Overall sentiment is mixed and polarized: many reviewers praise The Haven at Columbus for its caring frontline staff, pleasant environment, convenient location, and enjoyable activities, while a significant subset of reviews describe serious problems with management, billing, and clinical care—especially for residents with memory care needs. The most common positive themes are friendly, compassionate caregivers; helpful and welcoming tour experiences; attractive grounds and a homey, small-community feel; and the availability of activities and social spaces that enable residents to engage in cards, bingo, movies, and other group events. Several families report good meals, an on-site doctor, and successful respite stays, and multiple reviewers say they would recommend the community.
However, the negative reports are substantive and recurring. The strongest and most concerning pattern involves management, sales, and billing practices: reviewers describe pressured contracts, upfront fees, ongoing bills even after a resident leaves, lack of refunds, and unresolved complaints with external bodies such as the BBB or ombudsman. These accounts often include claims that sales staff overpromised levels of care or services that were not delivered. Related to this are frequent complaints about poor communication or sudden cessation of communication after leadership turnover.
Clinical and safety issues are another major theme. While some reviewers praise medical staff and caregivers, others report missed medications, lack of showers or basic supplies, hygiene and maintenance neglect, and even severe incidents (reports of wounds, a lung collapse attributed to medication not administered, and premature discharges). Memory/dementia care has notable negative mentions: reviewers say the facility was not qualified to meet required dementia care levels, that staff failed vulnerable residents, and that the memory care environment was sometimes dark, dreary, or had horrible odors. There are also alarming reports of bed bugs and pest issues that led to residents not staying in their rooms and furniture being discarded, which contradicts many reviews that call the community very clean.
Facilities and maintenance feedback are mixed. Many reviewers describe a beautiful, well-kept campus with adequate, cozy rooms and pleasant dining/social areas. Others report specific maintenance defects—paint spatter on carpets, plumbing leaks around toilets with poor caulking, bathroom vanities needing replacement, insufficient outlets, and odor problems. These conflicting reports suggest uneven maintenance standards across different units or time periods; cleanliness is praised by many but criticized in significant, specific incidents by others.
Dining and activities also show a split pattern. Several reviewers enjoyed the food, described it as well-prepared and appreciated meal options, while other families said food quality and portion sizes could be improved. Activities are generally available and plentiful according to many reviewers, and socialization opportunities are cited as a strength; yet some reviews mention few activities, poor activity attendance, or management focusing on events while other care needs were neglected. This suggests variability in how programming is run and attended.
Staffing and management stability are recurring concerns. Positive reviews highlight attentive, friendly staff who check in with families, but many reports cite chronic understaffing, high turnover, and frequent director changes that undermine continuity of care. These staffing problems are tied to many negative outcomes—missed medications, lack of personal hygiene supplies, delayed responses, and family frustrations with communication. Several reviewers explicitly state the community is better suited to residents who are relatively independent and that it may not be appropriate for those who require hands-on, high-dependency care.
In summary, The Haven at Columbus receives strong praise for its staff when individual caregivers are on point, for its campus aesthetics, and for social programming that benefits many residents. At the same time, there are serious, well-documented concerns around sales/billing practices, management responsiveness, memory-care capability, maintenance/pest control, and clinical reliability in some cases. These issues appear to be uneven—some families report excellent experiences while others report severe problems. Prospective residents and families should conduct careful, specific due diligence: verify contractual and billing terms in writing, ask detailed questions about staffing ratios and turnover, review the community’s memory care programs and incident history, inspect rooms and pest-management records, and seek references from current families. Given the polarity in experiences, on-site visits, multiple staff conversations, and checking external complaint records (BBB/ombudsman) are particularly important before deciding.
