Brighton Park Apartments

Pros

• The reviewer praised the quick service and recommended Brighton Park Apartments.
• Neighbors downstairs offered help with moving, showing a supportive community.
• Michelle Villegas was empathetic and effectively addressed the situation.
• Peter and Robert provided good workmanship in addressing the sink clog and bathroom issues.
• A long-time resident described the staff as consistently fair and cordial.
• The area around the complex was described as fairly safe.

Cons

• The new management and leasing consultants are unable to handle even simple tasks.
• They charged $60 per item to move trash, insisting it was a chargeable service for junk.
• Matoya Jamerson made the move-out experience insanely stressful, worsening the resident's anxiety and depression.
• In-person and phone communications contradicted each other, showing a lack of clear information.
• The rents are very high for outdated appliances and cosmetic fixes.
• The front door lock is ineffective and the doorknob offers little real security.
• The management team does not respond to service requests in a timely manner.
• The unit is plagued by a German cockroach infestation that has made it unlivable, despite pest-control efforts.
• Some managers are described as rude or unsympathetic to residents.

Review

Residents describe Brighton Park Apartments as a complex that can feel warm and neighborly at times, but is plagued by chronic management and maintenance issues that erode trust and patience. The early part of one resident's experience was smooth after moving in January 2024, with no notable problems initially. However, everything shifted when they decided to break the lease to move abroad for further studies. From that moment, they say the new management and leasing consultants proved to be unable to handle or even understand straightforward requests, which set the tone for a stressful move-out process. The core grievance centers on miscommunication and inconsistent information that left them feeling batted around between staff who seemed unable to coordinate what needed to be done or what could be charged.

A particularly painful example involved moving boxes that were too heavy to carry down the stairs. The resident asked for help moving trash to the dumpster, not furniture, but was told by the leasing office that it would cost $60 per item. The supposed miscommunication was so persistent that they sought clarification from Michelle Villegas, a management figure described as a training and recruitment director. Villegas reportedly explained that the leasing consultants had misunderstood the situation and that charging $60 per item for trash was not appropriate. The diffused frustration stemmed from the perception that it took multiple reiterations of the same point for staff to "get" that the items were junk and not furniture. The emotional weight of the move-out situation was compounded by a personal health crisis: the resident has an eating disorder that causes low iron and blood sugar, and attempting to move a box down by themselves caused partial collapse and near fainting on the street. The experience underscored a broader claim that the building's staff failed to consider safety and wellbeing in practical, day-to-day help when someone was struggling.

The resident's review also describes a public-facing response from the property to their prior review, in which the management stated that policies exist to protect resident safety and wellbeing. The resident took that as a dismissive reply that failed to acknowledge their immediate safety concerns, arguing that management had not shown any real regard for well-being and had instead created a risky situation for their tenant. In this narrative, neighboring residents offered the most tangible help when the resident was visibly struggling, which stands out as a bright spot amid otherwise frustrating experiences with the property's administrative side.

There is a clear thread about a specific leasing consultant, Matoya Jamerson, whose handling of a notice to break the lease created substantial stress. The tenant says that initial information given over the phone and via emails suggested that moving out would require only one month's rent, an apartment inspection, and whatever bankable paperwork remained. When they met Jamerson face to face, the information apparently changed or contradicted what had previously been communicated, tipping the process into a highly anxious situation that aggravated anxiety and depression. The reviewer emphasizes a mixed dynamic among the leasing team and management, with Michelle Villegas stepping in to resolve what she could and showing empathy toward the reviewer's age and situation, whereas another manager, named Albert, was described as not being nice or understanding. The overall impression is that there is a lack of cohesive, compassionate communication across different staff members, which undermines trust during an already stressful transition.

Beyond these interpersonal dynamics, the reviews paint a consistent picture of poor value and aging infrastructure. The price of the apartments is deemed comparatively high for the condition of the units, which are described as old and outdated with appliances that look tired or rusty. The wall-to-wall impression is that the complex is cosmetic on the surface - painted to look fresh for new tenants - while larger issues persist. Security concerns are noted, with a front door that felt insecure because it relied on a single doorknob and a bedroom door lock that could be easily manipulated even when described as "locked." In short, several residents question whether the ongoing rent justifies the quality and safety of the living environment.

Amid these broad criticisms, private anecdotes touch on a mixed bag of maintenance and service experiences. One resident recounts a positive interaction with staff members Peter and Robert who handled a sink clog, describing them as doing great work. Another tenant claims to have lived there for multiple years with a generally fair experience, noting some frequent but understandable issues such as occasional power outages, irregular hot water, and occasional electricity problems attributed to the local utility rather than the property. This reviewer emphasizes a lack of gated entry and expresses a desire for better notice about pest control or pest-spraying intervals, especially for tenants with pets. They argue that while some inconveniences are inevitable in apartment living, better communication and precaution could mitigate them.

The issue of pests emerges as perhaps the most severe and damaging thread across the reviews. A resident reports a dramatic German cockroach infestation that has persisted for over a year, rendering the unit nearly uninhabitable. Despite repeated reports to management and continued pest-control attempts, the roaches remain pervasive in every room, including kitchens, bedrooms, and appliances. This situation escalates to the point where the resident describes discarding infested personal items and facing financial and legal consequences for breaking the lease, despite the unit's clearly uninhabitable condition. The call for remedies is clear: a request to terminate the lease without punitive penalties and a demand for a sustainable solution that actually addresses the infestation and safety concerns. The sentiment conveyed is one of mounting frustration and a sense that the management has not effectively confronted a problem that threatens tenants' health and daily life.

Within the broader tapestry of reviews, there are occasional mentions of moments of fairness or improvements. Some residents acknowledge the rent may be high but justify it with considerations such as being able to keep dogs in a pet-friendly environment and having occasional staff members who respond more promptly than others. There is also a recurring call for practical, proactive communication - toast to future tenants includes a desire for better, clearer notices about pest spraying and maintenance scheduling and for a more secure, gated entry that could deter non-residents from wandering the property. In the end, the overall sentiment is a mixture: some staff members show empathy and competence in specific incidents, some residents value certain conveniences, but the weight of chronic miscommunication, maintenance delays, safety concerns, and a severe pest problem drive a strong warning to potential renters.

Taken together, the experiences paint a portrait of a property with bright moments - helpful neighbors, competent technicians in some cases, and staff who do show care - but overshadowed by systemic problems in management alignment, timely maintenance, safety and security, and a substantial pest infestation. Tenants highlight a pattern of high rents for aging units, inconsistent information from leasing consultants, and a reliance on individual staff members to bridge gaps that should be addressed by a coherent property-wide approach. For anyone considering Brighton Park Apartments, the message conveyed is to weigh the promise of a neighborly community and pet-friendly environment against the realities of delayed service, uncertain responses from management, and a resident experience that can swing dramatically depending on which staff member is handling requests on any given day.

This part of Claremont, California offers a variety of amenities and services that cater to the needs of seniors. From an array of dining options including The Hat, Bardot, and Vince's Spaghetti, to convenient pharmacies such as CVS and Walgreens, there is no shortage of options for daily needs. For medical care, there are reputable physicians and hospitals nearby such as Heavenly 3D 4D Ultrasounds and Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center. In terms of recreation and entertainment, seniors can enjoy parks like Citrus Park and theaters like AMC DINE-IN Montclair Place 12. Additionally, there are places of worship such as Charisma Life Church and Hillside Community Church for spiritual fulfillment. Overall, this area provides a mix of convenience, healthcare options, leisure activities, and community resources that make it a desirable location for senior living in Claremont.

Restaurants

• The Hat (0.9 miles)
• Bardot (1.1 miles)
• McDonald's (1.4 miles)
• McDonald's (1.7 miles)
• Lazy Dog Restaurant & Bar (1.8 miles)
• Old Stump Brewing Co. (3 miles)
• Vince's Spaghetti (4.5 miles)

Pharmacies

• CVS Pharmacy (1.1 miles)
• CVS Pharmacy (1.9 miles)
• Walgreens (1.9 miles)
• CVS Pharmacy (2.3 miles)
• CVS Pharmacy (3 miles)
• Rite Aid (3 miles)
• Ken Pharmacy (3.5 miles)

Transportation

• Montclair Metrolink Station (1.2 miles)
• Pomona Station (3 miles)
• Ontario International Airport - Terminal 2 (7 miles)
• Baggage Claim T2 (7 miles)
• Ontario International Airport (ONT) (7.5 miles)
• Ontario Int'L-Terminal 4 (7.5 miles)
• Baggage Claim T4 (7.5 miles)

Physicians

• Heavenly 3D 4D Ultrasounds (1.7 miles)
• Tarick Smaili, MD (2.3 miles)
• Inland Neurosurgery Institute (2.5 miles)
• Womens View Medical Group (2.8 miles)
• The Robert & Beverly Lewis Family Cancer Care Center (3.2 miles)
• Chapparal Medical Group (3.3 miles)
• City Of Hope Upland (4 miles)

Theaters

• AMC DINE-IN Montclair Place 12 (1.7 miles)
• Harkins Theatres Chino Hills 18 (7 miles)

Parks

• Citrus Park (2.6 miles)
• Ruben S Ayala Park (6.7 miles)
• Frank G. Bonelli Regional Park (6.8 miles)
• Central Park (8.3 miles)
• Pantera Park (8.3 miles)
• Chino Hills Community Park (8.4 miles)

Places of Worship

• Charisma Life Church (2.7 miles)
• First Presbyterian Church Upland (3 miles)
• St Anthony's Catholic Church (3.3 miles)
• Real Life (7.6 miles)
• Hillside Community Church (8 miles)
• Crosspoint Church (8.2 miles)

Hospitals

• Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center (3.5 miles)
• San Antonio Community Hospital Maternity Information Services (3.9 miles)
• San Antonio Medical Center (4.1 miles)
• Casa Bonita (5.3 miles)

Cafes

• Starbucks (4 miles)
• Starbucks (6.2 miles)
• Starbucks (6.4 miles)
• Starbucks (7.1 miles)
• Omomo Tea Shoppe (7.2 miles)
• Panera Bread (7.4 miles)
• Panera Bread (7.6 miles)