Liral Veget Training and Recruitment Ltd

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 29 August 2025 (assessment visit 24 December 2024). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

1. Safe

   –No rating No rating

   Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm

   The last rating for this key question was requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement.

   Requires improvement: This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.

   At this assessment we identified 3 breaches of regulations. The provider failed to signpost the contact details of commissioners and safeguarding teams of relevant local authorities in people’s easy read complaint policy and service user guides. People were not always protected from avoidable harm. The provider was not working within the principles of the MCA.

   Despite the above, relatives gave us positive feedback about feeling safe when receiving care and the provider engaged well with them, care workers are trained and knowledgeable to meet people’s needs.

2. Effective

   –No rating No rating

   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.

   The last rating for this key question was requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement.

   Requires Improvement: This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

   During our assessment we identified one breach of the regulations. We found the provider was not working within the principles of the MCA and appropriate legal authorisations.

   Despite the above, relatives told us, they were involved in assessment of needs and the assessments went well to ensure the care people get was accurate.

3. Caring

   –No rating No rating

   Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

   The last rating for this key question was good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

   Requires improvement: This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

   At this assessment we found a breach of regulations. Care agreements did not guarantee the choice and control of a personal care provider for service users to choose, or change should they need to, and refer to the guidance of Right Support Right Care Right Culture for people with a learning disability and autistic people.

   Despite the above, people were supported and treated with dignity and respect.

4. Responsive

   GGood Good

   Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

   The last rating for this key question was requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

   Good: This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

   At this assessment we found care plans identified and reflected individual preferences, wishes and the support people needed. People and their relatives had been consulted about the care and support they received.

5. Well-led

   –No rating No rating

   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.

   The last rating for this key question was inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

   Requires improvement: This meant the service management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

   We identified a breach of regulations. The provider failed to provide safe effective leadership, governance and maintain robust oversight of the service and its delivery. There were audits in place to monitor the quality of service. However, these were not robust enough to identify the issues we found during this assessment.

   Despite the above, people and their relatives were positive about how the service was run and the support they received from the registered manager and care worker.