Find Nearby Plumbers In Lake Havasu City, Arizona

This contractor has a deeply polarized review profile: two positive reviews praising fast, reliable, and professional service, and two highly detailed negative reviews describing serious misconduct including upselling unnecessary parts, failing to complete repairs that held for only two weeks, and an incident where a freezer was unplugged and a promised reimbursement was never honored. The negative reviews contain specific names, dates, and dollar amounts, lending them strong credibility. The positive reviews are comparatively vague and lack operational detail. Pricing is a significant concern, with two reviewers independently describing bait-and-switch or unexpected cost escalation tactics. Project completion is also heavily penalized due to a repair that failed within two weeks and a follow-through failure on a promised reimbursement.

• The two positive reviews are notably generic and lack specific operational detail, while the two negative reviews contain named individuals, specific dollar amounts, and detailed sequences of events — this asymmetry reduces confidence in the positive reviews.
• All reviews are older than 12 months (most recent: August 2019); no recent data is available to assess current service quality.
• Two independent reviewers describe a pattern of upselling and cost escalation once work has begun, which may indicate a systemic business practice rather than isolated incidents.
• One reviewer reports a broken promise of reimbursement for damages caused by the technician (unplugged freezer, $400+ in lost food), which is a serious professionalism and integrity concern.
• A repair performed by this contractor failed within two weeks, and the contractor then attempted to sell a replacement system rather than honoring the original repair — this is a significant project completion and experience red flag.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, all older than 12 months, and should be treated as LOW confidence overall; the score directionally reflects serious concerns but cannot be considered statistically reliable without more recent and numerous reviews.

Benjamin Franklin Plumbing of Kingman receives overwhelmingly negative reviews across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is severely damaged by repeated accounts of rude technicians, no-shows, broken promises, failure to return calls, and even harassment via unsolicited telemarketing calls after customers explicitly requested removal from contact lists. Pricing is a dominant complaint across the review set, with numerous customers describing charges that were dramatically higher than competitors, hidden fees, and bait-and-switch tactics where low quoted prices ballooned into hundreds or thousands of dollars. Project completion is critically poor, with multiple reviews describing abandoned jobs, work that was never finished, technicians who left without completing repairs, and management that ignored follow-up calls for weeks. Experience scores marginally higher only because a small cluster of positive reviews — primarily centered on a technician named Eric — describe competent and knowledgeable work, but these are heavily outweighed by accounts of incompetent diagnostics, a dangerous undetected gas leak, and repeated failures to identify the root cause of plumbing problems.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN — MINOR: The three 5-star reviews are notably sparse in detail compared to the volume and specificity of negative reviews. The 5-star review from 2021-11-06 ('It's rare to be as satisfied...') contains no actionable detail whatsoever and reads as potentially generic or planted. Confidence in positive scores is reduced accordingly.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews span 2017–2023. The most recent reviews (2023) are negative. The positive reviews referencing technician Eric are from 2019 and may not reflect current service quality. No reviews from 2024 or later are present.
• PATTERN WARNING: Multiple independent reviewers describe an identical pattern of low initial quotes escalating dramatically once the technician is on-site, suggesting a systemic upselling or bait-and-switch business practice rather than isolated incidents.
• HARASSMENT PATTERN: At least two reviewers explicitly state they were repeatedly called after requesting removal from contact lists, with one reviewer documenting 35 calls since December. This is a significant professionalism and legal compliance concern.
• SAFETY CONCERN: One reviewer (2019-08-22) reports a gas leak went undetected for five months after a water heater installation, posing a serious health and safety risk. This is a critical workmanship failure.
• MANAGEMENT UNRESPONSIVENESS: Multiple reviewers across different years report that management never returned calls or emails after complaints, suggesting a systemic failure in customer service and accountability at the organizational level.

This WW Score is based on 20 reviews spanning 2017–2023 with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making it a reliable and conservative reflection of this contractor's performance — the low score is well-supported by consistent, specific, and independently corroborated negative experiences across the entire review set.

This contractor (operating as Rite-A-Way Services and Plumbers Inc.) has an overwhelmingly negative review record across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is catastrophically low, with dozens of reviews citing chronic no-shows, missed appointment windows, unreturned calls, rude and dismissive technicians, and outright hostile behavior toward customers. Project completion is similarly dismal, with repeated accounts of jobs left unfinished, incorrect diagnoses, return visits that never materialized, and work that failed shortly after completion. Pricing drew widespread complaints of fraudulent upselling, fabricated modification charges, hidden fees, and billing for work never performed. Technical experience was rated poorly across the board, with reviewers describing technicians as incompetent, undertrained, and unable to diagnose or fix basic plumbing issues that other contractors resolved quickly. The handful of positive reviews (approximately 7 out of 72) describe isolated good experiences, often with specific named technicians, but these are vastly outnumbered by detailed, credible negative accounts.

• SUSPECTED DUAL-IDENTITY OPERATION: The company operates under at least two names — Rite-A-Way Services and Plumbers Inc. — which multiple reviewers note appears designed to obscure a poor reputation and evade accountability.
• FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Numerous reviewers allege the company deliberately misrepresents repair scope to home warranty companies (AHS, First American) to deny claims or extract additional fees from customers. Multiple reviewers describe technicians lying to warranty companies about the nature of damage.
• PATTERN OF FAKE OR MISLEADING POSITIVE REVIEWS: The 7 positive reviews are notably brief and generic compared to the highly detailed negative reviews. Several positive reviews lack specifics about the work performed. This asymmetry warrants skepticism about the authenticity of some positive reviews.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2011 to 2022. The overwhelming majority of negative reviews are consistent across all time periods, indicating systemic and persistent problems rather than isolated incidents. The most recent review (2022) describes a pipe burst from prior shoddy work, confirming long-term pattern.
• REGULATORY CONCERNS: Multiple reviewers report filing or intending to file complaints with the BBB and California CSLB. One review describes a confirmed CSLB investigation. Another alleges carbon monoxide leakage from an improperly installed water heater and missing permits — a serious safety concern.
• THEFT ALLEGATION: One reviewer credibly alleges a technician stole a part from a disassembled shower faucet during a service visit.
• NEAR-UNIVERSAL 1-STAR RATING: Approximately 90% of reviews are 1-star. This level of negative consensus across a large review set is a strong signal of systemic operational failure.

This WW Score is highly reliable and should be trusted: it is based on 72 reviews with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, the negative pattern is consistent across many years and dozens of independent reviewers, and the specific, detailed nature of the complaints strongly indicates genuine customer experiences rather than coordinated attacks.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. While both reviews are positive and mention fair pricing, job completion, and technical knowledge, the sample size is too small to calculate a reliable WW Score. Review 1 (2021) praises Dennis for doing 'a great job' and being open for business. Review 2 (2018) explicitly commends fair pricing ($220 vs. $625 competitor quote), warranty knowledge, and honest dealings. However, with fewer than 3 reviews, confidence in any aggregate score is severely limited.

• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — WW Score cannot be reliably calculated per STEP 4 rules
• Both reviews are older than 12 months (2018 and 2021); no recent data available
• Professionalism dimension not explicitly mentioned in either review — no punctuality, communication, or attitude details provided
• Review 1 contains defensive language ('Who would do that to a local business') suggesting possible response to negative feedback, but does not provide substantive service details

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2, minimum 3 required). Any score derived would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews provided, both from 2018 (6+ years old). While both reviews are positive and mention punctuality and quality work, the sample size is far too small and the reviews are severely outdated. No explicit information provided regarding pricing, detailed project completion timelines, or technical experience/skill assessment.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — minimum 3 required for reliable scoring
• Both reviews are from 2018 (6+ years old) — no recent data available
• Suspiciously generic praise with repetitive language ('fantastic job!!!') across both reviews — potential fake review pattern
• No pricing information mentioned in any review
• No detailed project completion or timeline information provided
• No technical skill or experience details discussed
• Review dates suggest this business may no longer be active or monitored

This score cannot be calculated due to insufficient data volume and extreme age of reviews; any scoring would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

Both reviews are positive and mention job completion, fair pricing, and reliability. However, the dataset is critically small (only 2 reviews) with the most recent review dating to 2023 and the other from 2013—a 10-year gap that raises recency concerns. Mentions across all dimensions are very limited (1–2 per dimension), preventing reliable WW Score calculation. The reviews lack specific technical detail and contain generic praise, which limits confidence in the assessment.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: One review is from 2013 (11 years old). Only 1 review from the past 12 months. Historical data may not reflect current service quality.
• LIMITED SPECIFICITY: Reviews contain generic praise without detailed technical descriptions or specific problem-solving examples.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: All dimension scores based on 1–2 mentions only. Confidence is inherently limited.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. With only 2 reviews and a 10-year gap between them, this assessment cannot be trusted as representative of current contractor performance.