is a need for social support actually the same as a need for communication support?

Activity 9, descriptor c “needs social support to be able to engage with other people” (4 points) and Activity 7, descriptors c, d, or e.

DWP has agreed that my client should score 4 points for Activity 9. Client is a paranoid schizophrenic and HCP/DM have accepted that he needs ‘social support’ defined in SS (PIP) Regs schedule 1 as “support from a person trained or experienced in assisting people to engage in social situations”.

I wondered if anyone thinks that the following argument is worth a go or a waste of time?

Engaging with people in social situations is primarily about interacting with other people. This interaction can be both verbal and non verbal, expressed through words, body language, or gestures but at the heart of social engagement is always the act of communicating with other people. Without some form of communication with others, someone can be physically present around other people but cannot be said to be engaging with them in any meaningful way. Therefore they cannot be said to be engaging in social situations.

The DWP has accepted that X requires support from a person trained or experienced in assisting people to engage in social situations. By implication therefore, it accepts that X is unable to effectively communicate with others. As X has the physical ability to speak to other people, he has never learned alternative methods of communication, such as sign language, for example, and it would not be reasonable or necessary for him to do so. Nor would it be logical for trained support to be given that did not include verbal communication. The limitations to X’s ability to engage with others caused by his condition would not simply disappear were he to not talk to others. He would still experience audio, visual and tactile hallucinations, paranoia and other symptoms. His primary method of communication with others is talking to them. Therefore, it is inherently contradictory for the DWP to maintain that X can “express and understand verbal information unaided” and score 0 points for Activity 7, ‘communicating verbally’. Clearly he cannot, otherwise he would not require trained assistance to engage in social situations.

Don’t know, it seems a bit tenuous when I read it back. What do you folks reckon?

I suggested something similar in my first PIP appeal letter and the Tribunal politley ignored it; by the time it got to hearing and I’d mulled it over I was feeling it was a bit tenuous too; especially where it’s linked so closely to one’s native language.

A delusional pattern of thought does not impede linguistic decryption, merely an individual’s perception of the speaker’s intent.

That feels a bit profound for first thing Friday morning but I’ve said it now!