Find Nearby Plumbers In Bloomington, Indiana

Mister Quik's review corpus is dominated by a severe and consistent pattern of pricing complaints — the single most frequently mentioned dimension — with dozens of reviewers independently reporting quotes that were 2x to 5x higher than competitors, misdiagnoses used to justify unnecessary replacements, and aggressive upselling tactics including fear-mongering about safety hazards. Project completion is deeply problematic, with multiple reviews describing abandoned work, holes left unfilled for months, repeat service calls failing to fix the same issue, and warranty disputes. Professionalism is mixed: individual technicians are frequently described as friendly and courteous, but the company-level behavior — no-shows, rescheduling without notice, unresponsive management after payment, and deceptive SHAPE plan enrollment — drags the score down sharply. Technical experience is similarly split, with some competent technicians praised but a troubling volume of misdiagnoses (dirty filters diagnosed as failed motors, working water heaters declared failed, simple $25 part fixes quoted at thousands) suggesting systemic incentive misalignment rather than isolated incompetence. The overall picture is of a company with a capable frontline workforce undermined by a business model built around maximizing upsell revenue at the customer's expense.

• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — HIGH: There is a cluster of 15+ reviews all dated 2025-05-09 with no review text (blank body, 5-star rating only). This is a strong indicator of review manipulation or bulk submission. These reviews were excluded from dimension scoring as they contain zero usable data.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: Several short 5-star reviews from the 2025-05-09 cluster contain only 1-2 generic sentences with no specifics (e.g., 'Fast professional service', 'Very helpful with information and detailed', 'Mike was very helpful'). These may be solicited or incentivized reviews and were scored conservatively.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of substantive negative reviews span 2017–2025, indicating this is not a historical anomaly but a persistent pattern. The most recent reviews (2025) continue to show the same pricing and upsell complaints, suggesting no meaningful improvement over time.
• LEGAL HISTORY FLAG: Multiple reviewers independently reference a 2012/2014 lawsuit by the Indiana Attorney General for violations of the Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act, resulting in a $50,000 settlement. This corroborates the systemic nature of the pricing and deceptive practices complaints.
• UPSELL PATTERN FLAG: An extraordinary number of reviews (20+) describe technicians recommending full system replacements for problems that second-opinion providers fixed for a fraction of the cost. This pattern is too consistent and widespread to be attributed to individual technician error — it appears to be a company-level sales strategy.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN FLAG: Multiple reviews document clear misdiagnoses — including a furnace fixed by replacing a $30 air filter after a $9,000 replacement was quoted, a motor 'failure' resolved by cleaning for $150 vs. $1,000 quoted, and a water heater declared failed that was working perfectly. This materially reduces the experience score.
• SHAPE PLAN COMPLAINTS: Numerous reviews describe deceptive enrollment in the auto-renewing SHAPE service plan, with customers charged without notice and finding the plan used primarily as a vehicle for upselling rather than delivering maintenance value. This affects both pricing and professionalism scores.
• RATING INCONSISTENCY: At least one review (Jason drain review, 2025-05-09) gave a 1-star rating while the text was entirely positive. This was treated as a data anomaly and the text content was used for dimension scoring rather than the star rating.

This WW Score of 38.2 carries HIGH confidence and should be trusted as an accurate reflection of customer experience — it is based on 125 reviews spanning 8+ years with consistent, independently corroborated complaints across pricing, project completion, and experience dimensions, and is not materially distorted by the cluster of suspected fake 5-star reviews which were excluded from scoring.

This contractor's review profile is deeply mixed and skewed negative across nearly all dimensions. Professionalism is the most heavily flagged dimension, with multiple reviews citing rudeness, no-shows, threatening behavior, and dismissive communication — including one alarming account of a road rage incident and another of a customer being told work would be 'ripped out.' Project completion is similarly troubled, with documented cases of incomplete work, jobs abandoned mid-service, and a customer resolving a clog themselves after paying for professional service. Pricing drew significant criticism, including a case where a $500 budget cap was ignored and the bill came to $1,400 with no prior notice. Positive reviews do exist — particularly praising responsiveness in emergencies and thoroughness — but these are outnumbered and often offset by serious negative accounts. The score reflects a contractor with inconsistent quality and meaningful risk to the customer.

• Multiple reviews (2020, 2020, 2019) are very short and generic in their negative descriptions, but the specificity of other negative reviews lends credibility to the overall negative pattern — no fake review suppression applied.
• One review explicitly states the business changed ownership (Steve Phelps is the new owner) and instructs readers to disregard older reviews. However, negative reviews appear both before and after this ownership change, so the flag does not exonerate the current operator.
• A 1-star review describes a non-service-related road rage incident. This was counted under professionalism but not project completion or experience, as it does not reflect on the quality of work performed.
• The review dated 2022-09-10 describes a detailed billing dispute with specific dollar amounts and a partial job — this is treated as high-credibility evidence of both pricing and project completion failures.
• Several reviews are older than 12 months (some dating to 2016–2020). Per recency rules, these were weighted less heavily, but the pattern of negative behavior persists into 2023–2024, so they remain relevant.
• The spread of ratings is heavily bimodal: mostly 5-star or 1-star with little middle ground, which can indicate polarizing service quality or review manipulation. One 3-star review provides a more nuanced account and was treated as high-credibility.

This WW Score is based on 15 reviews spanning 2016–2024 with sufficient mention counts across all four dimensions, yielding HIGH confidence per dimension; however, the wide date range, ownership change mid-history, and strongly polarized rating distribution mean the score should be treated as a cautionary signal rather than a precise measure — prospective customers should proceed with significant caution.

This contractor's review set is extremely small and spans an unusually wide date range (2001–2019), making reliable scoring very difficult. The two negative reviews raise serious concerns about pricing transparency and project completion, with one customer reporting being charged 4.5x the manufacturer-estimated labor hours before a partial correction was made, and another reporting a 3-day delay on a simple drain unclog. The single positive review is brief and generic, offering only that the contractor showed good responsiveness and knowledge. The pricing dimension is the most damaged, with two out of three reviews explicitly citing overcharging. Overall confidence in this score is very low due to the minimal review count.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated with extreme caution.
• Two of three reviews are older than 15 years (2001 and 2007), making them potentially irrelevant to current business practices.
• The single positive review (2019) is very brief and generic with no specific details — limited evidentiary value.
• Pricing concerns are severe and consistent across two independent reviews, suggesting a possible pattern of overbilling.
• One reviewer explicitly stated they ended a 20-year customer relationship due to overcharging, indicating a significant trust breakdown.
• Recency warning: The most recent review is from 2019, over 5 years ago. No recent data is available to assess current performance.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning over 18 years and should not be considered a reliable indicator of this contractor's current quality or practices.

Hill Top Plumbing & HVAC demonstrates severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by rude communication, dismissive attitudes toward customers, and an owner who hung up on a vulnerable elderly customer. Project completion is undermined by incomplete work, installation failures (freezing lines, poor A-coil installation, missing filter replacement), and refusal to correct defects. Experience is questionable given unlicensed technicians, inability to diagnose and fix problems correctly, and high employee turnover. Pricing concerns include alleged dishonesty, undisclosed charges, and overcharging for uninstalled work. All three reviews are from 2022–2023 and consistently report severe negative experiences.

• All three reviews are uniformly 1-star with detailed, specific complaints—not generic praise. This is consistent with genuine negative experiences rather than fake reviews.
• Two reviews explicitly mention the owner (Steve) by name and describe direct negative interactions, increasing credibility.
• Review 1 (Sept 2023) is most recent; Reviews 2 and 3 are from 2022. Pattern of poor service spans at least 1+ year.
• Review 2 explicitly mentions unlicensed EPA technicians and high employee turnover, suggesting systemic operational issues.
• No positive reviews present to balance assessment. Recommend caution: this contractor may pose significant risk.

This WW Score of 15.8 is highly reliable given consistent, detailed, specific complaints across three independent reviews spanning multiple service failures. The score should be trusted as a strong indicator of poor contractor performance.

With only 3 reviews total, this dataset is too small to produce a reliable WW Score. Review 1 (2022) praises professionalism, cleanliness, and expertise. Review 2 (2022) is highly critical of pricing practices, reporting $354 charged for under one hour of work with unclear fee structure and an inexpensive thermostat marked up significantly. Review 3 (2017) is generic praise with no specific details. The extreme polarity between reviews and the age of one review (2017) further limit confidence.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews analyzed; minimum 5 reviews recommended for reliable scoring
• RECENCY CONCERN: One review is from 2017 (7+ years old); only 2 reviews from 2022
• GENERIC REVIEW DETECTED: Review 3 contains no specific details and uses vague language ('best service techs in the business') — potential fake review
• EXTREME POLARITY: Review 2 (1-star) directly contradicts reviews 1 and 3 (5-star) on pricing and value; suggests inconsistent service or pricing practices
• PRICING RED FLAG: Review 2 documents specific concerns about unclear fee structure, diagnostic charges, and markup on low-cost parts — warrants investigation

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume (n=3). The extreme divergence between positive and negative reviews, combined with recency issues and one potentially generic review, makes any aggregate score unreliable. Recommend collecting at least 5-10 additional recent reviews before making a hiring decision.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed, which is below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a reliable WW Score calculation. The single review describes severe failures in professionalism (no response, non-appearance in court) and project completion (abandoned work, no refund), but a single data point cannot support a trustworthy overall score.

• CRITICAL: Only 1 review analyzed — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Severe allegations: abandoned work, non-refund, failure to appear in court, unpaid judgment
• Reviewer recommends checking Google reviews for corroboration — external verification suggested
• Cannot calculate composite WW Score with insufficient data

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=1). While the single review contains serious allegations of non-completion and non-responsiveness, a single negative review does not constitute a statistically valid assessment. Additional reviews are required before any confidence-weighted score can be calculated.