Summary

This article concerns an anonymised real-life case study of a provider who received a Notice of Proposal (NOP), and subsequently a Notice of Decision (NOD) to cancel their registration as a CQC registered care provider.

Background

In 2024, a homecare and supported living care provider faced significant scrutiny following a CQC inspection which resulted in urgent conditions being imposed on their registration. These conditions restricted new packages of care and required regular updates to be sent to CQC. CQC’s main concerns related to safety and governance. The imposition of urgent conditions was not challenged by the provider at the time. CQC subsequently issued a NOP to cancel the provider’s registration. Gordons Partnership’s Health and Social Care Team were instructed to assist with submitting representations to the NOP and to provide ongoing support as case progressed.

Key Challenges

  • Operational Uncertainty: The restriction on new care packages and an Inadequate rating meant the provider was unlikely to be able to increase income and there was a risk existing packages could have been withdrawn.
  • Cancellation Notice: The issuance of the NOP created uncertainty around the provider’s business future as well as impacting on staff morale.

Strategy

In response to the challenges:

  1. Engagement of Consultants: The provider took proactive measures by hiring experienced consultants to help address CQC’s concerns and demonstrate regulatory compliance.
  2. Drafting Representations: We prepared detailed representations documenting the significant improvements made, suggesting a re-inspection by CQC.

Initial Outcomes

Despite the evidence of improvement put forward in the representations, CQC issued a NOD without a re-inspection. We considered this decision to be premature, given CQC could not effectively evaluate the current position of the service (this being the position the Tribunal would consider at a final hearing), and therefore the strength of its case, without re-inspecting.

Appeal Process

  1. Filing an Appeal: A detailed appeal was drafted for submission to the First-tier Tribunal (Care Standards), again requesting a re-inspection by CQC. We also highlighted the urgently imposed conditions of registration, requesting the Tribunal also consider removing those when the time came. The Tribunal has the power to remove, impose or amend conditions of registration as they see fit, even if they are not the subject of the appeal.
  2. CQC’s Response: Following the initial appeal submission, CQC sought a stay of proceedings to allow time for a re-inspection before submitting its formal response.

Successful Re-inspection

CQC recently re-inspected the service (in Summer 2025), ultimately finding the provider compliant with regulatory standards and rating the service Good across all five key questions. Consequently, CQC requested that the appeal be allowed by consent.

Final Resolution

  • Before formalising the consent order for the appeal, we negotiated the removal of the urgently imposed conditions of registration through the Tribunal, leveraging its authority.
  • The provider is able to operate without operational restrictions, enabling a return to normal business activities.

Conclusion

This case highlights the importance of continuous provider engagement, regulatory responsiveness, and the need for CQC to evaluate ongoing compliance through re-inspections before issuing formal decisions. While this provider successfully overcame the challenges posed by CQC’s initial actions, we are concerned about the implications of the current enforcement approach adopted by CQC. The case underscores the potential risks of provider closures due to financial and operational strains exacerbated by CQC’s failure to re-inspect at pivotal moments in the enforcement process.

What This Teaches Us

  • Importance of Proactive Measures: Engaging experienced consultants can lead to significant improvements in service delivery and record keeping, which can be crucial in regulatory reviews.
  • Re-inspection as a Necessity: Regulatory decisions should be based on up-to-date evidence to ensure fairness and accuracy.
  • Maintaining Communication: Effective legal representation and negotiation can yield beneficial outcomes for providers faced with regulatory challenges.

About the Author

Samantha Burges

Senior Associate Solicitor

Tel: 01483 451 900

Email: Samantha.Burges@gordonsols.co.uk