Housing and Human Rights

The right to be free from inhuman or degrading treatment may be at risk when someone in particularly vulnerable circumstances is at risk of being street homeless.

DMA and four others were seeking asylum and all had various mental and physical health conditions. They were accepted by the Home Office to be entitled to accommodation and financial support because they otherwise faced destitution and inhuman or degrading treatment. The Home Office had hired private companies to provide these services, but were not monitoring how they were carrying them out. DMA and the others were all left homeless for long periods and had to rely on help from charities, churches and individuals for food and places to sleep. The court found that by not monitoring the services, the Home Office had breached its duty to provide support as it could not simply “contract out” its responsibilities.

If a case is decided by a non-judicial body and those proceedings do not meet the standards of Article 6, this may not breach Article 6 if it is possible to appeal that decision through a court or tribunal that does meet the standard for a fair trial.

A local council offered Begum accommodation which she said was unacceptable as she had experienced racial abuse in the area and was attacked after visiting the flat.

The council’s own rehousing manager conducted a review and decided that the accommodation was suitable. Begum appealed, arguing that her right to a fair trial was at risk as she had not had a hearing before an independent tribunal, because the rehousing manager was not independent.

The court agreed that the rehousing manager was not independent. However, they decided that her right to a fair trial had not been breached. This is because she still had the opportunity to appeal the decision further through the courts.

The right to private and family life may be at risk when decisions made by social housing providers make it virtually impossible for people to enjoy their private life because their accommodation is not suitable for them.

Mrs Bernard was severely disabled following a stroke, having limited mobility and using an electric wheelchair. She was incontinent and had diabetes. She lived with her husband and six children in a house adapted by Social Services to meet her needs. She had to sell the house after mortgage arrears built up.

The family applied for council accommodation but were placed in a house that was not adapted to meet Mrs Bernard's needs. She could not access the bathroom by herself or get out of the front door because there were steps in front of the doors and could not get upstairs so had to stay in the living room, which opened directly out to the street. An Occupational Therapist submitted a report to the council outlining the problems with the house, but the council did not take steps to adapt or move the family.

The court found a serious breach of Article 8 as the council, by not meeting its positive obligations, had "condemned the claimants to living conditions which made it virtually impossible for them to have any meaningful private or family life".

Failure of public authorities to provide reasonable adaptations to a property so someone with mobility issues can enjoy their home may place the right to be free from discrimination at risk.

A resident living in social housing is disabled and has degenerative lumbar spine disease, hypermobile knees, and arthritis. An occupational therapist, paid for by the residents’ landlord, recommended that the property is adapted to meet the residents’ disabilities, this included a level shower, and adapted kitchen.

The landlord said they could only provide a standard kitchen, not an adapted one because the OT that recommended the adaptations was not the Landlord’s prescribed OT. This turned out to be incorrect, the OT was from the Local Authority. ​

Due to confusion and misunderstanding on the landlord’s part, no adaptations occurred in the property at all. The resident was left with a kitchen that was ‘falling apart’ and due to their disabilities, struggled to use the kitchen and the bathroom. They raised a formal complaint to the landlord. There were significant delays in the Landlord’s response to these complaints and they failed to investigate thoroughly at both stages of its own complaints’ procedure. ​

The resident has said that her health has deteriorated due to the stress caused by the issues in this complaint​.

The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions may be at risk when public authorities fail to repair social housing properties within an appropriate time frame, where disrepair results in damage to the tenants personal property.

A landlord took 14 months to repair a roof and a further 12 months to install insulation, which ended up leaving a family living in cold, damp and mouldy conditions for two years causing significant distress and inconvenience to the residents. The damp and mouldy conditions were also causing damage to possessions in the residents’ property.

Whilst it offered compensation due to the delay, this was a small amount that did not reflect the time taken to fix the roof or the distress caused. There was a six-month delay in obtaining the asbestos reports and then a further 6 months delay in having the roof replaced.

The landlord did not take any steps to mitigate the three further leaks that occurred whilst waiting for the roof to be replaced, leading to damp and mould in three rooms and the wet room being unusable for the disabled household member.

.