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 | On August 5th 2022, PC notified facility staff (FS2) via phone call and email confirmation that they would like to withdraw their application as they had decided not to be a resident of Santianna Oakmont Signature Living. PC requested a refund of their $6000 deposit.
Records reviewed from the facility confirm that PC provided written notice to withdraw the application on August 5th 2022.
PC emailed FS1 on August 18th 2022 and then sent FS1 a text message on August 20th 2022, as they had not received a response from FS2 after several contact attempts regarding verification that the refund is being processed. FS1 informed PC that they no longer work for the facility and referred them back to FS2 or facility staff (FS3) for the refund resolution.
On August 22nd 2022 PC emailed FS2 requesting an update on the refund status. FS2 replied to the inquiry and included FS3 in the exchange to confirm the status of refund. On 8/23/22 FS3 confirmed that the refund request had been submitted and was in processing, stating it could take up to 30 days from when notice is received requesting the refund and that checks are first received at the facility and then mailed out.
The facility's Deposit Agreement for Assisted Living & Memory Care states in section 5:
"Termination of Agreement by You. You may terminate this Agreement at any time by giving written notice to Oakmont at 2560 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92010. Upon cancellation of this agreement by you, you will receive a full refund of the deposit within thirty (30) calendar days."
Administrator confirmed during interview that the time frame for refund of pre-admission fees is 30 days. Evidence provided by the facility shows that a refund check of $6000 was made out to PC on September 8th 2022, which is greater than 30 calendar days from written notice that was given on August 5th, 2022.
Based on the evidence obtained during the complaint investigation, the allegation that the Licensee did not issue refund, as required, is found to be SUBSTANTIATED, as there is a preponderance of evidence to show that the violation occurred. Pursuant to the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 6, a deficiency was cited on the attached LIC9099D, and a plan of correction was jointly developed with Executive Director Sam El-Rabaa.
An exit interview was conducted with Executive Director Sam El-Rabaa, to whom a copy of this report, Licensee's Rights (LIC9058), LIC9099-C, and LIC9099-D were provided. |