Starline 2000
Home care, Southwark
Requires improvement
Rated on
Rating from the Care Quality Commission.
Starline 2000: inspection record
Rated Requires improvement in December 2025.
| 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.
Inspected and rated 3 times since 2019. Rated Good in 2019, then Requires improvement in 2023 and December 2025.
The latest rating was published 10 months ago.
How it compares locally
- One of 9 Requires improvement home care services in Southwark, out of 25 with a rating.
What inspectors found
From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 3 December 2025 (assessment visit 1 May 2025). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.
Date of assessment: 27 May and 2 June 2025. Starline 2000 is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes. People had medical conditions, mobility and nutrition needs. At the time of the assessment, 6 people who used the service received personal care. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. In this service, the Care Quality Commission can only inspect the service received by people who get support with personal care. This includes help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where people receive such support, we also consider any wider social care provided. The inspection was prompted in part by notification of an incident following which a person using the service their commissioning arrangements were terminated and they later died. This incident is subject to further investigation by CQC as to whether any regulatory action should be taken. As a result, this inspection did not examine the circumstances of the incident. However, the information shared with CQC about the incident indicated potential concerns about the management of risk. This inspection examined those risks. ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it. At the time of the assessment, the service was not used by anyone with a learning disability or an autistic person. However, we assessed the care provision under Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture, as it is registered as a specialist service for this population group. At our last inspection the provider had failed to work within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. This was a breach of Regulation 11 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. At this inspection, we found the provider had made the required improvement and there was no longer a breach of Regulation 11. The registered manager had assessed the capacity of each person to consent to their care and support. People consented before care workers supported them. The provider failed to support care workers adequately to ensure they had appropriate knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs. People had a range of needs; care workers have not received all the specialist trainings. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to regulation 18 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The provider did not have an effective oversight of the service. They did not follow safe recruitment practices and had not ensured appropriate pre-employment checks were completed satisfactorily before care workers were employed. Care delivery logs were not always completed for all tasks. A care worker had worked beyond their contracted 20 hrs a week. Spot checks records were not an accurate reflection of who carried out the spot checks. The management and oversight of the electronic call monitoring (ECM) system was not effective. At our last inspection the provider had failed to operate effective quality assurance process. This was a breach of Regulation 17. At this assessment, we found the provider had remained in breach of Regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment. The registered manager completed risk assessments and risk management plans that included guidance for staff. The provider supported care workers through induction and regular supervision meetings. The registered manager assessed people’s needs to ensure these could be met. People's care plans were reflective of their individual personal care needs, and they were reviewed on a regular basis. Care workers treated people with kindness and respect. Care workers treated people with dignity, and their privacy was respected. They gave people as much choice as possible. The provider enabled people, and their relatives shared feedback about their care.
-
Safe
No rating
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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained 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.
The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to regulation 18. The provider failed to support care workers adequately to ensure they had appropriate knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs.
-
Effective
Good
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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.
-
Caring
Good
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 remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.
-
Responsive
Good
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 remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.
-
Well-led
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.
At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.
The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to Regulation 17. The provider did not have an effective oversight of the service. The quality assurance system and processes had failed to identify and correct issues we found at the inspection.
Questions to ask the service
- Safe was rated Requires improvement on 3 December 2025. Ask how medicines are managed, how staffing levels are decided and how incidents are reviewed.
- Well-led was rated Requires improvement on 3 December 2025. Ask about changes in management and what has changed since the report.
- Ask to see the most recent Care Quality Commission (CQC) report and what the service did about any points in it.
Contact and registration details
| Address | 47 Ashmore Close, London, SE15 5GY |
|---|---|
| Neighbourhood | Peckham, Southwark |
| Phone | 07960 269418 |
| Registered manager | Rose Igboegwu |
| Registered with the CQC since | |
| What it provides |
|
| Who it supports |
|
| Inspection reports | 3 inspection reports, latest 7 March 2023 (opens the Care Quality Commission website) Latest assessment published 3 December 2025; CQC's newer assessments are published on its website rather than as reports. |
Inspection report
Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)The rating is the Care Quality Commission's. We show it as published and do not change it.
Who runs it
| Provider | Starline2000 Ltd |
|---|---|
| Ownership type | Organisation |
| Companies House number | 08862968 (opens Companies House) |
Nearest alternatives
- RI DDLTAC(UK) - LONDON Home care, 0.1 miles awayRequires improvement
- – Studio 1d, 3-5 Latona Road Latona Road, London, England, SE15 6RX Home care, 0.4 miles awayNot yet rated
- G Inspire Care professionals Services Home care, 0.4 miles awayGood
- – Crystal Healthcare and Training Limited Home care, 0.4 miles awayNot yet rated
- – Profad Care Services Southwark Branch Home care, 0.4 miles awayNot yet rated
Getting help from London Borough of Southwark
The council can assess what care someone needs and tell them what help with the cost they may get.
- Adult social care at London Borough of Southwark
- Ask for a care needs assessment
- Phone: 020 7525 3324 (older people and physical disabilities), Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm. Mental health: 0800 368 8433. Learning disabilities and young adults 18 to 25: 020 3457 7580
- Contact adult social care online
- Support for carers
- Paying for care: London Borough of Southwark
Checked on the council's website, November 2026.
Common questions
- Does Starline 2000 provide nursing care?
- The Care Quality Commission's register does not list nursing care for Starline 2000.
- When was Starline 2000 last inspected?
- The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for Starline 2000 was published on 3 December 2025.
- Who runs Starline 2000?
- Starline 2000 is run by Starline2000 Ltd.
- What is Starline 2000's CQC rating?
- Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Requires improvement, published on 3 December 2025.