[2024] UKUT 244 (AAC)

NCN: [2024] UKUT 244 (AAC)

that the claimant had considerable difficulties engaging with adults due to his anxiety. In my judgment the tribunal did not adequately explain why it considered that he would be able to engage with adults if he simply had another person “reminding, encouraging or explaining” and why it considered that the higher point-scoring descriptors of daily living activity 9 were not satisfied.

18.

Further, the “other people” relied upon by the tribunal were all people known to the claimant. However, the term “engage socially” is not limited to such people. Rather, a tribunal must consider a claimant’s ability to engage with people generally, and not just those people they know well (HJ v SSWP [2016] UKUT 0487 (AAC)). The tribunal did not address whether the claimant’s ability to engage with those listed by it showed that he was able to engage with people generally, rather than just those whom he knew well. That, also, constituted an error of law.

19.

Finally, the tribunal’s reliance on the claimant’s ability to use a phone to engage with others was misplaced, and amounted to a further error of law. The tribunal did not explain in what way it considered that the claimant could use a phone to engage with other people. In fact, the evidence was that he would send texts by phone. The description of the activity is “engaging with other people face to face” (my emphasis). I am quite unable to see how a claimant’s ability to use a phone to send texts could possibly demonstrate an ability to engage with other people “face to face”, not least because one of the requisite criteria of an ability to “engage socially” is an ability to understand body language.

The Tribunal needed to make the necessary findings of fact to enable it to decide whether the appellant needs assistance in engaging with other people face to face, to an acceptable standard, in a social context with adults she does not know well, including whether she can: (a) interact with others in a contextually and socially appropriate manner; (b) understand body language and (c) establish relationships.

If so, the Tribunal needed to consider whether that assistance amounts to “prompting” (qualifying her for two points) or “social support” (qualifying her for four points). In answering that question, the Tribunal needed to apply the guidance in SSWP v MM [2019] UKSC 34 about “social support”. “Social support” is defined in Schedule 1 to the WRA 2012 as “support from a person trained or experienced in assisting people to engage in social situations”. In SSWP v MM the Supreme Court held that “social support” does not mean only support from professionals, but can include support provided by experienced family members.

In considering those matters, if the Tribunal does not have sufficient evidence of the appellant’s ability to engage in the social context dealt with by activity 9, it may be relevant for the Tribunal to consider the appellant’s ability to engage in other contexts, including business/professional contexts and on the telephone, and the