The key Convention rights will be articles 6 (fair determination of civil rights and obligations), 8 (respect for private life, family life and the home) and Article 1, First Protocol (respect for possessions).
Housing allocation policies and the discharge of homelessness functions under the 1996 Act need to be vetted for compatibility with these rights.
Public and Private sector housing conditions might constitute a breach of article 3 (inhuman or degrading treatment, if very bad) or article 8 (see above).
Public Sector tenancy terms could conceivably be disproportionately harsh in light of Convention rights.
Eviction of travellers and use of summary possession proceedings have already attracted the court’s attention and the scrutiny of the European Human Rights Court in Strasbourg.
The handling of noise and neighbour disputes, and the discharge of community safety and Anti- Social Behaviour order applications could be the subject of challenge, either for too tough or too lenient discharge of functions, by the person affected by the restriction, or the persons affected by the ongoing nuisance.
It should be noted that the meaning of home for article 8 purposes has been broadly interpreted by the Strasbourg court, and that illegal homes still count as homes.
Lastly, housing associations need to appreciate that they could be held to be public authorities, despite being private charitable entities, for the purposes of being sued under the Human Rights Act for disproportionate action against tenants, if (and only if) they are so closely associated with a local authority as to be seen to be discharging public functions (see Poplar Housing Association case for discussion of when this might be the case).