- Homecare service
Time to Care Specialist Support Services Limited
Assessment report published 30 March 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
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 domiciliary service 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 domiciliary care.
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 3 breaches of legal regulation in relation to governance; safe care and treatment including risk management and care planning; and staffing.
At the time of the assessment 4 people were being supported.
The provider was not able to gain consent for us to visit people at home, so we spoke with 3 relatives about the care their loved ones received.
There were 2 registered managers in post at the time of the inspection. 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 assessment 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.
People had their own core team of staff who knew them well which contributed to personalised support. Staff received limited supervision and said they did not feel listened to and rarely received responses if they raised concerns or asked questions.
People’s needs were assessed initially. However, there was no evidence of robust reviews and monitoring. Care plans and risk management plans were not sufficiently detailed and were not monitored effectively to ensure people’s needs were met.
There was a failure to ensure robust governance and oversight which meant opportunities to improve people’s care, wellbeing and outcomes had been missed.
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.
We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.
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 this service
The relatives we spoke with were generally happy with their loved one’s care. However, our assessment found the care and support provided did not meet the expected standards. Due to the concerns identified during the assessment in relation to care planning, risk management, staffing and governance we could not be confident in the provider’s approach to ensuring people received good quality care and support.
Relatives told us staff knew their loved ones well and had taken the time needed to build relationships and trust. Relatives shared positive outcomes with us about the progress their family members had made. One relative said, “I have never felt more at ease, (person) is happy in themselves, they used to be so angry, but they are they getting the right support now.”
There were some mixed views shared with us around communication and involvement. Some relatives saying they felt fully informed and involved whilst others felt they weren’t informed or listened to.
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.