PIP activity 7

Hi Citizens Advice Teignbridge,
Please note that I have deleted your wholly identical second post.
As with all PIP activities, diagnosis (or lack of) is not important. What is important is to show that you have a health condition which causes a loss of function and causes difficulties in undertaking any PIP activity.
The definition of 'Communication Support' is the one taken directly from the regulations. This is the law.
However, if you scroll down further to page 63, in the middle of para 2 you will note that there is mention made that family members who understand the claimant can comprise the communication support.
In order to score points under Descriptor 7 you will need to show the claimant's difficulties, why he can not speak or understand, and whether there are any situations which are particularly difficult in this respect. Remember that the claimant will need to be able to communicate across the whole day as reasonably required. Unlike say, preparing food which may only be needed 2 or 3 times per day, it is likely that communication is required certainly during every waking hour, and possibly also at night. If the claimant can not communicate all the day, as long as it isn't a really trivial amount of time, then he should score points, if he needs support during these times, then he should score 4/8 points 7c or 7d.
Think also about whether the communication can be done to an acceptable standard or whether it can be done in a reasonable time.
I hope this helps.
LL26

Hi Citizens Advice Teignbridge,
The PIP Assessment Guide is not law, it is guidance only. It has no force of law.
My understanding of descriptor 7 is that some degree of retention is required, but it depends on the nature of the conversation as to what retention is required.
Think about the following scenarios
A) You are about to meet your mother who has some signs of dementia, you realise it is now snowing and you phone to tell her to make sure she puts her winter boots on. You arrive 10 minutes later and she has the normal sandals she wears around the house.
B)Your cousin who has learning difficulties is staying with you. You tell him not to use the bathroom tap as it is broken. He says OK. You need to go out to get some shopping and return 1 hour later to find the bathroom flooded.
C)Your husband who has poor memory due to a brain injury is having a conversation with you about whether he would like carrots or cabbage with his supper. He says cabbage, but at supper time 10 minutes later he says 'where are the carrots'? - he has forgotten.
D) You are talking with your elderly father who has dementia. He needs to take his medication, but keeps asking what is it for, and he says he has taken it already. You have patiently explained for the last 5 minutes what his tablets are for, and he hasn't already taken it, but father keeps repeatedly demanding an answer about his pills. Finally you distract him by putting the football on.
In scenarios A and B, there is a clear safety issue, and it is arguable that retention of information is much more important in these situations. The wrong shoes and use of the tap indicate a lack of understanding, despite the time gap. The lack of retention is only apparent later.
In scenario C does it matter whether the wrong vegetables are provided? Probably not, but if these issues occur sufficiently regularly and cause frustration then perhaps an acceptable standard is not reached?
In the final scenario, the constant question and explanation may indicate not being able to complete the activity in a reasonable time and not in an acceptable manner. It is important someone has understanding about their medicine - again there is a safety issue if medicine is incorrectly taken.
If the above examples or similar misunderstandings of conversations occur throughout the day this could indicate that communication can not be done 'reliably'. There may be other scenarios that would equally show retention could be important.
I am not aware of any caselaw about this aspect of communication so these are my opinions, based on how I would respond in a submission to this issue.
To address what I feel is incorrect in the DWP guidance I would use a relevant scenario from your individual claimant based on the sort of things he doesn't understand or retain. Argue it in the same way that I have illustrated; what seems to be absolutely clear to me is that lack of retention can be crucial as it will indicate the reliability criteria may not be met.
If both DWP and First Tier Tribunal disagree, then this may be an interesting point of law to argue at Upper Tribunal?
I hope this helps clarify.
LL26