complaint·August 20, 2025

Allegation 1: Staff unlawfully evicted a resident. It is alleged that the facility is attempting to evict Resident 1 (R1) for the failure of to comply with general policies of the compliance and failure to; comply with state or local law. On 07/01/2025, between the hours of 9:00 am - 9:30 am, LPA interviewed A1 who denied the allegation and stated that an eviction notice was issued to R1 due to violating the facilities Admission Agreement. A1 further stated use of an unauthorized video surveillance devices with audio component as a contributing factor which is not allowed at facility as stated in the admission agreement which was signed by R1 on 08/26/2024. Between the hours of 11:43am - 11:50am, LPA interviewed 4 staff regarding the allegation: 4 of 4 staff denied the allegation. Between 11:48am - 11:53am. LPA attempted to interview R1 who refused to be interviewed in regard to the allegation . LPA reviewed records and observed the following: On 05/12/2025, the facility issued an eviction notice to R1 which stated the reason for the eviction was for violating 87224 Eviction Procedures of Title 22 Regulations section 87224(a)(3) “Failure of the resident to comply with general policies of the facility. Also, on 05/31/2025 via Personal Service, the 30-day Notice of Terminate provided additional with a timeline of R1 violating the Community's general polices. Based on review of the eviction notice it documents the use of video surveillance with an audio component being used which violates the facilities admission agreement. LPA reviewed R1's file and observed a reappraisal was conducted on 4/23/2025 by facility staff. LPA reviewed R1 Resident Lease Agreement which states under the section 10. Miscellaneous: 10.9 Due to the privacy of residents, Residents will not have Nanny Cams in their apartment. LPA reviewed the eviction notice and confirmed it was sent to CCLD within 5 days of issuance and based on LPAs review of the notice it appears to be in compliance with Title 22 regulations. Based on information gathered, interviews, and record reviews, there is not enough evidence to support the allegation mentioned above. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore, the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED.