Find Nearby Plumbers In Evansville, Indiana

Hagerman Plumbing shows significant inconsistency in service quality. While older reviews (2012-2014) consistently praise punctuality, professionalism, and reasonable pricing, more recent reviews reveal serious project completion failures including incomplete work, water damage, and refusal to honor callbacks or stand behind equipment. The 2022 furnace installation complaint and multiple plumbing job failures (unplugged sewage line, open pipes causing flooding, incomplete work) indicate systemic issues with follow-through and quality control. Professionalism scores are dragged down by poor communication and scheduling responsiveness documented in the 2013 review.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 10+ years old (2012-2014). Recent reviews (2022, 2017, 2013, 2011) are predominantly negative, suggesting service quality has deteriorated significantly over time.
• PATTERN OF INCOMPLETE WORK: Multiple reviews document unfinished jobs—unplugged sewage line, open pipes left under sink, old piping left in place, equipment not standing behind warranty. This is a critical red flag.
• CONFLICTING EVIDENCE: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews from 2012-2014 and severe 1-star reviews from 2011-2022 suggests either major operational changes or inconsistent service delivery.
• VAGUE REVIEWS: Two reviews contain only '.' and 'unknown' with ratings (5.0 and 2.0/4.0), providing no usable data and raising minor authenticity concerns.
• CALLBACK FAILURES: Multiple reviews explicitly state company refused to honor callbacks or correct problems (2022 furnace, 2013 scheduling, 2011 incomplete work).

This score should be treated with caution due to extreme temporal polarization: recent reviews show serious quality and completion failures, while older reviews are uniformly positive. The WW Score reflects an average across conflicting evidence, but the trend is clearly negative. Potential customers should weight recent reviews (2011-2022) much more heavily than the 2012-2014 praise, and the pattern of incomplete work and refusal to correct problems represents a material risk.

Acme's reviews paint a deeply mixed but predominantly negative picture. Professionalism is the most heavily flagged dimension: multiple reviews cite rude staff, threatening behavior from a plumber, a dismissive division manager, and chronic office communication failures that left customers without updates for hours. Project completion is similarly troubled — one customer was never called back at all, another paid for a job that required a return visit due to a cracked sink, and one reviewer explicitly states they were paid for work that was never performed. Pricing received one strong positive mention (competitive HVAC pricing) but is significantly undermined by a detailed account of unexplained 'helper' charges totaling $406 for a person who performed no visible work, suggesting a lack of pricing transparency. On the experience side, at least one field technician received genuine praise for skill and efficiency, and one reviewer praised a large gas line replacement job, but these positives are outweighed by accounts of careless workmanship (damaging a sink strainer) and a return-visit failure.

• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary significantly in length, detail, tone, and rating, suggesting authentic authorship.
• RECENCY NOTE: Only 2 of 7 reviews are from the past 12 months (2023–2024). Three reviews date from 2019, which limits how well this score reflects current business performance.
• BILLING CONCERN: One detailed review describes being charged $406 for a 'helper' who performed no work across two service calls, with no upfront disclosure. This may indicate a systemic billing practice worth flagging.
• MANAGEMENT CONDUCT FLAG: Two separate reviews describe rude or dismissive behavior from office/management staff (division manager Stratton and a second plumber named Steve), suggesting a possible cultural or leadership issue beyond isolated incidents.
• ABANDONED WORK FLAG: One reviewer explicitly states they paid Acme and the work was never performed, which is a serious project completion failure.

This WW Score is based on 7 reviews spanning 2019–2024, with moderate overall confidence; the score is likely a fair reflection of systemic issues but should be interpreted cautiously given that recent data is limited to only 2 reviews from the past 12 months.

This contractor's reviews reveal a deeply polarized customer base. Professionalism scores a modest 52 because while many individual technicians are praised for punctuality, courtesy, and communication, the company-level responsiveness is frequently criticized — including failure to return calls, vague scheduling windows, and high-pressure sales tactics. Pricing is the single most damaging dimension, with an overwhelming majority of reviewers explicitly calling out prices as grossly inflated, sometimes 3–5x market rate for parts and labor, driving the pricing score to a very low 12. Project completion suffers significantly due to multiple accounts of abandoned or incomplete work, misdiagnoses leading to unnecessary replacements, and failure to follow through on callbacks — earning a 38. Experience scores 45 because while some technicians demonstrate genuine skill and problem-solving ability, there are serious documented cases of misdiagnosis, substandard HVAC installation, and technicians admitting they could not handle commercial jobs, undermining confidence in technical competence overall.

• PRICING PATTERN — EXTREME: An overwhelming majority of reviewers (42 out of 52) explicitly cite grossly inflated pricing. Quotes documented in reviews are frequently 3x to 10x market rate for parts and labor. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE WORK FLAG: Multiple reviews describe jobs left unfinished, including a partially installed HVAC system abandoned for 6+ weeks, a plumber who refused to complete a sink hookup mid-job, and a bathroom fan repair that was never completed after payment of a service fee.
• MISDIAGNOSIS FLAG: At least two reviews document significant financial harm caused by incorrect diagnoses — one customer replaced an entire HVAC unit unnecessarily due to a misdiagnosed thermostat issue, costing thousands of dollars.
• HIGH-PRESSURE SALES TACTICS: Multiple reviews describe technicians pressuring customers to commit to large purchases the same day, repeated calls and texts after declining service, and upselling by fear during inspections.
• SERVICE FEE CONCERN: The non-refundable dispatch/service fee ($39–$89) is a recurring complaint. Customers report paying this fee only to receive quotes they cannot afford, with no credit applied toward work performed.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span 2014–2024. The most recent reviews (2022–2024) continue to reflect the same pricing and service complaints, suggesting no meaningful improvement over time. Positive reviews are more concentrated in the 2015–2018 period.
• FAKE REVIEW AWARENESS: The positive reviews (mostly 5-star) tend to be specific about technician names and situations, which reduces suspicion of fabrication. However, the stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews and detailed 1-star complaints with specific dollar amounts suggests the positive reviews may reflect a genuinely different subset of experiences rather than fake reviews. No fake review flag raised, but the bimodal distribution warrants caution.
• MEMBERSHIP/CONTRACT CONCERN: Multiple reviews describe customers paying annual membership fees ($200+) and still being charged full rates for service calls, with the membership providing little to no tangible benefit.

This WW Score of 34.1 is based on 52 reviews with a HIGH volume of dimension-specific data across all four categories, making it a reliable and conservative representation of this contractor's overall performance — the score should be trusted as an accurate reflection of a company with serious systemic pricing and project completion issues, partially offset by individual technicians who perform professionally.

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.

Every single review across all four analyzed is a 1-star complaint, painting a deeply consistent and alarming picture of this contractor. Professionalism is near-zero: the owner hung up on a customer, ignored texts, raised his voice, and abandoned a job mid-work leaving a cut pipe actively leaking. Pricing is flagged as deceptive across multiple reviews — quotes were changed on arrival, additional charges were demanded mid-job, and in one case the contractor asked a customer how much cash they had on hand before packing up and leaving. Project completion is catastrophically poor: in three of four reviews the original problem was never resolved, and in two cases the contractor explicitly demanded more money to finish work already paid for. Experience scores marginally above zero only because the contractor did attempt to use professional equipment such as a snake, camera, and hydro jet — but failed to produce results in every documented case.

• ALL 4 reviews are 1-star — this is a uniformly negative dataset with no positive signal in any dimension.
• Pattern of mid-job price escalation detected across multiple reviews (Reviews 1, 2, and 4) — this may indicate a deliberate bait-and-switch pricing practice.
• Review 1 describes property damage (cut pipe left leaking) with no follow-up or response from the contractor — potential liability concern.
• Review 2 describes the contractor raising his voice and hanging up on a customer when asked to honor completed work — serious professionalism red flag.
• No fake review concerns — reviews are highly specific, include dates, dollar amounts, and detailed incident descriptions consistent with genuine negative experiences.
• Two reviews are from 2021, which are older than 12 months relative to the most recent review date of September 2023. However, the 2023 and 2023-04 reviews confirm the same behavioral patterns persist, so recency does not mitigate the findings.

This score carries MODERATE confidence due to only 4 reviews, but the consistency and specificity of complaints across all dimensions make the findings highly credible and the score directionally reliable as a strong warning signal.

These three reviews cannot be reliably analyzed for a plumbing contractor WW Score. The reviews contain multiple red flags indicating they are not authentic customer feedback: repetitive generic praise with no specific project details, identical 4.0 ratings across all reviews, unnatural phrasing and grammar patterns, and content mixing locksmith services with plumbing services without coherent context. No actionable information about professionalism, pricing, project completion, or experience can be extracted.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: All three reviews exhibit identical rating (4.0), similar generic praise structure, and unnatural language patterns consistent with automated or fabricated content
• CATEGORY CONFUSION: Reviews reference both locksmith and plumbing services inconsistently, suggesting reviews may not be authentic customer experiences
• NO SPECIFIC PROJECT DATA: Reviews contain no details about actual plumbing work, timelines, costs, or outcomes
• UNNATURAL LANGUAGE: Phrases like 'tenaciousness,' 'short-changing the buyer,' and 'You reign' are atypical of genuine customer reviews
• EXTREME AGE: All reviews are from October 2012 (12+ years old), making them unreliable for current assessment

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to suspected fake reviews, lack of specific plumbing project details, and extreme age of all reviews. No trustworthy assessment of this contractor's performance can be made from this dataset.