- Homecare service
South Manchester Care Limited
Assessment report published 9 September 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of assessment 9 July 2026 to 29 July 2026.
South Manchester Care Limited is a domiciliary care agency which provides care and support to people living in their own homes and in crisis accommodation. The service is registered to support adults and children with learning disabilities, dementia, eating disorders, mental health conditions, physical disabilities, substance misuse issues, and people whose rights were restricted under the Mental Health Act.
We carried out a comprehensive assessment following concerns raised by a local authority. At the time of the assessment, the service supported 65 people, the majority of whom were children with learning disabilities and/or autism.
We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’. This guidance supported judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choice, independence and access to local communities that most people take for granted. We found the provider was not always delivering care in line with these principles.
Right support
The provider did not operate safe recruitment processes. There was insufficient assurance staff possessed the skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with complex needs safely.
Medicines management systems were not effective. We found instances where prescribed medicines had not been administered because they were unavailable, and the provider had not identified, investigated or escalated these concerns.
Clinical oversight arrangements were not safe. Staff competency assessments were not always complete. Records also showed occasions where staff identified concerns about unsafe practice, but these were not escalated appropriately.
Due to the concerns raised during this assessment, we made safeguarding referrals to several local authorities.
Right Care
Care planning and risk management processes were not effective. Documents were not always clear, sufficiently detailed or reflective of people's needs to enable staff to safely support people. We received mixed feedback from staff around the support they received from managers with some staff stating they felt unable to safely raise concerns.
Right Culture
The provider did not maintain effective systems of governance and oversight. Audits failed to identify several concerns found during the assessment. The provider had not shared safeguarding incidents and had not acted on a reminder from the local authority to do so. This limited external oversight of the service.
Leadership was not consistently effective. Some leaders did not demonstrate the skills, knowledge or oversight required for their roles.
The provider always responded to our requests for information immediately and were responsive to feedback given. The provider has instigated their own full review of the service and have advised that there is a full organisational review now taking place.
We identified breaches of legal regulations relating to safe care and treatment, fit and proper persons employed, and good governance.
This service is being placed in special measures. The purpose of special measures is to ensure services providing inadequate care make significant improvements. Special measures provide a framework within which we use our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and provide a timeframe within which providers must improve the quality of the care they provide.
In instances where CQC have decided to take regulatory action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded.
People's experience of this service
Relatives described mixed experiences of the service. Most relatives raised concerns about the reliability of the rota system. They told us staff did not always attend scheduled visits, arrived late, or changed frequently. Relatives also said communication about these issues was often poor. They described the impact this had on their children, many of whom required consistency, structure and routine to remain settled and engaged.
Some relatives questioned whether staff had the necessary skills and training to meet their children's needs. One relative told us staff did not always wear uniforms, had not shared care plans with them and were not always suitably trained. Another parent described how they had needed to provide training to care staff to support their child's clinical needs and told us, "We have to train them (carers), I think it's the norm, which is not ideal, but that's what happens."
A further parent expressed concerns about staff competency and the provider's ability to meet their child's needs. They told us the service, "It’s not fit for purpose… they didn't have the skills…There were issues when they turned up, they kept getting the rotas wrong, one carer…I tried to explain they needed to change their body language... I wouldn't have wanted (child) to go out with them, so they were just watching (child) on the trampoline.”
However, some relatives gave positive feedback about individual members of staff and the support provided. One relative said, "They take (person) out for community activities, in the nearly 3 years they've come there haven't had any accidents, and I've seen them be quite careful with his care." Another relative told us, "We are very happy with the carers, and they are always with him. We never had any problems." A further relative said, "The (carers) seem to know him and the way he is, the triggers and things".
Overall, feedback from relatives reflected a service which did not consistently provide reliable or person-centred care. While some families experienced positive relationships with individual care staff, many described concerns about staffing consistency, communication and staff competence.