VULNERABLE people in York are receiving care worth hundreds of pounds less than those elsewhere in the UK, according to a crunch report on the city’s cash-strapped support network.

Figures which will go before City of York Council’s health overview and scrutiny committee next week have revealed the authority spent £283 less on personal social services for each elderly person it looked after than the national average in 2007-08, the latest year for which statistics were available.

Meanwhile, the average annual cost of its care packages was £1,400 below the UK-wide figure, leading to claims the amount of money the council has devoted to its adult social services budget left the department “vulnerable” to a looming £1.1 million overspend – despite £822,000 in savings having already been made.

The report also says “increased demand” predicted when the current financial year started meant the risk of going over budget was clear almost 12 months ago, and has listed drastic steps which could be considered to balance the books.

They include rationing residential and nursing care placements, extending waiting lists, reviewing service levels, freezing recruitment and changing the eligibility criteria for services – all of which carry a warning of having a “direct impact” on those needing care.

Coun James Alexander said: “The overspend is very serious and the council will need to take drastic action.

“Any savings will have a significant impact on service users and I am not confident of any solution being found by the council which will not be detrimental in some way to these users.

“The council is low-spending when it comes to care packages and there is no more slack in the system.

“Either the administration needs to cough up more money or reduce services – that is it.

“People will feel justifiably annoyed that we could be looking at drastic cuts in services when the administration has lost and wasted money on projects such as the Barbican.

“This report says the council entered the year at risk of not being able to balance its books. I think questions need to be asked as to why such risks were taken with essential services affecting people’s lives – it feels like the service has been working to a budget written on the back of a fag packet.”