen tasks. Hardly a real-life scenario, but it is the test we currently have.
Upper Tribunal case law and DWP guidance indicate that a simple meal involves activities such as:
• Peeling and chopping vegetables
• Opening packets and tins
• Preparing ingredients
• Using a hob safely
• Monitoring food whilst it cooks
• Draining pans safely or using a slotted spoon
• Completing the meal to an acceptable standard
A typical example would be preparing and cooking a simple meat, fish or vegetarian meal with vegetables.
If a claimant can make a pot noodle, this does not automatically mean they can prepare and cook a simple meal under Activity 1.
Equally, if somebody can use a microwave but cannot safely use a hob, knives or boiling water, or cannot remain focused long enough to complete the activity safely, they may still score points.
If somebody can complete some parts of the activity but not others and requires assistance, prompting or supervision from another person, that must also be considered.
The descriptors are:
• 1a Can prepare and cook a simple meal unaided (0 points)
• 1b Needs to use an aid or appliance (2 points)
• 1c Cannot cook a simple meal using a conventional cooker but is able to do so using a microwave (2 points)
• 1d Needs prompting to be able to either prepare or cook a simple meal (2 points)
• 1e Needs supervision or assistance to either prepare or cook a simple meal (4 points)
• 1f Cannot prepare and cook food at all (8 points)
It is also worth noting the Upper Tribunal decision in LC v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) [2016] UKUT 0150 (AAC).
The Upper Tribunal confirmed that simply heating or reheating a ready-made microwave meal is not the same as preparing and cooking a simple meal under Activity 1.
The legal test requires the person to be able to prepare and cook a simple meal from fresh ingredients. The ability to put a ready meal, microwave meal or pot noodle into a microwave does not automatically demonstrate that a claimant can safely prepare and cook a simple meal as defined within the PIP Regulations.
This is important because many claimants are told:
• "You can use a microwave, therefore you can cook."
• "You can make a pot noodle, therefore you can prepare food."
• "You can heat a ready meal, therefore you do not qualify."
That is not what the law says.
The Tribunal should always apply Regulation 4. This means the person must be able to carry out the activity safely, repeatedly, to an acceptable standard, and within a reasonable time on most days.
A useful question is often:
"Can this person reliably prepare and cook a simple meal from fresh ingredients on a hob, alone, on the majority of days?"
If the answer is no, the next question should be:
"What help do they need and why?"
For people with ADHD, autism, executive dysfunction, cognitive impairment, learning disabilities or mental health conditions, and conditions that cause involuntary movements, collapse or seizure, the distinction between prompting (1d) and supervision/assistance (1e) and 1f is often crucial.
If someone wanders away from the hob, forgets that food is cooking, leaves pans unattended, mishandles knives, becomes distracted by other tasks, or requires another person to remain present to ensure safety, this often indicates a need for supervision rather than simple prompting.
Another issue we frequently encounter involves conditions where there is a risk of sudden loss of consciousness, collapse, seizures, blackouts or involuntary movements. Examples include epilepsy, non epileptic seizures, POTS, syncope and other neurological or cardiac conditions.
In these cases, the DWP will often accept that supervision is required and may award points accordingly. However, what is sometimes overlooked is whether supervision actually removes the risk.
The legal test is not simply whether another person is present. The question is whether the activity can be carried out safely.
If a person receives little or no warning before a seizure, collapse or blackout, even constant supervision may not be enough to prevent serious injury.
We regularly see cases where claimants are assessed as able to cook because someone is nearby, but this fails to account for the reality of what can happen when a loss of consciousness or involuntary movement occurs around knives, boiling water, hot pans, or an open flame.
Examples we have encountered include:
• Falling towards or onto a hob during a seizure
• The supervisor being splashed with boiling water during a collapse
• Pulling pans and hot liquids onto themselves during involuntary movements
• Suffering burns because a seizure occurred whilst falling onto the hob
• Injuries caused by loss of control whilst using knives
In one case, a client experienced a seizure whilst cutting a potato. Due to involuntary movements during the seizure, the knife continued moving and caused a significant injury to her hand before assistance could be provided.
These are not theoretical risks. They are real-world examples of what can happen when a person unexpectedly loses consciousness or control. If a real risk of harm occurs, it need only be remote and does not have to be most of the time, either, which is another common mistake DWP makes.
This is why Tribunals must consider not only whether supervision is available, but also whether the activity can genuinely be carried out safely, repeatedly, and to an acceptable standard in accordance with Regulation 4 and the leading case law on safety. RJ, GMcL and CS v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v RJ (PIP): [2017] UKUT 105 (AAC) ; [2017] AACR 32 (you can find the caselaw on gov.uk)
Sometimes supervision is enough to manage risk.
Sometimes it is not.
Where the risk of serious harm remains despite supervision, particularly where there is little or no warning before an episode occurs, the Tribunal should carefully consider whether the person can safely prepare and cook food at all.
Remember, PIP is not about whether you can occasionally cook a meal.
It is about whether you can prepare and cook a simple meal safely, reliably, repeatedly and within a reasonable time, on the majority of days, for yourself only.
❓ Have you ever been told by the DWP that because you can make a microwave meal, a pot noodle or a cup of tea, you can prepare and cook a simple meal?
❓ Has a healthcare professional or Tribunal ever misunderstood your cooking difficulties?
Please share your experiences below. Your comments may help somebody else going through the process.
📢 If you found this post useful, please LIKE, COMMENT and SHARE. Many people lose points because they do not understand how Activity 1 is legally assessed. You could help somebody secure the award they are entitled to simply by sharing this information.
Disability Forms UK
