The Red House Welfare & Housing Society
- Care home
- 31 beds
- No nursing
- Registered since 2011
- Sudbury, Suffolk, East of England
Inadequate
Rated on
Rating from the Care Quality Commission.
At a glance
6 ratings
Its last inspection moved it down from Good to Inadequate.
1 month
since the latest rating was published.
3 of 156
rated care homes in Suffolk are rated Inadequate, like this one.
The Red House Welfare & Housing Society: inspection record
Rated Inadequate in October 2026, down from Good.
| 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | ||||||||||||
| Safe | ||||||||||||
| Effective | ||||||||||||
| Caring | ||||||||||||
| Responsive | ||||||||||||
| Well-led |
Ratings published by the Care Quality Commission.
Compare nearby
Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: St Josephs (Good, 0.4 miles away) and Hazell Court (Good, 0.5 miles away).
Nearest care homes:
- RI Catchpole Court Requires improvement, 0.3 miles away
- G St Josephs Good, 0.4 miles away
- – Chilton Croft Nursing Home Not yet rated, 0.4 miles away
- G Hazell Court Good, 0.5 miles away
- G Mellish House Residential Home Good, 0.6 miles away
What inspectors found
From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 2 October 2026 (assessment visit 28 May 2026). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.
The Red House Welfare and Housing Society is a residential care home. It is registered to provide accommodation with personal care for up to 31 people. At this inspection 28 people were living at the service.
- Safe Inadequate
- Effective Inadequate
- Caring No rating
- Responsive Inadequate
- Well-led Inadequate
Read the rest of CQC's summary
We carried out inspection visits on 10 and 16 June 2026. The visits were carried out by 2 inspectors, a medicines inspector, an operations manager and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. Two CQC operations managers met with the provider (members of the board and Nominated Individual) on 10 July 2026 to discuss the actions being taken to address the significant shortfalls found that put people at risk.
At this inspection, we found significant concerns regarding the leadership, governance and oversight of the service. The provider did not have effective quality assurance systems in place. The registered manager told us they did not carry out audits. The provider also did not carry out any audits of the service to check the quality and safety of the service. Lack of oversight had resulted in the concerns identified at this inspection. There was no strategic oversight plan for the service finances or future development.
The culture within the service was poor with staff reporting bullying. Where staff had raised concerns with the management team, these had not been addressed.
The provider did not always ensure people were protected from avoidable harm. Risks to people were not consistently managed, particularly in relation to hydration, medicines management and environmental safety. People’s records showed people were not always supported to meet their fluid intake targets, placing them at risk of dehydration.
Staff had received safeguarding training but had not been supported to put their training into practice. We identified incidents which should have been recognised as a safeguarding concern and recorded/reported appropriately.
The premises had become tired and lacked investment. Areas of the service required maintenance to ensure they were safe. Poor maintenance also contributed to infection control concerns where surfaces could not be cleaned effectively.
Care plans lacked detail and were not always updated as people’s care needs changed. This meant staff were not always aware of people’s up to date and accurate needs and preferences and were not able to provide person-centred care.
Following our inspection the service has worked with the local authority and have also brought in a consultant and interim manager to support improvements.
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.
-
Safe
Inadequate
Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.
At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has changed to Inadequate. This meant people were not safe and were at risk of avoidable harm.
The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to people’s safe care and treatment.
-
Effective
Inadequate
Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.
At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has changed to Inadequate. This meant there were widespread and significant shortfalls in people’s care, support and outcomes.
The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation person centred care.
-
Caring
No rating
Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has changed to Requires Improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.
-
Responsive
Inadequate
Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.
At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has changed to Inadequate. This meant services were not planned or delivered in ways that met people’s needs.
The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care.
-
Well-led
Inadequate
Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.
At our last assessment we rated this key question Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to Inadequate. This meant there were widespread and significant shortfalls in leadership. Leaders and the culture they created did not assure the delivery of high-quality care.
The service was in breach of legal regulations in relation to governance at the service and the functions of the nominated individual.
Questions to ask when you visit
- Safe was rated Inadequate on 2 October 2026. Ask how medicines are managed, how staffing levels are decided and how incidents are reviewed.
- Effective was rated Inadequate on 2 October 2026. Ask about staff training and how health appointments are arranged.
- Caring was rated Requires improvement on 2 October 2026. Ask how staff protect dignity and how residents are involved in decisions about their care.
- Responsive was rated Inadequate on 2 October 2026. Ask to see how care plans are kept up to date, how complaints are handled and what activities are on offer.
Registration details
- Registered with the CQC since
- What it provides
- Care home service without nursing
- Who it supports
- Older People
Inspection report
Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)9 inspection reports, latest 14 June 2023. Latest assessment published 2 October 2026; the Care Quality Commission's newer assessments are published on its website rather than as reports.
The rating is the Care Quality Commission's. We show it as published and do not change it.
Who runs it
- Ownership type
- Organisation
- Companies House number
- IP13044R (opens Companies House)
Getting help from Suffolk County Council
The council can assess what care someone needs and tell them what help with the cost they may get.
- Adult social care at Suffolk County Council
- Ask for a care needs assessment
- Phone: 0800 917 1109, Monday to Friday, 8am to 5pm (excluding bank holidays)
- Support for carers
- Paying for care: Suffolk County Council
Checked on the council's website, November 2026.
Common questions
- Does The Red House Welfare & Housing Society provide nursing care?
- No. The Care Quality Commission lists The Red House Welfare & Housing Society as a care home without nursing.
- How many beds does The Red House Welfare & Housing Society have?
- The Care Quality Commission's register lists 31 beds at The Red House Welfare & Housing Society.
- When was The Red House Welfare & Housing Society last inspected?
- The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for The Red House Welfare & Housing Society was published on 2 October 2026.
- Who runs The Red House Welfare & Housing Society?
- The Red House Welfare & Housing Society is run by Red House Welfare And Housing Society.
- What is The Red House Welfare & Housing Society's CQC rating?
- Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Inadequate, published on 2 October 2026.
Contact
- Phone
- 01787 372948
- Address
- Meadow Lane, Sudbury, CO10 2TD Map (opens Google Maps)
Compare nearby
Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: St Josephs (Good, 0.4 miles away) and Hazell Court (Good, 0.5 miles away).
Nearest care homes:
- RI Catchpole Court Requires improvement, 0.3 miles away
- G St Josephs Good, 0.4 miles away
- – Chilton Croft Nursing Home Not yet rated, 0.4 miles away
- G Hazell Court Good, 0.5 miles away
- G Mellish House Residential Home Good, 0.6 miles away