During an assessment under our new approach
Date of assessment: 3 and 9 June 2026. Cloverley Care Ltd is a supported living service providing care and support to people with a learning disability and autistic people in their own homes. We assessed the service against the Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture guidance to determine whether people were supported with dignity, equality, choice, independence, and meaningful access to their local communities.
The assessment included discussions with people using the service, their relatives, staff members, and the management team. The management consisted of a Registered Manager, Care Manager and a Care Coordinator.
We found the management team did not demonstrate a sufficient understanding of the principles of Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture, which meant these principles were not consistently embedded within people's care and support. As a result, there was limited evidence people's rights, choices, and aspirations were actively promoted through care planning and service delivery.
There was little emphasis on supporting people to access further education, training, volunteering, or employment opportunities. While people attended day services where they were supported to develop daily living skills, care records did not consistently identify individuals' personal aspirations, goals, or desired outcomes.
Information relating to care and treatment was not always available in formats people could easily understand. This limited people's ability to be fully involved in decisions affecting their care and support and reduced opportunities for them to express their views and preferences.
Staff demonstrated limited understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Mental capacity assessments had not always been undertaken when required, meaning the service could not clearly demonstrate individuals' levels of understanding or their ability to make specific decisions. This placed people at risk of not having their rights upheld and restricted the provider's ability to evidence informed decision-making processes had been followed.
Governance systems and oversight arrangements were not effective in promoting best practice or driving service improvement. Leaders lacked understanding of their responsibilities in relation to sharing information with the regulator, including the submission of statutory notifications. In addition, complaints were not recorded, which reduced opportunities to identify trends, learn from feedback, and implement service improvements.
Staff received supervision and attended staff meetings, providing opportunities for guidance, reflective practice, performance management, and professional development. These arrangements helped to support staff in their roles and promote ongoing learning within the service.