Birmingham Social Services is facing a fresh funding crisis after a High Court judge ruled a controversial cost-cutting plan to be unlawful.
Mr Justice Walker found that city council leaders ignored provisions in the Disability Discrimination Act when they decided to stop providing care packages for about 4,000 adults whose needs are assessed as being substantial.
His interim judgment blows a hole in the council’s budget, since the local authority had been expecting to save £17.5 million this year by restricting social care packages only to clients whose needs are critical.
The decision could also have repercussions for other councils across the country which are attempting to make similar cuts in social care.
The council cannot carry on with assessing individual needs until Mr Justice Walker delivers his full judgment next month, and is likely to have to conduct fresh consultation on equalities issues before reaching a new decision on the future of social care – a process that could take several months.
It is the second time recently that Birmingham City Council has been found to have behaved unlawfully when making spending cuts.
Two weeks ago, it lost a similar case over the way it reduced funding for voluntary organisations, including the Citizens Advice Bureau.
It was found then to have ignored equalities legislation and not to have consulted properly on the impact the cut would have.
On this occasion, families representing four severely disabled adults succeeded in a judicial review by overturning the council’s decision to limit the care their grown-up children receive.
They argued that a move to restrict social services assistance was unlawful because it did not take account of equalities legislation.
Ian Wise QC, appearing for the families, said the council failed to consult properly about the impact the cuts would have and a decision to go ahead contravened a statutory duty to have due regard to the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act.
The council cabinet also failed to consider cutting spending in other areas or increasing council tax to find the £17.5 million without cutting social services, Mr Wise added.
About 11,000 adults in Birmingham were to have the care they receive reviewed as a result of the cuts, and 4,000 were expecting to be told they can no longer receive council-funded social services and will be “signposted” to services provided by the voluntary sector instead.
The council expects to save £17 million this year, rising to £53 million by 2014, by restricting care to adults whose needs are deemed to be critical.
Unison welcomed the ruling, with the union's regional head of local government Tony Rabaiotti describing it as a "landmark ruling and a tremendous victory for thousands of vulnerable people across Birmingham who rely upon social care provision".
He added: "Social Care workers across Birmingham have been telling Unison over the last few months that they are genuinely frightened by the proposal to so severely axe social care provision. They have been telling us that vulnerable people will simply be left to fend for themselves.
"The council now has the opportunity to pause, think again and work with us to maintain quality social care provision for the people of Birmingham.”