social contact descriptor and support group

originaldave wrote:

Crazydiamond wrote:

asdman wrote:

Crazydiamond wrote:

Having identified page 52 does it now answer your question?

I'm still not sure how literally to interpret it. Does it mean that you literally cannot have face to face contact with anyone, even occasionally for a very short period. Or does it mean that although you can have some degree of unavoidable contact the amount of distress it causes you is unreasonable?

If it really means you cannot have any contact with anyone, even people you know, then life would be impossible. It would mean you couldn't see your GP, psychiatrist, psychologist etc. So surely there must be exceptions? And if so do these exceptions stretch to people who you live with. Even people who live alone need to see doctors etc.

Might there be any other sourves of guidance apart from the WCA Handbook, for instance from when the new descriptors were being discussed in parliament.

You make a very good point in relation to descriptor 16.

Taking the descriptor at face value, nobody could ever be expected to satisfy it. The guidance in the WCA is rather ambiguous with the WCA handbook referring to the descriptor as "CS16a represents almost total social isolation." What this actually means would in my view be open to a wide interpretation, based on an ADA's discretion according to an individual claimant's circumstances.

I think the best approach to descriptor 16 would be to take the totality of the guidance in the WCA handbook, and the information given on page 52 of the guide. There would however still be no guarantee that the descriptor would be satisfied, given the level of ambiguity attached to it.

I can think of a few people who WOULD satisfy they come under the autistic spectrum and even people that look after them are not able to have social contact in a positive way...

Would this group of people qualify though, because they would in most cases require the input of a carer and/or professional support services.

Would this be defined as social contact?

My take on this support group descripptor is that it is not about almost always precluded. But ALWAYS precluded, that means without exception. What matters therefore is what social contact means.
I think it means contact, socially with people in the wider world, and not the claimants small world, of partner, GP etc. Some claimants, and people within this forum might confuse it and think that if you need someone with you for support, to provide confidence, that means you can demonstrate yuou cannot cope with social contact. In my view what matters is whether you, alone without support, can cope with social interaction. That is more than taking your change in a shop, but arguing the toss iof the change is wrong, or bein g able to have a proper chat.
The descriptor is hard to satisfy es[ecially as ATOS staff are advised that anyone attenmding the medical alone is unlikely to satisfy this one, but I beleive social contact is not so simple as being able to attend an important appointment, it is about whether you actually are capable of the contact being effective, reliable, and possible to have repeatdly . If you cannot look at the person, anxiety causes a loss of train or thought, panic attacks, running from the room etc etc then thats it... you are the type of person they mean for this descriptor.

The ALWAYS precluded means that all that really matters to understand is what is mean't by SOCIAL CONTACT

It just seem that seeing your GP or dentist is not the same thing, social contact is a global concept, I beleive it means the wider world and not a small circle in a limited contexy

In the work environment, to fit in you need to be able to communicate and not fall to bits or run away, and to be able to communicate also with strangers, visitors to the workplace, new staff etc etc

Crazydiamond wrote:

originaldave wrote:

Crazydiamond wrote:

asdman wrote:

Crazydiamond wrote:

Having identified page 52 does it now answer your question?

I'm still not sure how literally to interpret it. Does it mean that you literally cannot have face to face contact with anyone, even occasionally for a very short period. Or does it mean that although you can have some degree of unavoidable contact the amount of distress it causes you is unreasonable?

If it really means you cannot have any contact with anyone, even people you know, then life would be impossible. It would mean you couldn't see your GP, psychiatrist, psychologist etc. So surely there must be exceptions? And if so do these exceptions stretch to people who you live with. Even people who live alone need to see doctors etc.

Might there be any other sourves of guidance apart from the WCA Handbook, for instance from when the new descriptors were being discussed in parliament.

You make a very good point in relation to descriptor 16.

Taking the descriptor at face value, nobody could ever be expected to satisfy it. The guidance in the WCA is rather ambiguous with the WCA handbook referring to the descriptor as "CS16a represents almost total social isolation." What this actually means would in my view be open to a wide interpretation, based on an ADA's discretion according to an individual claimant's circumstances.

I think the best approach to descriptor 16 would be to take the totality of the guidance in the WCA handbook, and the information given on page 52 of the guide. There would however still be no guarantee that the descriptor would be satisfied, given the level of ambiguity attached to it.

I can think of a few people who WOULD satisfy they come under the autistic spectrum and even people that look after them are not able to have social contact in a positive way...

Would this group of people qualify though, because they would in most cases require the input of a carer and/or professional support services.

Would this be defined as social contact?

IMO no because getting them out of bed washed and fed is a fight which makes them unhappy as they are having to deal with someone ... that person could be a relative but the person still would not be happy at having to talk or interact with someone..... an educated guess I think less that 25% of people with autisum would fall into that group

any attemp at social contact will end in conflict....even from family members as there is no empathy with them...

this is of course my thoughts on the matter and should not stop anyone from claiming and see what dwp do as of yet its un tested

just to briefly add, it is the attendance alone at ATOS assessment that would be dangerous, it looks at least on the face of it, that the person is capable of social contact, in a stressful situation with a stranger and so for that reason it is sensible to be accompanied if in actual fact you do have problems with social contact in other or most situations. But it comes back to my deeply held belief that limitations on yoiur function should be spelled out in the ESA50 or extra pages, right at the outset, because this carries the best chance of being awarded benefit without a medical, or enhances the prospects for appeal at a later time, especially if the assessor appears to have ignored (or not even been providced with) this information.

Where interactiuon would lead to physical conflict and fighting, then the e xceptional circumstances descriptor would apply anyway., no need for the this anxiety related one.. they would be a risk to others i if found fit for work related activity

XFACTOR wrote:

My take on this support group descriptor is that it is not about almost always precluded. But ALWAYS precluded, that means without exception. What matters therefore is what social contact means.
I think it means contact, socially with people in the wider world, and not the claimants small world, of partner, GP etc. Some claimants, and people within this forum might confuse it and think that if you need someone with you for support, to provide confidence, that means you can demonstrate you cannot cope with social contact. In my view what matters is whether you, alone without support, can cope with social interaction. That is more than taking your change in a shop, but arguing the toss if the change is wrong, or being able to have a proper chat.
The descriptor is hard to satisfy especially as ATOS staff are advised that anyone attending the medical alone is unlikely to satisfy this one, but I believe social contact is not so simple as being able to attend an important appointment, it is about whether you actually are capable of the contact being effective, reliable, and possible to have repeatedly . If you cannot look at the person, anxiety causes a loss of train or thought, panic attacks, running from the room etc etc then thats it... you are the type of person they mean for this descriptor.

The ALWAYS precluded means that all that really matters to understand is what is mean't by SOCIAL CONTACT

It just seem that seeing your GP or dentist is not the same thing, social contact is a global concept, I beleive it means the wider world and not a small circle in a limited contexy

In the work environment, to fit in you need to be able to communicate and not fall to bits or run away, and to be able to communicate also with strangers, visitors to the workplace, new staff etc etc

I agree entirely with your comments and your perception of social contact in the context of descriptor 16(a). The crucial factor though would be if this is the Atos interpretation of the descriptor?

I think the only way to obtain a definitive answer would be for a member to put forward the descriptor as relevant on the ESA50, and to ascertain either by way of the information on form ESA85 or an appeal (preferably not the latter), the precise interpretation. The correct legal interpretation would be defined in caselaw, but as the new WCA was only introduced in March 2011, it is unlikely that an appeal to the UT would have reached the decision stage at this point in time?

As I indicated in earlier posts, the descriptor is so ambiguous in the WCA handbook, that it would potentially be interpreted differently depending on the ADA.

Here is a definition of social contact;

Social contact is a pair of social actions with no further consequence - i.e. it is not likely to be repeated. It can sometimes be described as an accidental social interaction. An example would be a failed and not-repeated attempt to start a conversation with a stranger.

Personaly, I don't think it can include family members/people who you live with but may include anyone else.

Best wishes,
Rachel