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 | lawful. The LPM asked the DFA if the exhibits were also sent out to the responsible party and DFA replied that the exhibits were also sent out as well. LPM Richardson asked for verification of how the eviction notice was issued to confirm it was the same as what was presented. The DFA responded that they did not send the eviction notice via email, but it was sent via Certified Mail.
On 04/12/24, the Department received a copy of the eviction letter sent to R1's conservator. Upon reviewing the document, the LPA observed that the line, "See exhibits A-L," was not included in the version of the letter the conservator received. In an interview with LPA Viarella on 04/23/24, the DFA stated that she did not send exhibits A-L to the conservator as previously stated in her interview with LPM Richardson on 04/16/23. The DFA stated that she had asked the LPA if she had to include everything. LPA Viarella responded that she could add specific examples to the body of letter itself, or the DFA could email the letter with samples as attachments. The DFA did neither. When the LPA asked why not, the DFA stated that, "there was a lot going on."
During the investigation mentioned above, the Department found the allegation to be unfounded. Due to this new information (that the supporting evidence was not provided with the eviction letter) the Department amended its findings to SUBSTANTIATED on 4/03/24.
Based on the above statements the Department cited the DFA for administrator qualifications on the 809 D page.
According to the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, no other deficiencies were cited during today's visit.
A copy of this report and Appeal Rights were provided.
Exit interview.
|