Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly against Amendment 61. It is well-meaning, but I am afraid it is a blunt instrument full of unintended consequences. I do not deny that to require a guarantor for most tenancies is disproportionate and unnecessary, and the Bill makes welcome provisions to regularise what has become standard practice for the most part. However, I want to alert your Lordships’ House to some perverse consequences for three particular types of potential tenant who are among the quietest voices: the foreign student; the groups of students; and those with impaired reputation or difficult personal circumstances. Guarantees make the unrentable into rentable, in some cases. It makes opportunities exist when refusal would otherwise be the only other choice.

Let us dwell for a moment on the case of the foreign student. The foreign students come from far away; they have no reputation, there is no covenant strength and they may not even have arrived in the United Kingdom. They certainly do not have a UK bank account at this point and they probably do not have a UK mobile phone either. In many cases, the only way in which they can secure a property to live in before they arrive is to have the support of a guarantor; a guarantor allows them to have a roof over their head.

Then we have the groups of students. I refer to the case of my daughter, when she went off to Newcastle. There were seven students who were friends, although none of them really knew each other that well; they certainly were not related to each other, and there were no family bonds to tie them, whereas the Bill contemplates that the tenant is a single tenant. It is quite reasonable for a landlord renting to students, if they cannot have payment in advance—I will not talk about that because we discussed that on day one of Committee—to require some sort of guarantor so that the downside risks can be compensated. Not all students want to live in expensive halls of residence; they are disadvantaged at an early part of their lives.

Let us think also about those with an impaired reputation—people who may have left prison or are suffering from domestic abuse or family breakdown. I have been a guarantor for hundreds of families in these sorts of situations, but the Government seek to make my well-meaning interventions unlawful. Let me explain. Sitting in your Lordships’ House, I see the Minister and my noble friend Lord Jamieson who, like me, have been leaders of councils. We know that councils, in certain circumstances, have to step in to avoid homelessness. We know there are not enough registered social landlords and that the private sector landlords are our friends—they are part of the solution, not the problem. However, we cannot expect the private sector landlord to be the only one who takes a chance to get that person, who may have become homeless, a roof over their head.

In common with many other councils, my council—and I am proud that we pushed this hard—went for guarantees. We stood as guarantor for somebody in difficult circumstances so that the private sector landlord, who was prepared to take a chance with us, could provide a home. This is an essential part of managing a housing market. It is all about supporting the most vulnerable. It works; it is a success. If you have been a council leader—I am sorry that I failed to identify the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, who has also been a council leader in these circumstances—this is about helping families get back on their feet.

In considering Amendment 61, I ask noble Lords: in what universe can this misdirected, misguided and counterproductive amendment help those with the quietest voices get a roof over their heads? Providing a guarantor is the way in which the unrentable can rent, and there is nothing fair about keeping people in bed and breakfasts if they could, via a guarantor, be housed. I cannot support this amendment.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to support my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley, and I am grateful to her for taking over the amendment. She is much better placed than I am to speak to it, and has done so very persuasively. The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, called it a blunt instrument and was hyperbolic in his description of the amendment. According to Shelter, the Bill and this amendment would restrict the scenarios in which a landlord can legitimately request a guarantor to those in which a prospective tenant cannot prove that the rent is affordable to them.

So it does not seem to me that the amendment excludes the groups that the noble Lord described. If it does so, then perhaps we can have a refined version of it, but the fact is that there are problems without an amendment of this kind. My central argument in Committee—

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

The noble Baroness talks about the burden of proof. In the three examples I gave, proof is not available. I can understand the intent and the well-meaning behind Amendment 61, but if it is to form part of the Bill, noble Lords need to ask themselves how those people in difficult circumstances are going to demonstrate the proof. They cannot, so a guarantor is the only way forward.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

This amendment does not preclude the use of guarantors; it just limits their use. I will leave it at that. As I said in Committee, if there is a better way of doing it, then fine—perhaps the Government could bring forward an amendment that ruled out any unintended consequences. I am not convinced that there are any—but anyway.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Lords Chamber

The amendments before us—the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Best, for rent smoothing and my own call for a comprehensive affordability review—are not mere embellishments; they are essential to ensuring that the Renters’ Rights Bill delivers on its promise of security, fairness and genuine affordability. Without them, we risk replacing one set of insecurities with another and failing the very people that the Bill is meant to protect.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, in my Second Reading speech, I drew attention to the role played by high housing costs in driving poverty. I was thus pleased to add my name to Amendment 114, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, although I am supportive also of the other amendments in this group and hope that what I have to say will add to the case for them too.

Evidence from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation illustrates the extent to which high rents in the private sector are associated with poverty. Shockingly, it points out that around

“half of private renters were only in poverty after their housing costs were factored in”.

Two more reports specifically on child poverty, published this year, reinforce the point. The first, by IPPR, argues that:

“Housing costs are core to understanding child poverty”.


It notes that the number of children counted as in poverty is about a third higher when housing costs are factored into the measure, and that the private rented sector has become increasingly significant in the lives of children.

The second report was co-published by IPPR together with CPAG—of which I am honorary president—and Changing Realities, which involves people with lived experience of poverty. The report observed that rent increases are

“stressful for families to manage, and … the Renters’ Rights Bill as currently drafted will continue to enable large increases in rent … providing they are deemed to reflect ‘market rents’”—

a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Best. It suggests that this

“risks exposing tenants to sudden and unaffordable hikes in housing costs, undermining the Bill’s stated aim of providing greater security and fairness for renters”.

The report quotes one tenant:

“I’m getting really worried about my rent going up this year. It keeps rising every year yet the local housing allowance is frozen for this year! … It’s frightening”.


Both reports underline how the situation is aggravated by freezes in the local housing allowance and by the operation of the benefit cap, which hits larger families and/ or those paying higher rents in particular. As the amendment states, any review of rent affordability must include in its remit the effectiveness of policy interventions to improve affordability relative to incomes. I would argue that this would need to include policies on the incomes side, which are making it impossible for some families to meet their rent commitments alongside other essentials.

This seems to me a very modest amendment that would complement the Government’s welcome commitment to an ambitious child poverty strategy. I know that the Child Poverty Taskforce is aware of the importance of housing to the strategy, but it is unrealistic to expect it to carry out the thorough review of rent affordability proposed in the amendment.

I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will be able to give a more positive response than the one she gave in Committee, which I found rather disappointing. What is needed is something more robust and holistic than the regular monitoring to which she referred, important though that might be. A review of this kind would be in the spirit of the Bill and would help to ensure that its impact is not blunted by the continued damage created by excessively high rents in the private sector.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to try to understand what the definition of rent is if we are going to control rents or somehow curtail them or attenuate the increases.

One can see the base rate just by googling property websites. It is a good idea to get a feel for the cost of a basic, low-cost, unfurnished property in the worst part of town, but that is not necessarily the market price, which is determined by a number of factors: the property may be furnished; it may be serviced accommodation; there may be porterage; there may be other benefits— I am not going to go as far as swimming pools and gyms, but I know they are available in some circumstances. Parking would be another one. All these different elements have different cost pressures and inflationary increases, which may be determined by factors outside the landlord’s control. A property that has inclusive parking may become significantly more valuable, one could anticipate, if the local council applies permits on the streets around it.

I am tempted to support Amendment 25, but I am reluctant to do so because at the moment all these extras are rolled into the single price. The logical conclusion of where this debate is going is that we will get menu pricing, rather as we see on low-cost airlines. There may be an attractive flight—£5.99 to fly to Spain or whatever—but by the time you add in the baggage, the booking fee and everything else, it rolls up to a significantly higher value. My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham made the point that the risk of the price going up over the four-year period may be somewhat attenuated, but those extras amounting to what I would call the landed price, or total cost of ownership, could vary accordingly.

Another significant point that we need to take into account is that there may be Section 20 repairs or improvements, particularly in the case of furnished accommodation where the landlord is prepared to improve and upgrade the fixed furnishings, such as tables and chairs and possibly soft furnishings as well. All of this complicates what is a rolled-up figure at the moment. The logical conclusion is that all those extras are going to be disaggregated and obfuscated, so it is going be harder to compare for the potential tenant. But it is going to be essential for the landlord to obfuscate in this way in the circumstance of a First-tier Tribunal appeal, which is really concerned with the underlying rent—that £5.99 figure. It is very difficult.

I have a huge amount of sympathy with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Best, but I cannot support it because I think the logical conclusion of it will be that we will get a fragmentation of the landed rent so that the tail wags the dog. The landlord will be so focused on restricting the base rate that those other things will get lost.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

170: After Clause 21, insert the following new Clause—
“Restriction on landlord’s ability to require tenant to provide guarantor(1) A relevant person must not, in any of the circumstances set out in subsection (3), require a person, as a condition of the grant of a relevant tenancy, to provide a guarantor in relation to the observance or performance of the tenant’s obligations under the tenancy.(2) For the purposes of this section, requiring a person to provide a guarantor includes accepting an offer by that person to provide a guarantor.(3) The circumstances are—(a) that the person has paid a tenancy deposit or has been assisted under a deposit scheme,(b) that the person is required to pay rent in advance of one month’s rent or more, (c) that on a reasonable assessment of their means the person’s income (including state benefits received and any other lawful source of income) is sufficient to enable them to pay the full rent due under the tenancy,(d) that arrangements will be made for housing benefit or the housing element of universal credit to be paid directly in respect of rent to a relevant person,(e) that the relevant person has entered into a contract of insurance under which they are insured against non-payment of rent, or(f) such other circumstances as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State.(4) In any other case where a relevant person lawfully requires a person, as a condition of the grant of a relevant tenancy, to provide a guarantor, the sum for which the guarantor may become liable under the relevant guarantee may not exceed a sum equal to six months’ rent.(5) In any case where a relevant person lawfully requires a person, as a condition of the grant of a relevant joint tenancy, to provide a guarantor, the sum claimed under the guarantee may not exceed such proportion of the loss as is attributable to the act or default of the individual tenant on whose behalf the guarantee was given; and if such proportion cannot be proved, may not exceed the sum obtained by dividing the total loss by the number of tenants.(6) In this section—a“guarantor” is a person who enters into a guarantee in relation to a relevant tenancy;a“guarantee” is a contractual promise to be responsible for the performance of an obligation owed by the tenant to a relevant person under the tenancy if the tenant fails to perform the obligation;a“deposit scheme” includes a scheme whereby a sum payable by way of deposit or a bond or guarantee is provided by a local authority, registered charity or voluntary organisation for the purpose of providing security to a landlord for the performance of a tenant’s obligations under a tenancy;a“tenancy deposit” has the same meaning as in section 212(8) of the Housing Act 2004;“relevant person” has the meaning given by section 16M(1) of the 1988 Act.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would restrict the circumstances in which a landlord can request a guarantor.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 265. Both amendments aim to strengthen the very welcome anti-discrimination provisions in the Bill. I am grateful to colleagues who have added their names and to Shelter for its help.

Amendment 170 sets out the circumstances in which a landlord may not require a tenant to provide a guarantor, a practice that has increasingly become a precondition of a tenancy for certain tenants—namely, those in receipt of social security, black renters, women, families and disabled renters—and one that could therefore be used as a way of circumventing the Bill’s anti-discrimination clauses.

The spirit of the amendment is the same as that behind the government amendment in the Commons which will prevent landlords demanding multiple months’ rent up front. To quote Independent Age, which is among the many organisations supporting our amendment,

“this is a sensible measure that safeguards against the risk of solving one problem (excessive rent in advance demands) only for it to be replaced with another (excessive reliance on guarantors)”.

Already, over the last five years, 550,000 private renters were unable to rent a home that they wanted because they did not have a guarantor that met the landlord’s requirements.

I know and respect that the Government do not want to prohibit the use of guarantors altogether, and my noble friend the Minister explained why in her helpful post-Second Reading letter. However, the amendment would not do that. It simply sets out the circumstances in which a landlord could not ask for a guarantor, and those circumstances reflect the National Residential Landlords Association’s guidance on appropriate guarantor use—that is, where a tenant cannot prove that they can afford to pay the rent. However, recent research by Shelter has shown that in practice guarantor requests often do not follow that guidance. Thus, the amendment is not radical but merely serves to ensure that guarantors are used as intended.

The case for ensuring that the use of such requests is limited is a strong one and is very much in line with the aims of the Bill. First, as noted already, it would help to safeguard the Bill’s anti-discrimination measures. Requests for a high-earning or home-owning guarantor are too often used in a discriminatory manner. Renters who receive social security, have a disability or are members of a racialised minority are all significantly more likely to be asked for a guarantor. Similarly, as Independent Age notes,

“requiring a guarantor can be a way for landlords to discriminate against older renters”.

Secondly, and related, the groups most likely to face a guarantor request are also those least likely to be able to meet one. Some 45% of benefit recipients and 43% of families struggle to provide a guarantor, compared with just 24% of those not receiving benefit or without children. The NUS believes that the amendment would make a huge difference to student renters, especially working-class, international, estranged or care-experienced students, who are likely to face difficulties finding a suitable guarantor. Become has highlighted the problems finding a guarantor faced by care-experienced young people more generally; its FoI research found that only around two in five local authorities provide a guarantor scheme for them.

Thirdly, in practice, fewer than 3% of landlords have attempted to pursue a guarantor for unpaid rent in the past two years. Moreover, insurance offers a sensible option for covering that risk.

Fourthly, the argument that the unfettered freedom to request a guarantor provides an essential lifeline for tenants with poor credit and/or problem debts is, Shelter argues, “a disingenuous one”, because there is evidence that landlords already avoid such tenants because of the manner in which tenant referencing is done. Those are not the tenants who are most likely to be able to find a suitable guarantor.

As well as the Renters’ Reform Coalition, of which Shelter is a member, and Independent Age, those calling for limitations on the power to require guarantors include the Mayor of London and Unison. I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will be willing to discuss what is possible between now and Report and that if she cannot accept this amendment would consider proposing an alternative. Otherwise, I fear that some of the good intended by the Bill’s anti-discrimination measures will be undone in practice.

Amendment 265 would repeal the right to rent provision introduced in the Immigration Act 2014. It requires landlords, including those taking lodgers, and letting agents to check prospective tenants’ immigration status to confirm they have the right to rent in England before granting a tenancy. Letting a property to someone without the right to rent can now be punished with a fine of up to £20,000 or a five-year prison sentence.

--- Later in debate ---

There is a generous list of documents available that tenants can provide to prove their right to rent. Codes of practice required under right-to-rent legislation set out what landlords are expected to do and how they can avoid unlawful discrimination. We have made it easier to carry out checks digitally and this simplifies the requirement for landlords or letting agents to understand the types of documents that renters have. I simply add that there are no current plans to end the right-to-rent scheme. I am happy to discuss that further with my noble friend but, for these reasons, I would ask that she withdraw this amendment.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to everybody who spoke. I will not go into any great detail in response, given the late hour. I do not think that my noble friend the Minister answered the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, which was on whether the right to rent has had any effect in reducing illegal migration. I do not know if she would care to answer that question now.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I do not have any statistics in front of me, but I will come back to noble Lords on that point.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend. I am grateful for the support that I received. I was slightly confused, I must admit, by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, because I was not sure whether he was supporting my amendments or not. He said that they were ambiguous, but I think his approach was perhaps a bit ambiguous—and I cannot resist pointing out that right to rent was introduced by his Government, and we are now saddled with it.

I am disappointed, but perhaps not surprised, that my noble friend said that there is no plan to be shot of it especially, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, in the light of today’s White Paper. It is not exactly conducive to it, but it is important still to come back to the point.

I was also a bit disappointed that my noble friend did not feel able to give a bit more on the question of guarantors. She said that the proposed amendment would inadvertently block certain groups and could have unintended consequences. Everyone who spoke to this amendment accepted that it may be that it is not quite right, but that it is aiming to do something that in fact supports what the Government are trying to do.

Although she very kindly said that she is willing to discuss it, I did not get the sense that there is a willingness to discuss it in terms of perhaps bringing forward a government amendment that would achieve what we are trying to achieve but without the unintended consequences. Given the late hour, however, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 170 withdrawn.

Local Authorities: Temporary Accommodation Costs

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The provision of affordable housing is vital, and that is why the Government have made a huge commitment to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable housing, including in the social housing sector through housing associations. Since taking office, we have announced a number of changes in planning policy which will support the delivery of affordable homes, including the new “golden rules” for grey belt land release and two immediate one-year cash injections of £800 million to top up the existing affordable homes programme. That will deliver up to an extra 7,800 homes. I hope that will start to make a difference, but we have a long way to go.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, the HCLG Committee’s recent report on temporary accommodation highlighted the impact of refreezing the local housing allowance. It warned that this is a “false economy” because it will increase the risk of homelessness and reliance on temporary accommodation among families. What assessment have the Government made of these risks?

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure and a privilege to follow my noble friend Lady Brown of Silvertown, both to welcome her to your Lordships’ House and to applaud her warm, passionate, insightful and compelling maiden speech—not at all dry, as she told me she feared it would be.

My noble friend says that she intends to continue working on the causes that have defined her career. That is good news because, as we have heard, these causes have been wide-ranging and important. They include culture, Africa, women in the criminal justice system, and children, including child poverty. I look forward to working with her on child poverty in particular, as the Government’s child poverty strategy takes shape. She rightly made the link between child poverty and housing insecurity and disrepair, thereby underlining the importance of the Bill, to which I now turn.

When we debated the Bill’s predecessor, I was able to give it only a very lukewarm welcome, as it contained so many flaws and holes. It is good to be able to welcome this Bill unequivocally, especially as it was approved in the Commons as a result of the Minister listening to and acting on some of the suggestions made. But there is still, of course, room for further improvement. I am grateful to the Renters’ Reform Coalition and others who have briefed us on the further changes needed

“if the legislation is to deliver on the government’s ambitions to address the ‘insecurity and injustice that too many renters experience’ and ‘decisively level the playing field between landlords and tenants’”.

Before turning to some of these changes, I will say a word about context. I do not pretend to have expertise in housing law, but I came to the issue from my long-standing concern about poverty and the insecurity it creates. As the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report published last week made clear, high housing costs are

“a major driver of poverty … leading to a risk of compromised living standards, insecurity and at worst, homelessness and rough sleeping”.

It explains that private renters in particular are pulled into poverty by high housing costs. Shockingly, around half of private renters are in poverty only after their housing costs are factored in. On average, private renters in poverty spend around 60% more on housing costs than social renters in poverty. The situation is made worse by the continued freezing of the local housing allowance and the impact of the benefit cap, which I hope the Government will eventually address.

It is thus not surprising that the latest Bristol University financial fairness tracker survey found that parents of children living in rented accommodation were especially likely to face serious financial difficulties or to be struggling. As well as having issues with damp, mould and condensation, around half had needed to borrow money just to meet their daily living expenses.

Given the poverty that results from high housing costs in the private rented sector, I am very sympathetic to the calls from the Renters’ Reform Coalition for more decisive action on affordability. As Shelter underlines, there is a real risk that the security that the welcome immediate abolition of Section 21 aims to provide will be undermined by unfair rent hikes designed to force tenants out. I believe that the coalition makes a good case for a cap on in-tenancy rent increases. I do not really understand why the Government are opposed to this. It is not the same as rent controls, although I admit that I think there is a case for them. Ministers suggest that the answer to an unreasonable rent hike is for the tenant to challenge it at a tribunal, but how realistic is this? After all, the Minister in the Commons himself described this as an “onerous process”. I hope this can be looked at again, together with the coalition’s suggestion of a national rental affordability commission to investigate effective methods to make renting more affordable.

The other main concern of the coalition that I want to take up is the need to strengthen the very welcome anti-discrimination provisions in the Bill that would outlaw any ban on renting to families with children and those in receipt of social security. There are two main issues here. The first concerns landlords’ right to demand a guarantor. The fear is that this could be used to circumvent the Bill’s anti-discrimination provisions. Although it is welcome that the Bill was changed in the Commons to prevent landlords demanding multiple months of rent up front, as a Shelter housing champion and long-standing private renter pointed out at a briefing last week, rent in advance and guarantors are two sides of the same coin. Some of those in the most vulnerable circumstances are least likely to be able to find a guarantor, so the coalition suggests limits on the situations in which a landlord can demand a guarantor, which seems reasonable to me.

Barnardo’s and others recommend that all English local authorities should be required to offer guarantor and rent deposit schemes to care leavers, and that care leavers should be added to the groups that are specifically protected from discrimination by landlords. I hope the Government might also be open to the addition of other groups to the list of those who must not be discriminated against, particularly disabled people, prison leavers, and refugees and other non-UK passport holders—this points to the abolition of right to rent, which can lead to racial discrimination. I ask my noble friend: will those with no recourse to public funds receive the same protection as social security recipients?

Although I welcome that the Bill does not include the change to the definition of anti-social behaviour contained in the previous Bill, it does make eviction on grounds of ASB easier. This would be to the detriment particularly of survivors of domestic abuse and disabled people, who are vulnerable to ASB complaints. Justice encourages us instead to press for better training and resources for the police and local authorities to investigate and fully respond to ASB complaints.

I will raise the question of Home Office accommodation, mentioned by the right reverend Prelate and raised with me by London Councils. It argues that the Bill should include such accommodation so as to ensure that asylum seekers and refugees benefit from the decent homes standard, also called for by Hibiscus on behalf of black and minoritised women; otherwise, London Councils argues, the Bill could give rise to a two-tier system in which a small minority of rogue landlords might be incentivised to procure poor-quality accommodation for use as asylum accommodation.

On the basis of the extensive evidence it received from London authorities about the poor standards of asylum accommodation, London Councils contests the Minister’s assertion in Committee in the Commons that extending the Bill’s provisions to asylum accommodation is unnecessary. This is an issue I hope to pursue in Committee, and I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister would be willing to meet London Councils’ parliamentary officer to discuss what is involved.

In conclusion, as I said earlier, the Minister in the Commons did act on some of the concerns raised there. I know that my noble friend the Minister is a good listener, so I hope we might be able to make further improvements to the Bill in this House. In this way, we can turn what is a good Bill into a potentially ground-breaking one that achieves the Government’s aims of decisively levelling the playing field between tenants and landlords, and providing much greater genuine security to tenants.

Council Tax

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, the party opposite had 14 years to sort this out and did nothing about it. Council tax levels are decided by each council. We maintain the previous Government’s policy on the referendum levels. We are tackling the fair funding that was started off by the last Government but never finished. That will level the playing field for areas that need more funding support.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, local authority council tax support schemes are failing to provide adequate protection for many low-income council tax payers, either because of their restrictive nature or because of low take-up. Will the Government therefore consider increasing and ring-fencing the funding for these schemes, and look into introducing an automatic trigger for a council tax support application when a universal credit application is made?