Overall sentiment across the collected reviews is highly mixed and polarized. Many reviewers emphatically praise Westmont Living for its physical environment, amenities, and for individual employees or teams who provide compassionate, attentive care. At the same time a sizeable set of reviews raises serious operational, administrative and safety concerns — ranging from poor customer service and billing irregularities to allegations of understaffing and elder abuse. The result is a pattern in which experiences appear to vary dramatically by unit, timing, staff on duty, and which particular managers or caregivers are involved.
Facilities and amenities are consistently cited as a strong point. Multiple reviews describe the buildings as high-end, modern, and bright, with a cheerful lobby, large windows, outdoor deck, and thoughtful resident room design. Many apartments — including some assisted living units — reportedly have kitchens and generous natural light. Reviewers mention on-site amenities, artistic displays made by residents, neat grounds, and a welcoming concierge. Tour guides and initial move-in processes are often described as informative and pleasant, and several long-term residents or families report exemplary, lasting relationships with staff and management when things go well.
Staffing and quality of care are the most divergent themes. Numerous accounts celebrate friendly, knowledgeable, and warm staff members who go above and beyond — individual names and teams were called out for exceptional compassion and involvement with families. Conversely, an equally strong set of reviews report chronic understaffing, high turnover (especially in administration), poor follow-up, and occasions where residents were left unattended or required to actively seek assistance. Several reviewers state that care quality does not match the cost, and a few make severe claims including elder-abuse concerns. This indicates that care quality may be highly dependent on specific caregivers or shifts rather than uniformly maintained.
Dining and daily services also show a split in experience. Some residents praise the food as delicious and healthy and highlight attentive dining staff; others describe cafeteria-style service that leaves residents standing in line, heavy plates that are unsuitable for frail elders, and generally terrible meals. Ancillary services and routine operations (transportation to appointments, hair salon access, lawn maintenance) were flagged as unreliable in some reports — with at least one reviewer noting missed maintenance visits despite being charged a fee.
Management, communication, and billing emerge as recurrent pain points. Multiple reviewers allege misrepresentation of services (including claims the community was falsely listed as a CCRC), bait-and-switch tactics, unexpected extra charges to resident accounts, and dramatic rate increases. Complaints also include autocratic management behavior, poor responses to grievances, suspensions or disciplinary actions that are not clearly communicated, and an overall lack of organization at the administrative level. Positive reviews that mention management tend to emphasize accountability and a commitment to improving tenant quality of life, suggesting that experiences with leadership vary over time or by location.
Activities and social life likewise vary: several reviewers report many activities, new friendships, and a renewed zest for life, while others say scheduled activities were minimal. This mirrors the general pattern of inconsistent execution—programs and social engagement may be strong under certain staff or leadership and weak under others.
Notable patterns and takeaways: (1) Physical plant and amenities are generally praised and appear to be a major strength. (2) Staff performance is inconsistent; there are standout caregivers and teams but staffing shortages and turnover contribute to lapses in service. (3) Management and billing issues are frequently reported and include serious accusations such as misrepresentation and abrupt cost increases. (4) Dining, maintenance, and support services show variability — they can be excellent for some residents and highly problematic for others.
Given the polarized feedback, prospective residents and families should seek up-to-date, specific information before committing: ask for current staffing ratios, documented care plans, written fee schedules and policies on rate increases, examples of how complaints are handled, verification of community type (CCRC status if relevant), and recent references from current residents or families. A thorough, on-site visit — ideally at multiple times of day — and conversations with front-line caregivers as well as administrative staff can help assess whether a particular unit or team is providing the consistent level of care and service that matches the facility’s physical advantages and advertised continuum of care.
