• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Delight Services Limited Also known as Delight Care

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

1 Fairefield Crescent, Glenfield, Leicester, LE3 8EJ (0116) 287 5917

Provided and run by:
Delight Services Limited

Important:

We served a warning notice on Delight Services Limited on 5 May 2026. They were in breach of Regulation 17 (Good governance). The provider must make improvements by 28 July 2026. 

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Our current view of the service

Requires improvement

Updated 17 April 2026

Date of inspection 17 April – 29 April 2026.

Delight Services is a domiciliary care agency that provides care and support to people living in their own homes. CQC only inspect where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks relating to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of our assessment, 5 people were receiving the regulated activity.

We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed autistic people and people with a learning disability respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.At the time of the assessment, the service was not supporting any autistic people or people with a learning disability with any regulated activity, but the provider had regard to ‘Right support, right care, right culture.

This is the first inspection for this service.

This inspection identified that the provider was in breach of 2 legal regulations relating to staffing and good governance. In instances where CQC have decided to take civil or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and/ or appeals have been concluded. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to some of the concerns found at this inspection.

The provider’s governance systems, processes and procedures were not sufficiently robust to ensure risks were sufficiently assessed, planned for, mitigated, and quality and safety reviewed, monitored and improved.

Staff training and competency checks were insufficient. However, staff reported they felt well supported.

Medicines management and support procedures did not fully reflect medicines best practice guidance or align with the provider’s policy.

People were supported by staff who had been recruited safely, with appropriate pre-employment checks in place. However, staff files required review and auditing by the provider to ensure all documentation was accurate and up to date.

The provider had established systems for communicating with staff and sharing information, including quarterly staff meetings and a monthly face‑to‑face meeting. However, discussions were not consistently recorded, reducing accountability and continuity.

Although no person had come to harm as a result of these shortfalls in the fundamental care standards, they did present a potential risk of harm.

People received care from consistent staff who knew them well. From speaking with staff, we found they were generally experienced and knowledgeable about the people they supported.

People's experience of the service

Updated 17 April 2026

We spoke with a person who used the service and received feedback from 2 relatives to understand their experience of Delight Services Limited.

Overall, we received positive feedback about the service people received. Where concerns were raised about a care package, this was discussed with the provider to follow up.

Overall, people told us that staff provided consistent care. We received positive feedback about the approach of staff, who were described as caring, kind and respectful. One person compared the service to a previous care provider they had used and spoke favourably about Delight Services Limited.

Overall, people told us staff generally arrived on time. However, they were not always informed if calls were delayed and they did not receive a rota to confirm staff attendance. They told us they would find this useful.

People confirmed that communication and responses from the registered manager had been good. One relative raised concerns that they had sometimes experienced a breakdown in communication and understanding with care staff.