Maladminstration in the provision of welfare support did not infringe the right to private life under Article 8 unless the public authority in question was particularly culpable and even then damages should not necessarily be awarded
Austin v Mayor and Burgesses of Southwark London Borough Council
The right to apply to revive a secure tenancy under the Housing Act 1985 s.85 was not transmissible on the death of the former secure tenant.
Public law schemes involving a two-tier decision-making process would usually engage the citizen's private law civil rights engaging Article 6 of the Convention, but the statutory scheme designed by Parliament, coupled with the availability of judicial review would usually be sufficient to satisfy the Article 6 standard.
The availability of an appeal from the decision of a housing review officer redressed any Article 6 shortcomings disclosed by the review process
For the purposes of determining damages under Section 8 of the Human Rights Act, where there is no analogous tortious award, the courts may look to equivalent awards for maladministration for quantum
Where a mother was unlawfully present in the United Kingdom the decision of a local authority to cease providing her and her two children with accommodation had not been unlawful, perverse or irrational, nor had it been in breach of Article 8.
Neither Article 9 or Article 14 imposed a positive duty on the state to enable a religious community to receive housing benefit in order to continue practising their religion in certain premises.
For property transactions such as the transfer of housing under the Housing Act from one registered landlord to another, the appropriate test of proportionality under Article 1 Protocol 1 required a decision which was justified on the basis of a compelling case in the public interest and as being reasonably necessary but not obligatorily the least intrusive of Convention rights.
There must be more than a “tenuous connection” with one of the substantive Articles of the Convention in order for a claimant to get home on Article 14.
The decision by the Home Secretary to accommodate destitute asylum seekers in a particular hostel did not breach their rights under Articles 6 or 8
In providing care and accommmodation for residents placed within it by a local authoirty, a privately owned care home was not performing public functions so as to attract liability under the Human Rights Act 1998
The The transfer of care home responsibilities from public to private control did not render the homes public authorities for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998
Once a local authority and a contractual and proprietary right to possession of a property, an Article 8 defence could only apply in exceptional cases. Lower courts must follow binding domestic precedent and not apparently inconsistent authority from the European Court of Human Rights
Kay and Others v United Kingdom (European Court of Human Rights, 21st September)
UK held to have violated the human rights of short-term tenants of council property whose leases had been terminated.
Article 8 of the Convention would not be infringed by the making of an order for possession in favour of a local authority that was simply seeking to enforce its right to possession of its own freehold property against a person who no longer had any right under domestic law to remain in possession.
Leonard Cheshire Foundation
A charitable housing association which provided residential care homes in the private sector did not perform a public function within the meaning of Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998
London Borough of Hounslow v Powell  UKSC 8
Guidance from the Supreme as to when eviction from local authority housing amounts to a breach of a tenant’s human rights
The statutory mechanism under the Housing Act 1996 that allowed local authorities to obtain possession of their housing on the grounds of domestic violence by a tenant, did not of itself render unlawful other methods of achieving the same result, nor was it incompatible with Article 8.
Possession proceedings taken against introductory tenants did not breach Article 8 even though the Housing Act allowed a tenant to be evicted without scrutiny by the court
Section 185(4) of the Housing Act 1996 was held to be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The provision breached Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 8 when it required a dependent child of a British citizen who was subject to immigration control to be disregarded when determining whether the citizen had a priority need for accommodation.
Housing associations are public authorities for the purposes of the Human Rights Act but they do not infringe Article 8 when seeking possession under the Housing Act 1988
Where a tenant occupied a residence after the expiry of their tenancy that occupation still qualified as a "home" under Article 8 but possession proceedings by a public authority landlord after a notice to quit had terminated the tenancy did not violate that Article.
R (on the application of Elizabeth Gilboy) v Liverpool City Council and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Interested Party)
 EWHC 2335 (Admin)
The availability of review of a decision to terminate a demoted tenancy by a local authority officer meant that the procedure complied with Article 6 of the Convention.
To complain of discrimination in breach of Article 14, it is necessary to have “other status” within the meaning of Article 14 jurisprudence. Being homeless or a "rough sleeper" was not a "personal characteristic" and therefore did not qualify as “other status”.
Article 8 of the Convention did not impose a general and unqualified obligation on local authorities in relation to the condition of their housing stock
Non secure tenants could not invoke Article 8 to the effect that the termination of their tenancies for non-intentional homelessness should be scrutinised for proportionality
Spath Holme v UK
Rent capping is a "control of use" under Article 1 Protocol 1 but justified as a proportionate measure in the public interest
Uthke v Poland
A judicial decision as to which of two litigants is the owner of certain property according to the rules of private law cannot constitute a "deprivation" for the purposes of Article 1 Protocol
Volkova v Russia
None of the Articles in the Convention impose an obligation on the state to provide individuals with accommodation
The social services had a power but not a duty under the Children Act to act as a safety net when the duty imposed on the local housing authority had come to an end
Yemshaw (Appellant) v London Borough of Hounslow (Respondent)  UKSC 3
“Domestic violence” in section 177(1) of the Housing Act 1996 has been extended to include threatening or intimidating behaviour and any other form of abuse which, directly or indirectly, may give rise to the risk of harm.