Claims that Cumbria County Council's controversial home care charging policy has been a great success are being disputed by disability groups and opposition politicians.

Members of CCC's cabinet this week unveiled the results of a review of the policy which last year introduced charges of up to £10 per hour for the sick, elderly and disabled people who rely on council home care services.

Steven Wildes, director of social services, told the CCC cabinet meeting this week that charges introduced in October last year had netted the council £4 million to spend on social services.

He also said that, thanks to the means-tested system, 27 per cent of CCCs' 3,500 home care customers still paid nothing for their care and only 1.5 per cent (around 45 people) paid the full amount.

Deputy council leader Mike Ash said: "It was a very controversial policy, we pushed it through against an enormous amount of resistance - we made a brave decision that has worked."

John Mallinson, cabinet member for social services, said: "The outcome of this review has vindicated our decision to charge for home care."

But Stuart Young, leader of CCC's Labour group which opposed the charges, said: "I have read the report and I find it hard to believe they could view the introduction of home care charging as an unqualified success.

"The number of people receiving home care has actually dropped by around 1,000. One of our concerns is that they do not know what those people are doing now."

Mr Young feared that significant numbers of people may not be getting the care they need because of fear of the cost. That, he said, was potentially storing up problems for the future because without the right home care, some would need to go into residential care earlier than necessary.

He also pointed out that £4 million made by the service was actually £2 million less than the council's original prediction for revenue generated by home care charging.

Fred Wilenius, manager of Disability Association Carlisle and Eden, helped form a coalition of groups concerned about home care charging when the policy was first mooted.

Mr Wilenius said: "I can't imagine that the people who have paid the £4 million would give it the thumbs up."

He also told the Gazette his organisation had not been involved in the home care charging review and knew of no other groups consulted by the council.

"If we were not consulted as part of the review then who was?" he said. "We do not know of anyone who took part.

"It does say that the review took ten months - surely that was plenty of time in which to consult with users and relevant organisations. How can you draw conclusions about the success of something which directly effects service users if you have not consulted with service users themselves?"

He, too, raised concerns about the fate of the people who had stopped using home care charges and was particularly worried about elderly customers who may have cut back or scrapped their home care because of the cost.