1. Use of Google Reviews

• The report selectively quoted anonymous Google reviews to justify negative conclusions.

• These reviews are unverified, anecdotal, and statistically insignificant.

• Inconsistent practice: comparable providers with lower online ratings were awarded “Good” ratings, with no reference at all to Google reviews.

• This double standard undermines the credibility of the inspection process.

2. Small & Unrepresentative Sample Sizes

• Only three clients were spoken to during the inspection—representing less than 0.1% of our client base of over 3,000 people.

• Such a small sample cannot reasonably be taken as representative of the service.

• Positive experiences from thousands of clients were ignored in favour of a handful of selective voices.

• We were asked to provide contact details of clients for the CQC to contact for comment. We have since discovered that CQC did not contact these clients at all.

3. Ignoring Evidence Provided

During inspection, we submitted comprehensive documentation including:

• Clinical governance frameworks

• Incident reporting systems

• Training and supervision records

• Policies and protocols for prescribing and safeguarding

Much of this evidence was either disregarded or omitted from the final report. The omission of key facts presents a skewed and misleading narrative of our service.

4. Contradictory Scoring

• In several domains, the CQC’s own report acknowledged positive staff performance and safe processes, yet still awarded the lowest possible score.

• Example: staff were praised for raising safeguarding concerns appropriately and achieving 100% safeguarding training compliance—but the safeguarding domain was still marked down.

• These contradictions suggest the scoring was manipulated to reach a predetermined outcome, rather than reflecting evidence.