The Salvation Army USAbed rent contract at shelter crossroad

J Jan 08, 2019
This review was posted by
a verified customer
Verified customer

Salvation Army Intermountain Division
Headquarters in Denver, Colorado
1370 Pennsylvania Street, Colorado 80203

To : Crossroads Resource Center-Division of Renting Bed
Subject : Bed -client, Complainant's claim- Bed 183 at Crossroad Shelter.
Reference : Facts occurred on Sunday 6, 2019 at 9.30pm9with Bed 183)., and 1.10 am(with bed 176) contravene the mission and vision of the Salvation Army-A safe place to sleep.
Dated : January 8, 2019

Dear ( Manager of the Crossroads Resource Center)

Jose Carlos, Hispanic bed-client, over 64 years old, with legal address on 3097 S Sheridan Blvd, place where the Salvation Army will send any communication of the grievance process and place where Jose Carlos will be received the Response to his pleading if Salvation Army's manager and worker did not resolve the present complaint accord to law. He declares that is a temporary user[bed 183], of the bed-client services at the Salvation Army Crossroad shelter situated in 1901 29th St. Denver, CO 80126. He was on 2016 and 2017 used this service in reason that he is citizen of another state and had that to attend a medical treatment of his gradual hearing loss of the right ear which is associated with the aging process and because he had a hearing loss on-job-injure in his left right on 2013. On November 26, 2018 he was being treated of affection in his Right eye which caused him to have a surgery on December 18, 2018 in Denver, CO sufficient reason to use the Salvation Army Crossroad Shelter as a Bed-Client to his post treatment of two Months-Cataract Surgery Recovery process, after the surgery. Accordingly, Jose Carlos- Bed Client, is a disable person in his hearing, with a bell's palsy-disfigurement facial, and with an impairment from his right eye that prevent him from heaving lifting over 30 lbs., bending and pushing things and longer computer use that might stress your eye while it is healing.
On Sunday January 6, 2019 had two occurrences with two older bed-clients over 65 years old.
A. The Complaint case: Bed No. 183
Jose Carlos arrived at the installation of the shelter around 8:00 pm when all bed-clients were in possession of his bed. Jose Carlos was rested in his bed, when he cannot note the presence of a worker behind his head nor to hear him because of the Complainant's hearing Loss and the TV noise-turn on, all bed-clients talking at a time, while he was distracted with his computer. Only Jose Carlos discover him when he was scared because the Salvation Army's worker rose the voice. This was frustrating for the salvation army's worker who got to be angry.
Salvation Army's worker non re-phrased because he was not alert that Jose Carlos has an Impairment-Hearing Loss, made a physical aggression when the worker moved the bed employed too much force because the bed was outside of the line around 10 cm and worker got to hit to the plaintiff in the leg with the bed. The worker used the action as a way to intimidate to the bed clients. Jose Carlos did not make comment with the worker, he only said him "Bed-Client will be making a complaint".
Jose Carlos is attached Pictures of the Area that he uses, demonstrated that did not exist an alignment of the beds in such area. Second, plaintiff whether he did not move the bed because the Salvation Army's worker made a claim to Jose Carlos. Jose Carlos declared in the paragraph precedents that he is prevented to move heavy objects because he has a risk of injure in his right eye.
Jose Carlos yesterday Monday 7, 2019 was prevented to make a pay of his rented bed because the Salvation Army's Worker made a statement that he was said to me because bed-client had moved the bed. Jose Carlos states that he had not given consent to cancel his bed rent contract with the Salvation Army, Second, because he did not violate any rule despite to be beaten by the Salvation's worker. Third, Bed-clients request a grievance process, when exist witness about the abuse. Jose Carlos was said After the meeting celebrated for a violation to the rule he will be probably suspended. Plaintiff is contrary to this procedure because before a Salvation Army's determination he is found without a right, because he will not have a rent contract. He is asking to the Salvation Army if it procedure is legal, because it is denied implicitly process, when he must have a prudential time to remove his things given his post treatment medical.
The facts showed did not configure a violation of the rules by the bed-client No183, but a violation to the bed-clients rights, because he is asking himself because whether all bed-client don't have an alignment of his bed because the Salvation Army was acted unlawful broken the peace of a bed-client who is in medical rehabilitation, because exist preferences of the American African worker with other American African and because the Salvation Army arbitrarily and capricious way without an investigation and resolution canceled the contract of the bed-client with the Salvation Army. Jose Carlos has a protected activity Under ADEA, ADA and federal statutes which prevent to Salvation Army without explanation and proof to terminate unilaterally the tacit convene, because Jose Carlos had an impeccable conduct because of his degree and education in the USA.
Bed- Client No. 186, Older American over the 65 years old was retired of the shelter exposure him to the cold outside environment.
B. Facts occurred on Sunday 1.10 am.
Jose Carlos was witness of the facts because the Jose Carlos' bed with Number 183 is close to such bed. Jose Carlos declare, don't have friendship with such person, but he can note that the bed-client 186 was expressed a claim to go to the restroom and was detained abruptly despite that he indicated his bed number. Bed-client claimed because The salvation Army's worker threat him with call to police to dislodge him of the Salvation Army at Then salvation Army's worker and another one awake and angry called to the manager to pressure to the bed-client. Bed -client expressed his discomfort indicated that the workers were lying about the facts. At least, the bed-client declared that arbitrarily was being evicted with suspension. The question of fact and law, Whether the Salvation Army can be responsible by the consequences of an older bed-client's dislodge despite to have a rent of a bed who exposure to the person to a pneumonia, because of the pattern and practice or policy to intimidate. Whether the Salvation being responsible for the workers' arbitrariness can refund the days paid without a use of the rent services. Whether the Salvation Army has his policy of good faith which change every time with new administration should notice on blackboard the federal statutes in defense of the older or disable persons' rights; or in the alternative handle a complaint box to avoid retaliation acts.
Accordingly, Jose Carlos has declared a pattern of policy or practice similar in both cases that support an investigation or a review of the Salvation Army's grievance process manual
Best regard
Jose C. Caycho M.
Jose Carlos
Please, if exist necessity of additional information and/or in the alternative that this complaint was erroneous in the addressed target please, send me a response targeted where can resolve such complaint pursuant to law.

bed rent contract at shelter crossroad
bed rent contract at shelter crossroad
bed rent contract at shelter crossroad
bed rent contract at shelter crossroad
bed rent contract at shelter crossroad
bed rent contract at shelter crossroad
bed rent contract at shelter crossroad
bed rent contract at shelter crossroad
bed rent contract at shelter crossroad
bed rent contract at shelter crossroad
bed rent contract at shelter crossroad

Post your comment

    By clicking Submit you are agreeing to the Complaints Board’s Terms and Conditions