PIP - activity 9 - engaging with other people

Does limited amounts of engagement exclude a claimant from receiving points for this activity?

My client has long-term depression, and sustaining relationships is one of his main problems. He has maintained a relationship with his son, and has a maintained one friendship for a number of years, but apart from that he can’t maintain relationships because he tends to fall out with people (he appears to be overly sensitive to judgement from other people).

I’m not sure how high the threshold is for descriptor 9b, and it sounds odd when you try to apply the 50% rule. Most of the time he can’t engage with people, but there are a couple of people that he can engage with, including his son, without prompting.

geep - 30 August 2016 04:00 PM

Does limited amounts of engagement exclude a claimant from receiving points for this activity?

My client has long-term depression, and sustaining relationships is one of his main problems. He has maintained a relationship with his son, and has a maintained one friendship for a number of years, but apart from that he can’t maintain relationships because he tends to fall out with people (he appears to be overly sensitive to judgement from other people).

I’m not sure how high the threshold is for descriptor 9b, and it sounds odd when you try to apply the 50% rule. Most of the time he can’t engage with people, but there are a couple of people that he can engage with, including his son, without prompting.

Noting that a long term friend or family member might be a person experienced on providing social support…

Engaging with other people is not about building relationships; it’s about exchanging information.

In PR v SSWP it was held that although the claimant didn’t have the social support, had it been provided things might have been easier. Was that social support reasonably required is one way of putting it.

If you can come up with a realistic hypothesis where that help would make a difference to the quality of the engagement you’re most of the way to a score under 9c.

CPIP/3603/2015 confirms that social support can be provided by family and friends so definitely worth exploring this as Dan says.

So it’s okay if the friends/family aren’t actually helping with social engagement but his life would be a lot easier if they were? His son is too young to be playing that role, and he doesn’t have support from other relatives. His one friendship isn’t close enough to expect support in engaging with others - I think he’s just glad to have a friend at all.

At the moment I’m arguing that he should get at least 9b on the basis that the limited examples of engagement in his life do not amount to being acceptable or “good enough”. Now I’m thinking that we should go for 9c…

I was thinking more that the adjustments the friend made in the relationship with your client might amount to support with social engagement. Is the reason the friendship is maintained because of the friend’s efforts - keeping in touch when your client wouldn’t, understanding if the client doesn’t say much/cries, not getting put off when client is over-sensitive - in my view that could all count as support in maintaining the relationship. And then the fact that he has failed to maintain any other relationships supports the fact that he can’t do that without the support that the current friend gives. I would definitely go for 9c from what you say

geep - 30 August 2016 05:05 PM

So it’s okay if the friends/family aren’t actually helping with social engagement but his life would be a lot easier if they were? His son is too young to be playing that role, and he doesn’t have support from other relatives.

...

That’s pretty much exactly the situation that PR found herself in.

Thanks for all the comments. I need to mull over them and rewrite the response for this activity (we’re at MR stage).

I’ve just noticed this bit in the PIP assessment guide (page 111), which I thought could be useful for cases similar to the one that I’m working on:

“When considering whether claimants can engage with others, consideration should be given to whether they can engage with people generally, not just those people they know well.”

Just a note that there are apparently two appeals to Courts pending in relation to this subject:

AH v SSWP UKUT 276 (AAC) is going to the Court of Appeal

MMcK v SSWP UKUT 191 (AAC) is going to the Court of Session

So the case law is still fluid.

Focus on the impairment then the folowing:

What is the impairment
Who is affected
Why is it difficult to engage

Thereafter look at the engagement to see if social suport that can be provided by family if it is relevant or indeed is it the prompting that is required to engage appropriately.

Hope this helps.

Craig

Billy Durrant - 31 August 2016 11:24 AM

Just a note that there are apparently two appeals to Courts pending in relation to this subject:

AH v SSWP UKUT 276 (AAC) is going to the Court of Appeal

MMcK v SSWP UKUT 191 (AAC) is going to the Court of Session

So the case law is still fluid.

Does anyone on here know anything about the progress of MMcK? I cannot find anything on the Court of Session website.

It looks like AH will be heard around October: http://casetracker.justice.gov.uk/listing_calendar/getDetail.do?case_id=20163510

Looks like that one is about whether someone has to be present to provide social support. This is from the UT website list of pending cases before higher courts:

Hickey v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Support from counsellor – following PR v SSWP (PIP) [2015] UKUT 584 (AAC) need not be provided at the moment of social engagement

The Secretary of State is taking this to the Supreme Court - https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/welfare-rights/caselaw/item/social-support-need-not-be-contemporaneous-with-engagement-but-there-must-b

Does anyone know how long these things typically take for the Supreme Court, and who is supporting the claimant in this?

Thanks

davidsmithp1000 - 07 August 2018 04:08 PM

Does anyone know how long these things typically take for the Supreme Court?

Usually quite a long time.

Cases vary but, for example, the Court of Appeal decided the Sanneh case on 10 February 2015 and the appeal arising out of that (R (HC) v SSWP [2017] UKSC 73) was decided on 15 November 2017. The Carmichael case took a similar amount of time.

davidsmithp1000 - 07 August 2018 04:08 PM

Who is supporting the claimant in this?

Drummond Miller LLP probably - they were acting at the Court of Session.

The Supreme Court website gives the case as “Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Appellant) v MM (AP) (Respondent) (Scotland) UKSC 2017/0215”

The “(AP)” after MM means “Assisted Person” - i.e. they are getting legal aid to argue the case.