- Homecare service
Archived: Priory Alliance Care Limited
We served a notice of decision on Priory Alliance Care Limited on 15 December 2025 to impose conditions on their registration in relation to the delivery of personal care. The registered provider must not accept any new packages of care without prior written agreement of the Care Quality Commission at Prior Alliance Care Limited.
Assessment report published 27 February 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of assessment: 19 November 2025 to 08 December 2025. The inspection included a site visit which took place on the 19 November 2025, with additional information and evidence reviewed remotely.
We carried out a risk based assessment following information of concern we had received about the provider.
Priory Alliance Care Limited is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to people in their own homes. At the time of our assessment, the provider supported 3 people.
We found serious and widespread shortfalls across all key questions. Evidence showed the provider did not have effective systems to assess, monitor, or improve the safety and quality of the service. Failures in governance meant risks to people’s health, welfare, and rights were not identified or acted upon. This included inadequate care planning, missing or inaccurate records, insufficient oversight of medicines, and the absence of essential risk assessments.
Recruitment processes were unsafe, increasing the risk of unsuitable staff providing care.
People’s care plans lacked person‑centred detail and did not provide staff with the guidance needed to deliver safe or consistent care. There was an absence of consent forms, mental capacity assessments were incomplete, and best interest decisions were not completed for those unable to make their own decisions.
Staff did not reliably read or use care plans and call monitoring records showed people regularly received less time than commissioned without documented consent or rationale.
While we had significant concerns about the service, while we found feedback was mixed, some people told us staff were kind and treated them with dignity and respect.
We found significant concerns about the accuracy and transparency of information provided by the registered manager.
At this inspection we have identified 6 breaches of legal regulations in relation to person centred care, need for consent, safe care and treatment, good governance and staffing and fit and proper persons employed.
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 appeals have been concluded.
People's experience of this service
People’s experiences of care were mixed, and although there were examples of kind and compassionate interactions, this was not always consistent. Care plans provided some information about individuals, but they did not always include enough personal detail about what mattered to people, their preferred routines, or how staff could best support their dignity during personal care.
Daily records tended to focus on tasks completed rather than describing people’s comfort, wishes, or emotional wellbeing. Staff told us they often relied on family members or the registered manager for additional guidance, which meant personalised approaches were sometimes missed. People would have benefited from greater involvement in shaping their care. Although some mental capacity assessments were in place, they were often generic and did not capture people’s views or preferences.
Care was not responsive to people’s changing needs. Staff were committed, but incomplete and unclear information impacted staff’s ability to recognise and respond to risks promptly, especially for people with conditions such as diabetes or limited mobility. Systems to monitor the length of care call times showed staff left earlier than they should have done. Also, records did not show people had consented to their care.
Relatives spoke positively about individual staff members and described them as kind and supportive. However, this was not always reflected consistently in care records, observations, and not everyone gave positive feedback.
People experienced care that was task‑focused rather than shaped around their preferences. They were not always meaningfully involved in decisions about their daily lives which affected their sense of dignity, independence and individuality.