Find Nearby Plumbers In Bullhead City, Arizona

George's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous communication across 68 reviews. Pricing is a significant strength, with 52 reviews explicitly praising fair, transparent, and reasonable rates—often coming in under customer expectations. However, project completion shows notable weakness with 45 mentions revealing patterns of delayed callbacks, incomplete work requiring follow-up visits, and occasional no-shows. Experience and technical skill are solid (38 mentions), with customers praising problem-solving ability and quality workmanship, though some reviews document instances of inadequate diagnostics and over-specification of repairs.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2020-07-22, 2018-01-26, 2017-10-04 duplicated, 2017-11-06, 2016-09-01) report serious service failures including no-shows, incomplete work, overcharging, and alleged unprofessional behavior. One 2020 review explicitly states reviews were 'scrubbed' and a prior negative review disappeared.
• PATTERN DETECTED: Several reviews from 2014-2017 report significant project completion issues—work not finished on schedule, callbacks not honored, and jobs requiring multiple follow-up visits (e.g., 2014-02-06 water heater took 10 months to complete; 2013-01-30 sump pump installation unfinished for 5 months).
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most detailed negative reviews are from 2013-2020. Recent reviews (2024, 2023) are overwhelmingly positive with minimal detail, while older reviews contain more specific complaints. This temporal pattern warrants caution.
• GENERIC REVIEWS: Approximately 15 reviews contain only single words ('unknown', '.', 'ab', 'Excellent', 'wonderful') or minimal text with no substantive information. These provide no actionable data.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple 5-star reviews with identical phrasing ('They do whatever they said they gonna do', 'It went fine', 'It went great') and no specifics suggest possible review manipulation.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS: One 2016 review alleges the plumber flooded an apartment, was intoxicated, used racial slurs, and refused refunds. While unverified, this is a severe claim that contradicts the overwhelmingly positive narrative.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While the score reflects genuinely strong professionalism and pricing across a large sample, the presence of credible negative reviews documenting no-shows, incomplete work, and alleged review suppression, combined with a suspicious temporal pattern (detailed complaints in older reviews, generic praise in recent ones), suggests the overall rating may be artificially inflated. Prospective customers should independently verify recent service quality and obtain written estimates before committing to work.

North Star Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, satisfied customers who consistently praise the professionalism, punctuality, and technical skill of named technicians like Rick, Brandon, Aaron, and Ronnie. However, a significant and recurring cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years but continuing into 2024 and 2025 — documents serious project completion failures including no-shows, abandoned jobs, missed appointments, and unresponsive communication, primarily in the context of Lowe's/Handy/Angi subcontracting work. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and competitive by direct customers, but at least two reviewers flagged unexpected charges or overpricing on specific jobs. The dual nature of this contractor — performing well for direct/repeat clients while generating consistent complaints through third-party referral channels — significantly drags down the project completion and professionalism scores. Experience scores remain relatively strong, as most reviewers who received completed work reported skilled, knowledgeable technicians.

• RECURRING NO-SHOW PATTERN: Multiple reviews across 2023, 2024, and 2025 describe the same failure mode — installer marks job complete without showing up, claims they could not reach the customer, and provides no verification. This is a systemic operational issue, not isolated incidents.
• THIRD-PARTY CHANNEL FAILURES: The majority of negative reviews originate from customers assigned through Lowe's, Handy, or Angi. Direct customers report a markedly better experience. This split suggests the company may be overextended or less accountable when working through intermediaries.
• ABANDONED WORK: At least one review (2024-06-09) explicitly states a faucet was partially installed and never completed despite multiple follow-up attempts. A 2023 review describes a dishwasher reinstall that caused flooding and the owner denying responsibility.
• HIDDEN/UNEXPECTED CHARGES: Two reviews (2019 and 2023) describe being charged significantly more than the quoted or expected price without prior notice, including a $150 charge for a low-cost part and a final bill $155 above the quoted amount.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2007 to 2025. Reviews from 2007–2018 were given reduced weight. The majority of scoreable data comes from 2019–2025, with the most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) showing a mixed but active pattern of both strong praise and serious complaints.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW CONCERN (MINOR): A cluster of 5-star reviews dated 2025-05-26 and 2025-05-10 share very similar short, generic phrasing with no specific job details. While not conclusive, this warrants mild caution. Several blank-text reviews with 5-star ratings also appear throughout the dataset and were excluded from scoring.
• INAPPROPRIATE CONDUCT ALLEGATION: One review (2024-11-08) alleges an installer made inappropriate personal comments during a job, causing the customer significant distress. This is a serious professionalism concern even if isolated.
• UNSAFE DRIVING ALLEGATION: One review (2024-12-11) alleges a company vehicle nearly caused a road accident. While not directly related to plumbing quality, it reflects on company culture and professionalism.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning 18 years, with strong data across all four dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously due to a well-documented and recurring pattern of service failures in third-party referral contexts — prospective customers using Lowe's or similar platforms should be especially aware of these risks before booking.

Turk Construction receives strong praise across multiple dimensions, with several reviewers specifically highlighting quality workmanship, on-time delivery, and fair pricing. The large-scale four-bathroom remodel completed on a six-week timeline with post-completion follow-through is a particularly strong signal of project completion capability. Professionalism scores are tempered by one 1-star review explicitly calling the owner 'the most unprofessional person' — while undetailed, it cannot be ignored and introduces meaningful uncertainty. Pricing and experience are well-supported by specific, credible reviewer accounts. The review base is small (7 reviews) and spans several years, limiting overall confidence.

• One 1-star review (2020-05-12) explicitly flags unprofessionalism with no supporting detail — vague but cannot be dismissed; it meaningfully offsets the otherwise positive professionalism signals.
• Review base is small (7 reviews total), which limits statistical reliability across all dimensions.
• Several reviews are older than 3 years (2020–2021), reducing recency weight. Only one review is from the past 12 months (2023-02-20).
• Some reviews contain generic praise with limited specifics (e.g., 'high quality of work, always on budget and finished on time' with no detail), which may slightly inflate confidence in those dimensions — scored conservatively as a result.
• No strong fake review pattern detected, but the short, undetailed positive reviews warrant mild caution.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a small review pool, limited recency, one unresolved negative flag, and a handful of low-detail reviews that reduce scoring precision.

R and N Plumbing consistently earns praise for professionalism, punctuality, and friendly customer service across multiple reviewers and technicians including Aaron, Chris, and Ray. Project completion scores well overall, with reviewers noting jobs finished promptly and thoroughly even in difficult circumstances such as busted pipes requiring significant digging. Experience is positively noted across several reviews, with one reviewer with 25 years in construction calling the water heater installation the best he had ever seen. However, pricing is the most mixed dimension: while several reviews praise fair or below-market pricing, one detailed 2-star review explicitly describes hidden fees, a disputed refund, and the owner arguing against honoring a promised credit — which meaningfully drags the pricing score down. The hidden fee complaint is the most significant negative signal in the dataset and warrants caution.

• RECENCY WARNING: Five of nine reviews are from 2020 or earlier, with the oldest dating to 2016. Only four reviews are from 2022 or later. The score is influenced by potentially outdated experiences.
• HIDDEN FEE COMPLAINT: One detailed 2-star review (2022) explicitly describes an undisclosed fee, a broken promise of refund from the receptionist, and the owner personally rescinding that refund. This is a substantive complaint, not a vague grievance, and directly impacts pricing trustworthiness.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Several older reviews (2016–2019) are brief and lack specific detail, which slightly reduces confidence in those data points. However, they are not identical in phrasing and are not flagged as definitively fake.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: With only 9 total reviews spanning 8 years, confidence in the overall score is moderate. A single additional negative review could meaningfully shift results.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability — the positive signals are consistent and span multiple technicians and job types, but the small sample size, the concentration of older reviews, and one credible hidden-fee complaint introduce enough uncertainty that prospective customers should verify current pricing practices explicitly before hiring.

Kimball Plumbing demonstrates strong technical skill and workmanship, with multiple reviews praising quality execution and problem-solving ability. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by documented communication failures, scheduling inconsistencies, and serious customer service issues involving the owner (Katy). Project completion shows mixed results with some excellent large jobs but concerning follow-through problems and unresolved customer disputes. Pricing is generally competitive and fair, though some customers report labor billing concerns. The company's performance is highly polarized: long-term satisfied customers contrast sharply with renters and customers who experienced dismissive treatment and unresolved issues.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2014-2013 period) document serious professionalism issues with owner Katy Kimball, including rudeness, hanging up on customers, and dismissive behavior toward renters. These are not isolated complaints.
• SERIOUS: Two detailed reviews from the same customer describe failure to take responsibility for service errors (irrigation line left on, causing 23,000 gallons of water waste). Company denied liability and refused settlement.
• PATTERN: Scheduling and communication problems documented in multiple reviews from 2013-2014, with missed appointments and failure to confirm as promised.
• CONCERN: One review documents items missing from customer's garage (ratchet, battery) during service visit.
• CONCERN: One review documents labor billing dispute where technician charged 1.5 hours to locate cleanout that customer's husband ultimately found; company only partially credited after argument.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Most negative reviews are from 2012-2014 (8+ years old). More recent reviews (2015-2020) are predominantly positive, suggesting possible management or personnel changes. However, one 2015 review still reports unprofessional behavior.
• DATA QUALITY: One review text is 'unknown' with 5-star rating (2015-01-14), reducing reliability of that data point.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While recent reviews (2015-2020) are consistently positive and suggest improved service, the documented pattern of serious professionalism and accountability issues from 2012-2014 raises concerns about consistency. The company appears to perform well on technical execution but has a documented history of poor customer service, particularly toward renters and when disputes arise. Customers should be aware of this polarized track record.

Bill demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, responsiveness, and good communication skills across multiple reviews. However, a critical 1-star review from 2019 reveals a serious problem-solving failure where the customer was charged twice ($160 total) without resolving a water leak issue, suggesting diagnostic limitations. Most positive reviews are older than 3 years (2016–2018), with only one recent review from 2020, limiting confidence in current performance. Pricing feedback is mixed: some customers report reasonable rates, but the 2019 customer felt overcharged for ineffective service. Experience scores are supported by mentions of technical knowledge and quick problem-solving, but the unresolved leak case undermines confidence in diagnostic expertise.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 5 of 6 reviews are from 2016–2020; only 1 review from 2020 or later. Current performance cannot be reliably assessed.
• CRITICAL SERVICE FAILURE: 2019 review documents a customer charged $160 across two service calls without resolving the underlying problem. This suggests inadequate diagnostic skills or poor follow-through.
• MIXED PRICING SIGNALS: Positive reviews praise 'reasonable' pricing, but the 2019 customer felt exploited with repeated charges for ineffective service. Pricing credibility is compromised.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 6 reviews total limits statistical reliability, especially with one severe negative outlier.

This WW Score should be treated with caution. While professionalism scores are supported by multiple recent mentions, the small sample size (6 reviews), significant age of most data (2016–2018), and one documented service failure that contradicts the positive narrative substantially reduce confidence in the overall score. The 2019 leak incident is particularly concerning and suggests real limitations in diagnostic problem-solving that may not be reflected in the final score.