Overall sentiment across the reviews is highly mixed but leans toward serious concern. A substantial portion of reviewers describe significant problems with care, facility maintenance, pest control, dining, communication, and administrative practices. At the same time, a number of reviews praise specific staff members, cleanliness in some areas, and positive resident relationships. This split indicates inconsistent performance: some residents and families experience good service and supportive staff, while others encounter neglect, unprofessional conduct, and operational failures.
Care quality and staffing present a major theme. Many reviewers allege caregivers ignore calls for help, medications are not administered on time or at all, and there is no on-site medical staff to supervise care. Conversely, multiple reviews explicitly praise particular staff as caring, dedicated, and focused on resident safety. This variability suggests uneven training, staffing levels, or management oversight—some shifts or teams perform well while others fall short. Several accounts also describe rude, lazy, or unprofessional behavior, and at least one admission staff interaction (Diana Morefield) was called out for yelling and an unprofessional admissions process.
Facility maintenance, cleanliness, and pest control are recurring problems in the negative reviews. Numerous reviewers report bed bug infestations, sightings of rats, dirty move-in apartments, and the presence of holes in walls and broken thermostats. Some reviews mention weekly pest control rather than effective eradication. Other reviews, however, note good housekeeping and clean common areas, indicating an inconsistent environmental standard across units or over time. Insufficient maintenance staffing and housekeeping resources are frequently cited, leading to unresolved repair requests and a perception of neglect.
Dining and dietary services are polarizing. Several reviewers say the food is awful, sometimes uneatable, or that portions and taste are inadequate. Reports of dietary staff turnover and an understaffed kitchen appear to exacerbate meal quality issues. Yet some residents and families praise the food and find meals satisfactory or even good. This pattern again points to inconsistent service—meal quality may vary by day, staff, or specific dietary employees on duty.
Activities, socialization, and transportation draw consistent complaints about limitations. Multiple reviewers state there are limited activities, a lack of proactive outings, and insufficient social engagement for residents. Transportation to medical appointments was explicitly called out as lacking, which is a critical service need for many independent/assisted living residents. Several reviewers expressed concern that the community does not do enough to promote resident engagement or advocate for resident needs.
Communication, admissions, and administrative practices are other prominent areas of concern. Many reviewers report poor communication: unanswered calls, unreturned voicemails (one reviewer noted seven unreturned messages), front desk staff who are not informed, and inconsistent follow-through on requests. There are specific allegations of financial mismanagement—billing errors, mishandling of Medicaid/Medicare, and a report of billing for back rent after Medicaid involvement. Some reviewers even suggested financial theft or egregious mishandling of resident funds. Admissions experiences vary widely: some tours were pleasant and informative, while others involved staff on break during tours, refusal to provide return times, or no in-person viewing assistance. One reviewer specifically called out the admissions coordinator (Diana Morefield) for being unprofessional.
Safety and dignity concerns are strongly voiced in the negative reviews. Reports of pest infestations, neglect, missed medications, and unresponsive staff contribute to statements that residents fear dying there or that the facility should be closed. The combination of maintenance problems, pest issues, and lapses in caregiving creates an environment that some families perceive as unsafe. Conversely, other families clearly feel safe and supported, praising individual staff members and noting satisfactory safety practices.
Notable patterns are the sharp contradictions between different reviewers' experiences and the recurrence of several specific, serious complaints. The most frequently mentioned and alarming issues are pest infestations (bed bugs/rats), unreliable medication administration/no on-site medical staff, poor communication/unresponsiveness, and financial/Medicaid mishandling. Repeated positive points include friendly, caring staff in some cases, clean common areas reported by certain residents, and moments of good food and proper care. These conflicting accounts suggest operational inconsistency—where leadership, staffing levels, training, and oversight may fluctuate, producing very different resident experiences.
In summary, the reviews portray Canterbury Gardens Independent and Assisted Living as a facility with potential strengths—caring employees, some clean and pleasant spaces, and occasional good meal service—but also significant and recurring weaknesses that raise safety, health, and administrative concerns. Prospective residents and families should weigh the contradictions carefully, ask for detailed references, request in-person, unannounced observations across different shifts, confirm pest-control and maintenance protocols, verify medication management and on-site medical support, and get clear, written answers regarding billing, Medicaid/Medicare handling, and transportation to medical appointments before deciding. The pattern of issues reported by multiple reviewers warrants caution and thorough, specific follow-up if considering this community.
