HeyNeighbor | Risk Visibility for Multifamily

Why Public Reviews Create Risk

Liability risk forms when an issue is repeatedly described in a public, time-stamped, and discoverable forum. Even if the details are imperfect, repetition establishes that a reasonable operator should have been aware of the condition and investigated. In a legal context, these reviews act as a digital paper trail of awareness that is difficult to ignore.

The Three Review Patterns That Matter Most

The highest risk signals are repeat conditions tied to safety and access: broken gates, unsecured entries, and unresolved hazards. The second tier involves habitability: mold, sewage, and leaks. The third tier involves staff behavior that suggests a process breakdown, specifically when resident language converges around "closed but not fixed" or repeated, ignored reports.

How to Read Reviews Without Sentiment Theater

Ignore tone and star ratings to find the underlying signal. Extract the claim, the location, the time window, and whether it is described as a repeat occurrence. Look for multiple reviewers describing the same condition, especially when the language converges around keywords like "always," "still," or "nothing changed."

A Simple Triage Framework

Treat each review as a signal, then ask three questions: Is it safety or habitability related? Is it repeated across time or multiple reviewers? Is there evidence of non-response or false closure? When all three are true, escalate the signal to leadership and create a documented remediation plan immediately.

What to Document for Defensibility

Your strongest posture is a clean, defensible timeline: when the signal appeared, when leadership became aware, what investigation occurred, and what remediation was performed. The goal is not to argue with the reviewer; it is to prove the organization took reasonable, structured action once a repeat condition became visible.

Common Questions

Do we need to respond to every negative review?

Not for risk purposes. What matters is whether repeat safety, access, or habitability signals are recognized and handled with documented investigation and remediation.

Why should we ignore star ratings in risk assessment?

Star ratings are subjective and inconsistent. Risk intelligence is about repeated conditions and time-stamped allegations that establish awareness, not average sentiment scores.

What makes a Google review a "high liability" signal?

A repeat condition tied to safety or habitability, especially when multiple reviewers indicate a history of non-response, excessive delays, or repeated attempts to report the same issue.

Is a Google review considered legal evidence?

It is an external, time-stamped record of an allegation. It should be treated as a signal that triggers an internal investigation and documentation, providing a record of how the organization responded to awareness.