Cockburn v Chief Adjudication Officer: CA 30 Jul 1996

The extra and frequent attention to laundry for the incontinence of a claimant does not of itself warrant the provision of Attendance Allowance.
Times 30-Jul-1996
Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 64(2)(a)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromCockburn v Chief Adjudication Officer and Another and Secretary of State for Social Services v Fairey HL 21-May-1997
The provision of an interpreter for a deaf person was included in range of care needed for attendance for Disability Living Allowance. Dealing with his soiled laundry was not so included: ‘In my opinion it is not enough to ask whether the act in . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 April 2021; Ref: scu.79255