A High Court showdown could decide the fate of 700 North-East pensioners living in local authority care - and leave social services chiefs with a massive headache.

Campaigners last night pledged to take Durham County Council to the High Court if it decides to press ahead later this week with controversial plans to close 17 residential homes.

A legal injunction could be served as early as Thursday when councillors meet to discuss the policy.

If the move is successful, it will almost certainly spark similar legal challenges to councils throughout the country.

Last night, it emerged that one local authority had already been forced to back down as a result of a similar challenge.

Bury Metropolitan Borough Council was forced to rethink the closure of three residential homes and a rehabilitation centre when a pensioners' action group took legal action.

Councils are planning to close scores of care homes as part of a modernisation programme. The closures were accelerated by Government plans to introduce tough new standards on the size of rooms and the provision of other facilities in homes - plans that were later scrapped.

Durham County Council caused uproar earlier this year when it announced an £18m shake-up, which included the closure of 17 of its 25 residential homes, including Stoneleigh, in Barnard Castle.

The idea is to replace the old homes with modern alternative facilities, including seven "extra care" units.

Stoneleigh is earmarked for demolition to make way for a new unit, designed to give elderly residents more independence.

But relatives who do not want to see their loved ones moved formed an action group and lodged a formal complaint with the council.

They claim the authority failed to consult properly with the relatives and residents about proposals for Stoneleigh and that it had breached the Human Rights Act.

An independent inquiry was set up to look at the complaint and, although it rejected many of the relatives' arguments, the report highlighted a breach of human rights.

The families' fight has won backing from pressure group Rage - Relatives Action Group for the Elderly -which says that 55 people across the UK died because their homes were shut down.

Last night Mark Oley, national citizens' advocate for Rage, said: "I feel confident we can successfully take this council to court.

"Durham County Council cannot just say it respects human rights - it must demonstrate that, which I don't think it has done here.

"Elderly people should be respected and cared for. We're not just talking about people being moved from one building to another, but from the homes many want to spend the rest of their lives in.

"Although we're only at the first stage of this fight, the small group of families who have decided to stand up for the rights of their relatives should be proud.

"The independent report refers to all of the homes Durham County Council proposes to close and says it has failed all 700 residents. This action should benefit them all.

"I would also hope other people will see what is being done about Stoneleigh and stand up to local authorities threatening to do the same to their elderly relatives."

Teesdale district councillor Kenneth Coates, who has represented Barnard Castle East for 24 years, said: "I still believe the building could be modernised with minimal disturbance for residents, but the county council wants to spend taxpayers' money on something they don't want.

"It's a sad day when we cannot even look after our old people."

The county council remains adamant that Article 8 of the Human Rights Act was only an issue raised by the inquiry panel.

A spokesman said: "A report, which will go before the council's cabinet on Thursday, will clearly state that members were made aware of the needs to consider the principles encompassed in the Act."

Article 8 of The Human Rights Act

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.