Angry families have accused Bradford Council of doing a U-turn, claiming councillors and insurance companies have failed their crumbling street.

Residents of Salt Street, Manningham, say that subsidence is wrecking their homes and putting their health at risk.

At a stormy meeting last night, it was agreed that the Council's housing department - along with the residents' insurance companies - would undertake to monitor the street for 12 months to establish what movement is taking place.

But residents claim that Council housing officers agreed to undertake a similar survey two years ago, yet nothing was done.

Now families say they have been left in the lurch by both the Council and their insurance companies who are refusing to pay out compensation claims until they have concrete evidence that subsidence is taking place.

Mohammed Sajid, a resident, said: "We have all been misled.

"We were told two years ago that our homes were going to be monitored. This is playing with people's lives."

Another resident, Majid Ihsan, said: "For two years we've been left in the lurch.

"We have written petitions to the Council and held meetings, and still nothing's been done.

"The insurance companies and the Council are just blaming each other."

At the meeting, loss adjusters, who were investigating claims on behalf of the insurance companies involved with the residents, claimed that council officers had agreed to monitor the street for subsidence in July 1996.

But principal housing officer Andrew Houldsworth said he had not been aware that this agreement had been reached and that no monitoring had subsequently been carried out.

The public meeting was called by the Council's housing services sub-committee to decide the fate of the 36 home street.

Chairman of the housing services sub-committee Jim O'Neill said that an impasse on the issue had been reached.

He said: "The insurance companies won't pay out until they have evidence that there's movement. The Council says it knows there is movement, but can't pay out for repairs to the houses because that cost would be prohibitive.

"The best way forward is to monitor properties for the next 12 months to produce that evidence."

He also said that it was part of the Council's statutory duties to inspect the properties and ascertain when they became dangerous.

Then the Council could issue a compulsory purchase order or individual demolition orders.

Converted for the new archive on 30 June 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.