- Homecare service
Three C's Support
Assessment report published 16 October 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Three C's Support provides care and support to young people and adults who are living with a learning disability and have mental health needs, people were supported in supported living accommodations in the London Boroughs of Hackney and Lewisham.
The supported Living settings in Newham, Merton and Wandsworth were no longer part of this Location.
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.
The assessment took place over 1, 2 and 4 July 2026. We undertook site visits on these dates and included an out of hours visit. We completed this inspection to follow up on enforcement action taken after our September 2025 inspection, when we rated the service Inadequate, having identified significant shortfalls across the service and breaches of five regulations in relation to providing people with person centred care, safeguarding, staffing, dignity and respect and good governance.
Since the last assessment, the provider had implemented a new management structure giving clearer oversight of the quality and safety of people's support.
At this assessment, we found the provider had taken steps to improve the service. They had introduced new systems to strengthen quality assurance and oversight, improved medicines management, addressed environmental risks and reviewed staffing arrangements. The provider also introduced governance meetings and additional audits to improve oversight and identify risks.
However, the provider had not yet fully embedded these improvements or applied them consistently across all settings. Quality assurance systems and audits did not always identify the concerns we found, including in medicines management, safeguarding oversight, record keeping and risk monitoring. We recognise that the provider needed further time to implement these systems fully, embed them in staff practice and demonstrate that improvements could be sustained.
The provider had introduced electronic care records and we noted some improvement in the recording of information relating to people’s care. However, further work was needed to ensure records were consistently accurate, person-centred and up to date. Care records were often task-focused and did not consistently describe people’s wellbeing, experiences or outcomes.
Overall, the provider had made sufficient improvements for the rating to move from inadequate to requires improvement. However, they remained in breach of the regulation relating to good governance, and we identified 2 further breaches in relation to need for consent and safe care and treatment. Further work was required to ensure improvements were consistently implemented across all settings, embedded in staff practice and sustained over time, and that people received safe, effective and person-centred care.
People received compassionate and reliable support from regular staff who knew them well and understood their needs and preferences. Staff described the new managers as approachable and responsive. The new service manager responded positively to feedback and acted on concerns we identified during the assessment.
This service has been in Special Measures since September 2025. The purpose of special measures is to ensure that services providing inadequate care make significant improvements. The provider demonstrated improvements have been made. The service is no longer rated as inadequate overall or in any of the key questions. Therefore, this service is no longer in Special Measures.
At our last assessment we found the provider was in breach of 5 regulations. At this assessment we found the provider was no longer in breach of the regulations relating to person-centred care, safeguarding, staffing, and dignity and respect. However, the provider continued to be in breach of the regulation relating to good governance, and we identified 2 further breaches. These were in relation to need for consent and safe care and treatment. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.
People's experience of this service
People and their relatives had mixed views about the service. Some people spoke positively about staff and described them as kind, caring and supportive. However, feedback also reflected inconsistency in people’s experiences. Some relatives told us staff were present but not always involved with them, and people had limited engagement in meaningful activities due to a lack of staff.
One relative told us, “[My loved one] is supposed to have 1:1 time and is not getting it. They say staff resources are not adequate, and there doesn’t seem to be enough staff.”
Some relatives said they were not always involved in their loved one’s care, and some were unclear about who was managing the service now. This meant relatives did not always have confidence in the information they received or know who to contact about their family member’s care.
People told us they were happy living in their homes and spoke positively about the staff who supported them. One person told us, "The staff are nice. Get on well." Another person said, "Staff are kind." They confirmed staff supported them to go out when they wanted. A third person told us, "I feel safe living here. I chose my furniture and have my room how I like it." They also confirmed staff respected their privacy and knocked before entering their room.
People who could not tell us about their experiences verbally appeared relaxed and comfortable with staff. We observed warm, friendly interactions throughout our visits, with staff quickly recognising and responding to people's non-verbal communication. People approached staff readily for support and showed clear affection towards them.