PIP MR request - Activity 9 - Clarification over case law

calcotti wrote: »

The ruling includes the statement “Descriptor 9c is therefore concerned with the support required by claimants in social situations......there is no reason to suppose that descriptors 9b and 9c are concerned with a claimant’s ability to engage with other people in different factual contexts.”

However it goes on to say “...without wishing to express a concluded view on the issue in a case in which it has not been argued, I therefore consider that the whole of PIP Activity 9 is concerned with a claimant’s ability to engage with other people face to face in social situations.” (my emphasis)

Seems to me it could be argued that other contexts could be looked at but I am not sure what you mean by professional situations - do you mean when interacting with professionals, such as doctors, or do you mean when acting oneself in a professional capacity. If the latter I cannot see the relevance anyway as PIP is not concerned with work.

Thanks Calcotti, the DM stated in the award letter that they have decided I can engage with others because I do so on a daily basis - I work!!

Alice_Holt wrote: »

I would certainly view social interactions in a work / formal context as within the scope of the descriptor.

What the descriptor doesn't include as a "social situation" is interactions with close family members in a (say) domestic setting.

Often a tribunal will ask a claimant about GP and other professional appointments, interactions in shops, etc. As venison states the descriptor is about engagement with others face to face.

What work do you do?
What difficulty with engaging face to face do you have (in addition to the points scored on the communication activity)?
What work adaptations have been made to help you to better engage face to face at work (per calcotti)?

What would you make of this then?
SF v The Secretary of State [2016] UKUT 0543 (AAC) (CPIP/2685/2016):
That construction of Activity 9 explains why ‘engage socially’ is defined in Schedule 1, and without wishing to express a concluded view on the issue in a case in which it has not been argued, I therefore consider that the whole of PIP Activity 9 is concerned with a claimant’s ability to engage with other people face to face in social situations. It would follow that in all cases in which Activity 9 is in issue decision makers should apply the definition of ‘engage socially’ in Schedule 1 and should consider a claimant’s ability to interact with others in a contextually and socially appropriate manner, the claimant’s ability to understand body language, and the claimant’s ability to establish relationships in a social context.' (paragraph 6)

Also, DV v SSWP (PIP) [2017] UKUT 0244 (AAC) (CPIP/3707/2016) - judge said that tribunal erred in considering that claimant could engage socially based on their presentation at tribunal and that this was an error. I think there was also something about someone being on ESA and being on the workgroup and the judge said they couldn't make a decision based on his interactions within the workgroup requirements?

I am anxious (though not recorded in medical records) in social situations, if I have people I feel "safe" with, I can do ok-ish but there is a fear that I am seen like an idiot because of my communication difficulties.

I have special equipment and the line of work I do (don't feel comfortable posting here) requires colleagues to be inclusive/supportive plus there are a few other reasonable adjustments made.