• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Time to Care Specialist Support Services Limited

Overall: Inadequate read more about inspection ratings

12d Linnet Court, Cawledge Business Park, Hawfinch Drive, Alnwick, Northumberland, NE66 2GD (01665) 606358

Provided and run by:
Time to Care Specialist Support Services Limited

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Our current view of the service

Inadequate

Updated 5 January 2026

Date of assessment: 21 January 2026 – 18 February 2026

Time to Care Specialist Support Services Limited provides personal care and support to people under the age of 65 who may have a learning disability or mental health need. The location supports 2 different Assessment Service Groups (ASGs). The location is registered for the ASGs supported living and domiciliary care. Under CQC’s new assessment methodology, the 2 ASGs are reported on separately. This report is in respect of the supported living services only and considers only those people who received support from that ASG and the regulated activity of personal care. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living.

The assessment was prompted due to the time since the last inspection and incoming concerns in relation to the care people received. During the assessment we identified 4 breaches of legal regulation in relation to governance; safe care and treatment including risk management, care planning and medicines; staffing and the provision of person-centred care.

At the time of the assessment 6 people were receiving the regulated activity of personal care. Five people lived in supported living services in small complexes of flats and received shared support from a communal staff team, along with additional individually funded hours of support. Another person lived in a separate individual supported living service and had a dedicated team of care staff to support their needs.

Where people gave consent, we visited them at home and spoke to them about their care. For other people we spoke with their relatives. We visited 3 people and spoke with 2 relatives.

There were 2 registered managers in post at the time of the assessment. One was also the nominated individual and will be referred to as such in the report. The nominated individual made an application to cancel the other registered manager’s registration during the inspection as they were not available to do this themselves. This was approved on 26 February 2026. An acting manager was in post.

The service did not always apply the principles and values of Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.

Care plans and risk management plans were not sufficiently detailed. They were not monitored effectively to ensure people’s needs were met. Oversight of care planning was lacking meaning opportunities to improve people’s care, wellbeing and outcomes were missed.

At one complex there was a high reliance on agency staff, who had not received a robust induction, and did not understand people’s needs. Staff received limited supervision and support.

Care was not person-centred as most people were supported by staff who did not know them or understand their needs.

Some people were supported to have choice and control and maintain their independence. Other people were left feeling isolated and alone which was impacting their quality of life.

The nominated individual thought the registered manager was conducting audits and monitoring the quality of support people received. However, this was not the case.

Some action was being taken to improve the quality of service and additional resources had been sourced to enable this to happen. An action plan was being developed to address improvements.

A failure to notify of events the provider is legally obliged to inform the Commission of was identified during the inspection. This is being addressed separately.

We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment. This service is being placed in special measures. The purpose of special measures is to ensure that 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.

The service was in organisational safeguarding, meaning the local authority was monitoring the service and supporting them to ensure the correct procedures were in place to keep people safe.

People's experience of the service

Updated 5 January 2026

People had mixed views on the support they received and differentiated between support from staff based locally and the support received from the provider’s senior and office staff. One person told us they were supported to live independently and enjoyed living in their own flat. They told us, “I enjoy living here, I enjoy having my own space and being more independent.” They said regular staff were responsive and supportive, but they felt less assured when supported by agency staff. One person commented, “I feel comfortable with the normal staff, those I already know. I don’t like getting staff that I don’t know. I don’t mind agency staff coming to do tea or the washing. I’m not very keen on agency staff doing personal care. I have to explain everything. Agency staff don’t really know what to do.” Another person said they felt agency staff were not up to date with their care needs and felt less confident with this staff group. They told us, “In the most basic way such as food, my needs are met. Agency staff are very difficult to communicate with. I can’t really talk to them; I don’t get any social interaction.”

With regards to more senior staff one person said, “I have met (registered manager and nominated individual), once when they came over. But I’ve never seen them since.” They told us they had only recently visited, and they did not have regular contact with them.

There were mixed views about the involvement of people and their relatives in care planning and reviews. Records did not include people’s views. We could not be sure people’s needs and preferences had been robustly assessed.

People’s care and support was not being overseen by the registered manager or nominated individual which had adversely impacted the quality of the care they received.

People told us recent changes in management had improved things slightly and the acting manager had responded to one person’s email about concerns.