Find Nearby Plumbers Companies In 47630, Evansville, Indiana

Bayer's Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness across the majority of reviews, with many customers praising friendly, knowledgeable technicians and same-day or next-day service. However, pricing is a notable weak point: multiple reviewers across different years describe unexpected charges, lack of upfront estimates, billing for travel time on top of trip fees, and final invoices far exceeding expectations — pulling the pricing score down significantly. Project completion is mixed: while many jobs are described as completed quickly and thoroughly, there are credible accounts of incomplete work, a months-long saga requiring re-dos, a broken drain cleaner head left in a line, and at least one instance where a customer was charged without the problem being resolved. Experience scores moderately well, with many reviewers noting knowledgeable technicians who explained issues and offered preventative advice, though a few reviews describe poor problem diagnosis and substandard workmanship. The overall WW Score reflects a contractor with genuine strengths in responsiveness and technical skill but meaningful and recurring concerns around pricing transparency and job completion reliability.

• 4 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• One review (5-star, 2023) consists entirely of hyperbolic all-caps praise with zero specifics ('ABOVE top tier', 'ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY THE BEST'). This pattern is consistent with a potentially inauthentic review and was weighted minimally.
• One review appears to be a correction post ('That should be a 5 star. I've never rated anything before sorry.') with no substantive content and was excluded from scoring.
• Several negative reviews are older than 5 years (2014, 2016, 2018) and were given reduced weight per recency rules, though they were not excluded entirely as they establish a pattern of recurring pricing and communication complaints.
• The 1-star review from 2023-11-08 describing a 3-month project saga with cost escalation from $3,500 to $6,000, incomplete work, and no communication is a detailed, credible negative account and was weighted heavily in project completion and pricing scores.
• The updated 1-star review (originally 11/14/23, updated 12/4/23) shows a billing dispute that was partially resolved by management follow-up — this was treated as a mixed signal for both project completion and professionalism.
• Pricing complaints span multiple years (2014, 2016, 2023, 2024) and multiple reviewers independently describing similar issues (unexpected itemized charges, billing for shop travel time, no upfront estimates). This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• The 1-star review from 2018 citing three failed callback attempts over a month is a standalone communication failure but aligns with the broader pattern of inconsistent responsiveness noted in other negative reviews.

This WW Score is based on 46 reviews with usable content spanning 2014–2025, with a strong concentration of recent reviews (2023–2025), giving the score reasonable reliability — however, the recurring and independently corroborated pricing complaints and project completion failures across multiple years mean prospective customers should treat the pricing and project completion scores as genuine risk areas rather than outliers.

Jim Cody demonstrates strong technical expertise and craftsmanship, with consistently positive feedback on work quality and problem-solving ability. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by a persistent pattern of poor communication and unreliability: multiple reviews document no-shows, missed callbacks, failure to follow up on quotes, and scheduling inconsistency. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and transparent. Project completion shows mixed results, with several instances of abandoned follow-up work and unfinished commitments. The contractor excels when actively engaged but struggles with accountability and responsiveness.

• CRITICAL PATTERN: At least 5 reviews explicitly document no-shows, missed callbacks, or failure to follow up on quotes (2011-08-18, 2011-11-03, 2015-08-29, 2008-11-17, and 2013-04-02). This is a systemic reliability issue, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are from 2007-2015 (10+ years old). Only 1 review from 2018 and 1 from 2017. Current reliability cannot be confidently assessed.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between reviews praising reliability and punctuality (2011-07-29, 2010-10-28) and those documenting chronic no-shows and poor communication. Suggests either significant service degradation over time or highly variable performance.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RISK: Review from 2016-12-19 documents incomplete work (wrong shutter size ordered, promised special order and installation never delivered despite follow-up contact). This indicates follow-through failures on complex projects.

This score should be treated with caution due to age of data (most reviews 10+ years old) and a documented pattern of communication and reliability failures that directly contradict the high technical quality ratings; the WW Score reflects historical performance but may not represent current service standards.

Sprinklers Plus shows significant inconsistency across customer experiences. Professionalism is heavily compromised by poor communication and responsiveness—multiple reviews cite unreturned calls/messages and one customer reported being hung up on, though field technicians themselves are praised as courteous and skilled. Pricing is a major pain point, with customers reporting lack of transparency about flat-rate fees ($150 + $50 trip charge) leading to sticker shock on small jobs; however, the company does deliver fair pricing on larger projects. Project completion is generally solid when work is performed, but follow-through on invoicing and callbacks is inconsistent. Technical skill and workmanship quality are evident but undermined by poor business practices.

• CRITICAL: Stark polarity in reviews—two 5-star reviews (2023, 2022) versus two 1-star reviews (2022). The positive reviews lack specificity on pricing details, while negative reviews provide extensive documentation of service failures.
• SUSPICIOUS PATTERN: Review dated 2022-07-17 explicitly notes 'I looked them up and read all the FB reviews and everything was a 1 star???' suggesting possible review manipulation or platform differences. This raises questions about review authenticity.
• COMMUNICATION CRISIS: Multiple independent reports of unreturned calls/messages, one instance of being hung up on, and invoicing failures. This is a systemic issue, not isolated.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY FAILURE: Customers not informed upfront of $150 flat rate + $50 trip fee structure, resulting in unexpected charges ($214.50 for 10-minute job). This appears to be a deliberate or negligent omission.
• RECENCY NOTE: All reviews are from 2022-2023; no recent data available to assess if issues have been corrected.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (4 reviews) and extreme polarity suggesting either significant operational changes over time or potential review authenticity issues. The company appears competent at technical work but has serious deficiencies in customer communication, transparency, and business practices that directly contradict positive claims.

The review set is extremely small (3 reviews) and spans multiple years, making any score highly unreliable. The most recent and detailed review (October 2024) describes a deeply alarming incident involving aggressive behavior, undisclosed service charges, refusal to leave a childcare facility, verbal abuse of an elderly person, and a suspected prank callback — all of which severely drag down professionalism and pricing scores. The two positive reviews are older (2020 and 2022) and lack sufficient detail to meaningfully offset the serious misconduct described in the 2024 review. Project completion and experience scores are based solely on the 2020 review, which described satisfactory toilet and faucet work, but these scores carry very low confidence given the single mention and age of the review.

• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAG: The 2024 review describes the owner yelling at and intimidating an elderly customer, refusing to leave a childcare facility, demanding payment for no work performed, using profanity in front of children, and potentially impersonating someone in a follow-up call. This is a significant red flag for safety and business ethics.
• UNDISCLOSED FEES FLAG: The 2024 review explicitly states no service charge was disclosed prior to arrival, which raises concerns about transparent pricing practices.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent review (2024) is the most negative and most detailed. The two positive reviews are from 2022 and 2020 respectively, reducing their relevance to current business practices.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 3 reviews total. Per scoring rules, this is at the minimum threshold for calculation. All scores should be treated with extreme caution.
• POSSIBLE GENERIC POSITIVE REVIEW: The 2022 five-star review contains no specific details about work performed, pricing, or any named individual, which is consistent with a low-detail or potentially unverifiable review pattern.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 4 years and should not be considered reliable; the severe misconduct described in the most recent 2024 review is a serious concern that prospective customers should weigh heavily.