There can be no doubt that Birmingham City Council’s attempt to save money by ceasing to provide care packages for more than 4,000 disabled adults with substantial needs has been little short of cataclysmic.

Leaders of the city’s Tory-Liberal Democrat coalition knew they were taking a risk by rationing care, providing support only to claimants whose needs are deemed to be critical.

The main stumbling block, they thought privately, was that Birmingham’s voluntary sector simply would not have the capacity to fill the gap by providing social care to those who stood to lose council-funded cover.

As cabinet member Sue Anderson belatedly admitted: “We always said we weren’t absolutely positive that the suppliers were out there.”

Well, perhaps Coun Anderson is somewhat overcome by events, but it is only fair to point out that the council’s Strategic Director for Adults and Communities, Peter Hay, insisted on several occasions that the voluntary sector would be in a position to step in and that no social care claimant would go “unheeded or unassisted”.

As Mr Hay pointed out, it would be self-defeating and costly if claimants with substantial needs did not receive help since they would quickly progress to the critical category, placing yet more strain on the council’s finances.

Unfortunately, he has been unable to provide any real evidence to support his claim that adults with substantial needs have nothing to fear from the cost-cutting proposals.

In addition to third sector capacity issues, the council’s four-year plan to save £53 million fell apart because it was unlawful. A judicial review, the second in a month, resulted in a familiar result – the council failed to take account of its duties under the Disability Discrimination Act to promote equality when it decided to pull the rug from under the feet of some 4,500 severely disabled people.

It is to be hoped that some serious questions are being asked about the legal advice given to councillors before they decided to go ahead with the cuts plan. On the face of it, the local authority’s lawyers appear to have displayed a cavalier attitude towards the Act, deciding most unwisely that councillors did not even have to see an equalities needs impact assessment before reaching a decision to cut funding.

The council says in its defence that the waters were muddied by the pace demanded by the Government for delivering cuts and “evolving” interpretations of equalities law.

As a result of the two judicial reviews, the council faces minimum legal costs of about £600,000, although the true figure is probably going to be nearer to £1 million. A most unwelcome outcome for a local authority under pressure to make unprecedented budget cuts.

In mitigation, council leaders have correctly pointed out that the ever-increasing burden of providing expensive care for disabled and older adults is not something that can be solved purely by Birmingham. This is a national issue, as MPs must know, and deserves high-level investigation aimed at achieving cross-party consensus about the best way forward.

The financial figures are scary. In Birmingham alone, the cost of looking after adults with disabilities is expected to rise by £290 million by 2018. Multiply that across the country and the burden facing local government becomes clear. No wonder so many councils are attempting to offload to the voluntary sector their caring responsibilities.