× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Disability benefits  →  Thread

Communication and memory

wr4
forum member

Lewes Citizens Advice Bureau

Send message

Total Posts: 71

Joined: 15 May 2014

The recently updated PIP Assessment Guide, at page 106, states that:

The ability to remember and retain information is not within the scope of this activity.

Does anyone know the source/reason for this statement or have any comments on it?  It seems to me that the ability to remember and retain information would be essential in being able to communicate adequately.

Jon (CANY)
forum member

Welfare benefits - Craven CAB, North Yorkshire

Send message

Total Posts: 1362

Joined: 16 June 2010

I’m not aware of any case law, though I may well have missed it.

The same assertion, about remembering/retaining not being in scope, is made in the notes for activity 8 (Reading/understanding). Again, this is new to this version of the PIP guidance.

The full sentence under activity 7 is: “The ability to remember and retain information is not within the scope of this activity e.g. relevant to those with dementia or learning disabilities.” So I would guess they have just observed that many claimants with issues around memory retention will complete the form to describe how that affects their communication and comprehension (not unreasonably).

I certinly think there’s an argument that the meaning of the word “understand” in those descriptors is being distorted, if the DWP are restricting it to something like “understand in the moment, but not necessarily retain”.

Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 3138

Joined: 17 June 2010

There’s an element of them making this up as they go along so it’s important to remember that, whatever influence it may have on decision makers, it is just guidance.

Two immediate thoughts:

1) If you can’t, for example, retain or remember what was just said to you then how would your communication be reliable or to a reasonable standard?
2) No mention whatsoever of reasonable time. The impaired speech of someone who, again for example, has had a stroke may well be understandable with some effort on the part of the other party but if it takes twice as long or longer then why isn’t it in scope?

wr4
forum member

Lewes Citizens Advice Bureau

Send message

Total Posts: 71

Joined: 15 May 2014

Thanks for the comments.  I was just worried there had been some case law I’d missed that lead to the insertion of this statement.  If not, I just can’t see how it can stand..