[2024] UKUT 244 (AAC)

What the Tribunal needed to do was to apply the guidance in HA v SSWP (PIP) [2018] UKUT 56 (AAC) at [13]-[19], which for convenience I set out here:-

13.

It is now widely accepted that the definition of "engage socially" in Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Social Security (Personal Independence Payments) Regulations 2013 applies to daily living activity 9, even though the expression does not actually appear within the terms of the activity or its descriptors. The expression is defined as meaning: “(a) interact with others in a contextually and socially appropriate manner; (b) understand body language; and (c) establish relationships”. If a claimant is unable to satisfy these criteria, it follows that (s)he is unable to engage with other people “to an acceptable standard” (regulation 4(2A)(b)).

14.

For completeness, Part 1 of Schedule 1 defines “prompting” as meaning “reminding, encouraging or explaining by another person”, and “psychological distress” as meaning “distress related to an enduring mental health condition or an intellectual or cognitive impairment”.

15.

It is implicit from the tribunal’s conclusion - that the claimant needed prompting to engage with other people - that it considered that he was able to engage with other people without social support, without overwhelming psychological distress and without exhibiting behaviour which would result in a substantial risk of harm to the claimant or another person.

16.

In my judgment it was incumbent on the tribunal to consider the claimant’s ability to satisfy the three components of the phrase “engage socially”, and to make adequate findings of fact as to the nature and quality of his interactions with other people (HJ v SSWP [2016] UKUT 0487 (AAC)). However, the tribunal simply CPIP/2034/2017 HA v SSWP (PIP) [2018] UKUT 56 (AAC) listed those with whom it said the claimant could engage, without investigating or making findings in relation to what actually happened during his interactions with them. In the light of the evidence as to (for example) his selective mutism, his inability to make eye contact and read facial expressions, his inability to understand body language and his tendency to bite himself or lash out during communication, it did not necessarily follow that – without more - the claimant was able to “engage socially” even with those people listed by the tribunal, for the purposes of daily living activity 9, at least on over 50% of days (regulation 7).

17.

In any event, all of the “other people” in the tribunal’s examples were, as the tribunal stated, of the claimant’s age (16). They would not, therefore, generally be regarded as adults. Just as Upper Tribunal Judge Jacobs was of the view that a claimant’s inability to engage with men (albeit having an ability to engage with women) was of such a magnitude as to satisfy the descriptors (RC v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2017] UKUT 0352 (AAC)), equally, in my judgment, a claimant’s inability to engage with adults falls into the same category, irrespective of his or her ability to engage with children and young people. There was ample evidence before the tribunal to indicate