1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32 | The investigation revealed the following…Regarding the allegation: Wrongful eviction, “it’s being alleged the facility declined a resident returning to the facility, leaving them homeless.” LPA interviewed 4 out of 37 staff in total. 0 out of 4 confirmed the allegation. S1 states, “It’s not that we didn’t allow R1 back. They refused to come back and requested a refund.” LPA Agard interviewed 2 witnesses. 1 out of 2 confirmed the allegation. W1 states, the allegation is true. W2 states, they observed R1 refusing to return to the facility. During interviews with residents, LPA interviewed 9 out of 94 residents in total. 1 out of 9 confirmed the allegation. R2-R9 were unable to identify a resident that was wrongly evicted. R1 states, they were not provided with the proper eviction notification despite having no desire to return to the facility. LPA was able to verify, R1 has been relocated and is currently housed.
Based on LPA’s interviews conducted, the preponderance of evidence standard has not been met. Although the allegation(s) may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation(s) did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is unsubstantiated.
An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of the report was given. |