- Care home
Maranello Also known as Zero Three Care Homes LLP
Assessment report published 29 September 2025
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
We undertook an inspection for Maranello from 19 June to the 11 July 2025. This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about the service, and to follow up on the previous inspection to review the breaches found.
Maranello is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care. The service provides support to people with a Learning disability and autistic people. At the time of our inspection there were 9 people living there.
We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.
We expect health and social care providers to guarantee autistic people and people with a learning disability the choices, dignity, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. Right support, right care, right culture is the statutory guidance which supports CQC to make assessments and judgements about services providing support to people with a learning disability and/or autistic people. We considered this guidance as there were people using the service who have a learning disability and/or who are autistic. The service did not meet this guidance.
People did not receive support that was the least restrictive. People were not always supported by staff with the correct skills and training, which put people and staff at the risk of harm.
People were not protected from safeguarding risks in a timely manner. Where risks had been identified, in some cases, risk assessments did not identify how to support the person.
Governance systems failed to identify improvements needed. Where required improvements had been identified, lessons learnt were not shared widely.
Staff gave mixed views about the support they received. Some staff said they felt unsafe when supporting individuals because they did not have the right skills.
The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment, safeguarding and good governance. Improvements were not found at this assessment, and the provider remained in breach of this regulation. We also found the provider failed to ensure safe staffing.
The provider did not ensure people were supported in the least restrictive way, people did not have the choice and control of the daily life. People were not always supported by appropriately skilled staff. The provider’s governance systems failed to identify areas of improvement, and they were unable to evidence how improvements were then embedded in the service.
In instances where CQC has begun a process of regulatory action, we may publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded, if the action has been taken forward.
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.
People's experience of this service
We met 8 people who used the service and spoke with 5 relatives about their experience of the care provided. Where people who used the service were unable to talk with us, we used different ways of communicating including using Makaton (a type of sign language), pictures, objects of reference and their body language. We are improving how we hear people's experience and views on services, when they have limited verbal communication.
People and relatives gave mixed views about the experiences they had. People in some cases seemed to feel safe in the home, whilst others expressed they did not feel safe. People did not receive support that was a consistently good experience. People shared, and we observed, that they were not always supported to have control of their lives. There was evidence of an imbalance in relationships with people, people were not always at the centre of decisions being made.