Significant fire safety hazards were discovered at a care home that has been without a fully registered manager since 2023.

The Grange House facility in Eastbourne, providing accommodation for as many as 17 residents, was found to be violating statutory regulations and received a requires improvement rating after a Care Quality Commission inspection.

These violations meant that residents faced a heightened possibility of harm.

The establishment had previously been rated good in 2020 under Southdowns Limited, though the provider subsequently changed to RVB Transcendence Limited.

Inspectors attended the premises in January 2026 following raised concerns.

The examination uncovered regulatory failures concerning safe care and treatment, good governance and staffing arrangements.

A manager had been employed until October 2025 but had not finalised their CQC registration, with the report confirming no registered manager had been present on-site since 2023.

With no deputy manager available, senior care workers were left to manage everyday operations.

The commission identified critical fire safety issues, including an obstructed fire exit, fire doors propped open, and unsafe storage areas.

During the visit, the inspection team demanded immediate remediation.

The report indicated that inspectors contacted the provider to request urgent action to reduce risk to residents, with the most serious hazards addressed before the second day of the inspection.

East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service was informed of the fire safety problems as part of follow-up procedures.

Despite these interventions, the commission noted many of the issues had already been documented in a fire risk assessment from June 2025, yet the provider had failed to create an improvement plan or set target dates for resolution.

Additional failures included deficiencies in governance and staffing.

Since the previous manager left, monthly audits and supervision sessions had not been maintained.

Recruitment documentation revealed uninvestigated gaps in employment history, absent references and insufficient structured induction processes.

The report noted that some staff references were unsuitable.

References did not feature the most recent employer, and one came from a family member.

Inspectors observed poor care experiences during mealtimes.

The report documented that a resident’s dessert was removed by staff before they had opportunity to finish it.

Workers were undertaking extended shifts, with some working in excess of 50 hours weekly without formal risk assessments to safeguard their physical or mental wellbeing.

The report emphasised the lack of essential management oversight.

Senior care staff were carrying out managerial responsibilities without sufficient training or backing.

A relative of a resident remarked that no manager had been present for some time and that the facility required managerial support for staff.

Staff had not received individual supervision since October 2025, with only two group supervision sessions having occurred.

Notwithstanding the concerns, inspectors acknowledged positive elements of care delivery, with staff characterised as caring and supportive.

The report confirmed that staff had clearly strived diligently to meet residents’ care and support requirements despite the difficulties.

Documentation showed residents received individualised care and that staff functioned effectively as a team.

The provider informed inspectors that a new manager was scheduled to commence the week following the inspection.

While the commission recognised that some improvements had been implemented, it stated that the absence of day-to-day management and incomplete governance procedures placed residents at unnecessary risk.

The commission’s assessment found the categories of effective and responsive to be good.