Overall sentiment: The reviews of Daisy Group Inc. are overwhelmingly negative. Multiple reviewers report consistent and serious concerns across staff behavior, resident care, facility cleanliness, and management. Reviewers frequently conclude with a clear "not recommended" verdict, indicating strong dissatisfaction and lack of trust in the facility.
Staff quality and resident care: A central and recurring theme is staff behavior and competence. Reviews describe staff as unprofessional, lazy, rude, sneaky and outright nasty. Specific allegations include poor treatment of an identified family member (an "uncle") and inadequate feeding or nourishment of residents. There are also claims that food is taken from residents' cabinets, which raises concerns about both neglect and potential theft or mismanagement of residents' personal items and provisions. Taken together, these reports point to deficiencies in basic caregiving duties and attentiveness.
Management and leadership: Several reviews call out management as problematic, using terms like "bad management" and explicitly stating the facility is "controlled by Daniel Allen Jr." This suggests reviewers perceive leadership as either ineffective or complicit in the operational problems they describe. The combination of frontline staff complaints and criticisms of management points toward systemic rather than isolated issues.
Facility condition and cleanliness: Multiple reviewers report unsanitary conditions, describing the environment as dirty and noting a pervasive cat urine smell throughout the premises. Another repeated concern is that the facility appears "not as pictured," implying that marketing materials or representations do not match the on-site reality. These cleanliness and odor complaints suggest problems with housekeeping, pest control or facility maintenance, and are particularly troubling in a setting that should prioritize hygiene for vulnerable residents.
Staffing composition and interpersonal conduct: Several reviews mention the use of "cheap labour" and "foreign workers," with at least one review alleging xenophobic language directed at foreigners. These comments reflect both an expressed dissatisfaction with staffing choices and a serious complaint about discriminatory or hostile language used on-site. Even where reviewers object to staffing levels or recruitment practices, the additional allegation of xenophobic language raises concerns about the facility's culture and the respectful treatment of both residents and employees.
Patterns and seriousness of concerns: The issues raised span multiple domains—care quality, theft/food security, cleanliness, staff conduct, and management—appearing repeatedly across reviews. The recurrence and breadth of complaints (behavioral, operational, sanitary, and cultural) indicate a pattern that reviewers interpret as systemic. The repeated "not recommended" verdict from multiple reviewers strengthens the impression that these are not isolated incidents but ongoing problems warranting caution.
Implications and recommended caution: Based solely on these reviews, prospective residents and families should exercise caution. The allegations—if accurate—touch on resident dignity, safety, nutrition, and health (e.g., unsanitary conditions and neglected feeding). The presence of leadership-related complaints suggests that raising issues internally may not be sufficient. It would be prudent for interested parties to verify licensing and inspection records, request recent health and safety reports, conduct multiple unannounced visits at different times, speak directly with current residents and families, and contact local long-term care ombudsman or regulatory agencies if there are signs of abuse, neglect, or sanitation violations.
Summary conclusion: In summary, reviewers consistently report serious concerns about Daisy Group Inc., with no positive aspects mentioned in the provided summaries. The dominant themes are poor staff behavior and competence, inadequate resident feeding and possible theft of food, pervasive unsanitary conditions including a cat urine odor, misleading presentation of the facility, problematic management/leadership, and instances of xenophobic language. These combined issues form a clear pattern of negative experience reported by multiple reviewers and suggest that further investigation and caution are warranted before considering this facility.
