Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
PIP activity 9 - engaging with other people face to face
Does this descriptor distinguish between familiar or unfamiliar people? It doesn’t seem to be as obvious as ESA activity 16.
The PIP assessment guide states:
“This activity considers a claimant’s ability to engage with other people which means to interact face-to-face in a contextually and socially appropriate manner, understand body language and establish relationships.”
This implies that that department interprets it as engaging with unfamiliar people, as one would not establish a relationship with someone familiar, but rather maintain one.
Thoughts?
What the guidance says and what the definitions define compared to what the descriptor actually says are two different things.
The definitions define “engaging socially” and build in the “relationships” bit which would draw it away from the definition inJC however the descriptor itself does away with “socially” completely so it’s a question of bare engagement and very much back within JC’s scope so I fear.
Very sloppy drafting and something that will surely be amended eventually however as it stands the operation of the descriptor is much harder than the guidance intends it to be and I think it will set a very high bar on a proper reading of the schedule.
Notwithstanding that, I will be arguing it this afternoon but I’ve got good evidence that it’s met, despite the drafting error…
What the guidance says and what the definitions define compared to what the descriptor actually says are two different things.
The definitions define “engaging socially” and build in the “relationships” bit which would draw it away from the definition inJC however the descriptor itself does away with “socially” completely so it’s a question of bare engagement and very much back within JC’s scope so I fear.
Very sloppy drafting and something that will surely be amended eventually however as it stands the operation of the descriptor is much harder than the guidance intends it to be and I think it will set a very high bar on a proper reading of the schedule.
Notwithstanding that, I will be arguing it this afternoon but I’ve got good evidence that it’s met, despite the drafting error…
I’m looking at this thread and reading Howker; oh the irony!
Thanks for your feedback, Dan. I’m curious about how a tribunal would see it, so we’ll see!
I’m looking at this thread and reading Howker; oh the irony!
The consultation response is here and at 5.97 the discrepancy is apparently explained:
5.97
Some respondents have noted their concerns that the scope of this activity is too limited. They suggested that it should include additional elements, for example physical barriers to socialising with other people – such as being able to get to social situations. These concerns reflec t a misunderstanding of the purpose of this activity, which is not about assessing overall ability to maintain social relationships or activities but to look at whether they have difficulties with the mental and cognitive elements of social interaction. To make this clearer, we have renamed the activity Engaging with other people face to face.
Unfortunately they forgot to rename it in the definitions, but I would argue there is enough of a link there: the definition refers to the activity by its old name, but still refers to it.
@ Mr Finch, thank you. I understand that the purpose of the activity is not to identify whether someone can have a social life. “Social contact” is perhaps the better description, meaning “interaction with others”. I’d say this necessarily involves unfamiliar people as this is reasonably required as part of a “normal” life. This would include speaking to shop staff, professionals and receptionists, who are not necessarily experienced in dealing with with the particular idiosyncrasies and mental health problems of the individual.
The PIP guidance states “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.” So there is scope for someone who can socialise with a trusted friend but not with the wider community. So someone who experiences extreme anxiety and/or panic attacks at the prospect of meeting someone they are not familiar with would quite likely score on activity 9.