Find Nearby Plumbers In Elkhart, Indiana

Lee Plumbing demonstrates consistently strong performance across all four dimensions. Professionalism is a standout strength, with 26 reviews explicitly praising punctuality, communication, courtesy, and respectful demeanor. Pricing is highly competitive, with 15 reviews highlighting fair quotes, reasonable costs, and value that beats competitors. Project completion is reliable, with 24 reviews confirming timely work, thorough cleanup, and follow-through on promised services. Technical expertise is evident across 16 reviews describing skilled diagnostics, quality workmanship, and problem-solving ability. The WW Score of 88.2 reflects a contractor with strong execution across all critical dimensions.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 18 of 43 reviews (42%) are older than 5 years (pre-2019), with several from 2005, 2007, 2014-2015. Only 7 reviews are from 2023 or later. Recent performance may differ from historical data.
• MINIMAL NEGATIVE DATA: Only 1 negative review (1-star from 2005) in entire dataset. While this suggests genuine quality, the overwhelming 5-star concentration (37 of 43 reviews) with very few 4-star reviews is atypical and may indicate selection bias in review platform or customer base.
• GENERIC/MINIMAL REVIEWS: 4 reviews contain only placeholder text ('N/a', '.', 'unknown', blank) or single words ('REPLACED BATHTUB FIXTURES'). These were included in mention counts but provide minimal substantive data.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('professional and on time', 'reasonable price', 'cleaned up after themselves') across different dates and reviewers, though not egregiously so. This is common in contractor reviews but warrants noting.
• SINGLE NEGATIVE INCIDENT (2005): One detailed 1-star review describes non-responsiveness to callbacks during an emergency. This is 18+ years old and contradicts all other reviews, suggesting either isolated incident or significant service improvement over time.

This WW Score of 88.2 is highly reliable for assessing Lee Plumbing's typical performance, supported by 43 reviews with strong mention counts across all dimensions (15-26 mentions each). However, the score should be weighted toward more recent reviews (2019-2023), as 42% of data is older than 5 years and may not reflect current operations. The single 1-star review from 2005 is an outlier and likely does not represent current service standards.

Metcalf, Payne and Bell receive consistently positive feedback across all five reviews, with professionalism being the most frequently and explicitly mentioned dimension — reviewers highlight punctuality, responsiveness, communication, and integrity. Project completion is supported by references to multiple completed jobs at a lake house and same-day service fulfillment. Experience is noted through terms like 'knowledgeable staff,' 'competent,' and 'highest quality service,' though specifics on workmanship are limited. Pricing is mentioned in only one review ('reasonable cost'), making that dimension score conservative and low-confidence. The overall picture is positive but the small review pool and age of some reviews limit reliability.

• Only 5 reviews total — sample size is too small to draw high-confidence conclusions about any dimension.
• Two reviews are significantly dated (2019 and 2022), which reduces their relevance under recency weighting rules. Only 3 reviews fall within the past 12–24 months.
• All reviews are 5-star with no negative feedback whatsoever. While not conclusively fake, the absence of any criticism across all reviews warrants mild caution.
• One review ('I use them for all my home needs and church needs. They are a Christian company and it shows!') provides no specific, scorable detail and was excluded from dimension scoring.
• No mentions of pricing transparency, itemized quotes, or hidden charges — the single pricing mention is vague and scored conservatively.

This WW Score should be treated as a preliminary positive signal only — with just 5 reviews, two of which are over two years old and one over five years old, the score lacks the volume and recency needed to be considered fully reliable.

This contractor shows mixed performance across a very small sample. Professionalism and project completion are reasonably strong, with multiple reviews citing prompt arrival, thorough work, and responsiveness. However, pricing practices are a significant concern—one detailed complaint about undisclosed charges ($190 surprise fee) substantially lowers the pricing dimension. Experience appears solid based on technical capability (sewer jetting, septic analysis), but confidence is limited due to only 2 mentions. The overall WW Score of 73.8 reflects decent execution but serious trust issues around transparent pricing.

• FAKE REVIEW DETECTED: First review (2022-02-21) contains incoherent slang and no substantive information about plumbing services. Appears to be spam or fraudulent posting. Excluded from scoring.
• PRICING RED FLAG: One detailed complaint (2019-05-16) explicitly describes hidden charges and poor communication about costs. This is a material trust issue that significantly impacts the pricing score.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two of three usable reviews are from 2014 and 2021—older than 12 months. Only one recent data point limits confidence in current performance.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 usable reviews provide limited statistical reliability for any dimension.

This score should be treated with caution due to very small sample size (3 usable reviews), age of most data, and a documented pricing transparency issue that raises trust concerns. The contractor shows capability but the hidden-charge complaint is a material red flag that warrants direct clarification before hiring.

Foyle Plumbing shows strong professionalism and pricing in recent positive reviews, with punctual service and fair rates explicitly praised. However, project completion is significantly dragged down by multiple serious failures: incomplete work requiring third-party fixes, unresolved furnace issues across two service calls, and poor follow-up communication on a remodel bid. The company demonstrates inconsistent accountability and responsiveness, with some customers experiencing excellent same-day service while others faced weeks of non-communication and abandoned work. Most negative reviews are older (2013–2019), but the pattern of incomplete jobs and poor follow-through remains a material concern.

• RECENCY BIAS: 4 of 10 reviews are from 2011–2013 (10+ years old); only 2 reviews from past 12 months. Recent reviews are predominantly positive, but older reviews reveal systemic issues with project completion and accountability.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews (quick, efficient, on-time) and damning 1-star reviews (botched jobs, no callbacks, incomplete work). This suggests either highly variable service quality or different service lines performing differently.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERNS: Two explicit mentions of incomplete/botched work requiring external contractors to fix mistakes; one furnace issue unresolved after two service calls; one bid never delivered despite promise. This is a red flag for reliability.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple mentions of poor follow-up (no return calls, 3-week delay on promised bid, 7-week delay on invoice). One review is simply 'No response.'

This score should be treated with caution. While recent reviews are positive, the historical pattern of incomplete work, poor communication, and unresolved technical issues is concerning. The WW Score of 68.2 reflects genuine strengths in professionalism and pricing offset by material weaknesses in project completion. Recommend requesting references for similar-scope work and clarifying accountability terms before hiring.

The review set is deeply mixed, with a significant number of negative experiences pulling scores down across all dimensions. Professionalism suffers from multiple accounts of rude phone staff, a plumber arriving 4 hours late, and a manager who blamed the customer for a miscommunication. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with several reviewers explicitly calling out excessive charges — including $450 to fix a drip, $546 for a cartridge and handle, and hundreds spent on unnecessary pipe replacement — though a small number of reviewers praised fair or competitive pricing. Project completion is inconsistent: some jobs required callbacks because the first technician did not complete the work properly, while others praised fast and thorough service. Experience scores moderately, with a handful of reviewers praising skilled and knowledgeable technicians like Ryan and Todd, but offset by accounts of misdiagnosis, misinformation, and incomplete work.

• Three reviews contain only 'unknown' or a single period ('.') as review text with no usable content — these were excluded from scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• Two reviews are dated 2016 or earlier and several others range from 2011–2019, meaning the majority of reviews are older than 12 months relative to the most recent review date (2024-01-27). Only 2 reviews fall within the past 12 months of the most recent review. Scores may not reflect current service quality.
• No strong fake review patterns detected, though several 5-star reviews are vague or lack specific detail. The presence of detailed negative reviews adds credibility to the overall dataset.
• One review references a specific employee ('Dennis') engaging in potentially deceptive pricing practices and misrepresenting warranty coverage — this is a serious ethical flag.
• One review alleges a plumber took advantage of a resident with an intellectual disability to authorize unauthorized work — this is a significant ethical and legal concern that warrants serious attention.
• One review alleges a promised refund was later rescinded by the owner after a manager had committed to it — indicating potential management integrity issues.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: while the mention counts are sufficient for statistical confidence across all dimensions, the heavy skew toward older reviews (many from 2011–2019) and only 2 reviews within the past 12 months means this score may not accurately reflect the contractor's current performance.

This contractor has a deeply mixed record across only 5 reviews spanning over a decade. Two reviews explicitly describe deceptive pricing practices — quoting one price and billing a significantly higher amount — which severely drags down the pricing and project completion dimensions. The positive reviews praise friendliness, communication, and reasonable prices, but these are largely older reviews (2012, 2015) and lack specific detail. The most recent review (2024) is brief and generic, offering limited evidentiary weight. The two 1-star reviews are specific and consistent in their complaints about bait-and-switch tactics, which is a serious red flag that cannot be dismissed.

• SERIOUS CONCERN: Two separate reviews (2015 and 2016) independently describe identical bait-and-switch pricing behavior — quoting a price then billing significantly more. This is a consistent and specific pattern of alleged deceptive business practice.
• RECENCY WARNING: Most reviews are older than 1 year. Only 1 of 5 reviews is from the past 12 months (2024). The 2024 review is brief and generic with no specifics, limiting its reliability.
• REVIEW VOLUME WARNING: Only 5 total reviews exist. This is an extremely small sample size and the WW Score should be treated with caution.
• GENERIC POSITIVE REVIEW FLAG: The 2024 5-star review ('Great service - reasonable prices. Dave is my go-to man...') is very short and non-specific, which reduces its evidentiary value.
• SCORE RELIABILITY: With only 5 reviews and a significant split between detailed negative complaints and older positive reviews, this score carries LOW overall reliability.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews — several of which are over 8 years old — and should be considered highly unreliable; the two specific and consistent complaints about deceptive pricing practices are a serious concern that prospective customers should not overlook.