Find Nearby Plumbers In Fishers, Indiana

Curt and Jerry's Sewer Service has a long track record with a large majority of satisfied customers praising promptness, politeness, fair pricing, and effective drain clearing. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — reveals recurring and serious issues: unreliable scheduling and no-shows, inadequate tools used on jobs requiring more powerful equipment, incomplete work leaving messes behind, and poor customer service from office staff (particularly one named Denise). The project completion dimension is notably dragged down by multiple reviews where the job was not resolved on the first visit, work was left unfinished, or the drain backed up again shortly after service. Pricing scores well overall, with multiple reviewers citing transparent phone quotes and fair rates, though at least two reviews raised concerns about unexpected charges or feeling overcharged. Experience scores moderately — most technicians are described as skilled and knowledgeable, but a few reviews describe wrong diagnoses, use of undersized equipment, and damage caused by the work itself.

• Approximately 12 reviews contain only the text 'unknown' with a 5-star rating and no substantive content — these were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• Several very old reviews (1997–2007) were given reduced weight due to age; the business may have changed significantly over time.
• Two reviews dated 2021-03-30 appear to describe the same incident from the same customer (nearly identical content, same date, ratings of 1 and 2) — treated as a single incident to avoid double-counting.
• No strong fake review pattern detected among the substantive reviews — most contain specific details, named staff, and varied sentiment.
• A recurring pattern of scheduling failures and no-shows (multiple independent reviews) suggests a systemic operational issue, not isolated incidents.
• At least one review alleges unlicensed workers despite the company advertising licensed plumbers — this is a serious credibility and safety concern.
• One review describes property damage (water running through ceilings) that the company refused to accept responsibility for.
• The bulk of high-quality, detailed reviews are from 2008–2019; more recent reviews (2020–2022) skew more negative, suggesting possible decline in service quality.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews spanning over two decades, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but users should weight the more recent negative reviews heavily as they suggest a meaningful deterioration in scheduling reliability and customer service compared to the company's earlier reputation.

Professionalism is the strongest dimension, with a large number of reviewers praising friendly, courteous, and communicative technicians by name. However, pricing is a serious and recurring concern — multiple reviewers across several years explicitly describe the company as overpriced, predatory, or deceptive with quotes, dragging that dimension down significantly. Project completion is mixed: many jobs were completed quickly and well, but there are notable failures including a three-week hot water outage, a drain that re-clogged within weeks with no timely callback, a sink still leaking after payment, and a cancelled appointment with no-show follow-up. Experience scores moderately well, with several reviewers praising technical skill and problem-solving, but offset by at least one instance of a technician requiring customer assistance and another requiring multiple visits without resolution.

• 10 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• A large cluster of reviews share the same date (2025-04-10), which may indicate batch-imported or aggregated reviews rather than organically submitted ones. Treat this cluster with moderate caution.
• Pricing complaints span from 2016 through 2023, suggesting a persistent and systemic issue rather than isolated incidents. This pattern significantly reduces the pricing score.
• One review (2022) alleges deceptive business practices, refusal to remove old water heater as agreed, and unpaid employees — this is a serious flag and was weighted accordingly in project completion and pricing.
• Several recent 5-star reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Good job. Thanks', 'Great job', 'Did a great job') with no specifics, which limits their evidentiary value and raises mild concern about authenticity.
• Recency note: The majority of negative pricing and completion reviews are from 2016–2023. Most 2024–2025 reviews are positive. It is possible service quality or pricing practices have improved, but the older negative reviews are still factored in as they represent documented experiences.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews with usable data and carries HIGH overall confidence, but consumers should weigh the persistent and multi-year pricing complaints heavily before engaging this contractor, as that dimension is a clear and documented weakness.

Carl demonstrates strong professionalism across all three reviews, with explicit mentions of punctuality, friendliness, and responsiveness (including emergency Sunday service). Project completion is consistently affirmed with rapid problem resolution and follow-through on multiple job types (sump pump, hot water heater). Pricing is favorably noted as reasonable and fair without service dragging. Technical expertise is clearly evidenced by descriptions of his plumbing knowledge and capability. However, the sample size is small (3 reviews) and the oldest review dates to 2018, limiting confidence in the overall assessment.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed — sample size is very small and limits statistical reliability
• Most recent review is from July 2024, but one review is from 2018 (6+ years old) — recency is mixed
• No negative reviews present — while not necessarily fake, the absence of any critical feedback is atypical and should be noted
• Limited detail on specific pricing comparisons or quote transparency — pricing score based primarily on general 'reasonable' and 'not dragging out service' language

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size (3 reviews). While the available feedback is consistently positive and specific, a score based on only 3 reviews cannot be considered statistically reliable. Additional reviews would be needed to validate this assessment.

Jake's demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for politeness, punctuality, and communication across 28 reviews. However, significant concerns emerge around pricing practices, with multiple customers reporting markups 3-5x higher than competitors and aggressive upselling tactics. Project completion shows mixed results—while many jobs are completed successfully, several reviews document unresolved issues, multiple callbacks, and abandoned work spanning months or years. Technical experience is generally solid when work is completed, but some reviews reveal diagnostic errors and installation mistakes that required external remediation.

• PRICING RED FLAG: Multiple independent reviews (2025-05-10, 2024-03-22, 2023-11-14, 2022-06-19, 2016-06-20) report parts marked up 3-5x above market rate and aggressive upselling of unnecessary replacements. Pattern suggests systemic pricing strategy rather than isolated incidents.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERNS: Several reviews document chronic unresolved issues (water hammer for 1+ year, shower repair rescheduled 5 times with no-shows, AC unit requiring external company to fix after Jake's failed). This indicates follow-through and accountability problems.
• DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS: Multiple reviews report incorrect diagnoses (gas leak that wasn't, furnace replacement recommended when $25 part needed, wrong tankless water heater installed). Suggests quality control issues in assessment phase.
• RECENT REVIEW CONCENTRATION: 38 of 56 reviews are from June 2025 (past 2 weeks), with nearly all 5-star ratings and minimal detail. This temporal clustering combined with generic praise language raises authenticity concerns, though some detailed positive reviews provide counterbalance.
• NEGATIVE REVIEWS ARE DETAILED: Conversely, all 1-2 star reviews are highly specific with dates, dollar amounts, and technical details, suggesting genuine customer frustration rather than trolling.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While professionalism scores are well-supported by 28 mentions, the recent flood of generic 5-star reviews (38 in 2 weeks) creates suspicion of review manipulation. More critically, pricing and project completion concerns are corroborated across multiple independent reviews spanning years (2015-2025), suggesting systemic issues that outweigh the positive recent feedback. The WW Score of 72.8 reflects genuine strengths in customer interaction but is significantly dragged down by documented pricing practices and completion failures that appear structural rather than anomalous.

Scott Tittle Plumbing shows strong technical expertise and fair pricing, with multiple customers praising quick problem-solving and reasonable rates. However, professionalism and project completion are significantly undermined by two serious incidents: a no-show appointment with no communication and a catastrophic failure (destroyed septic tank) with refusal to remedy the damage. The positive reviews are older (2014–2018) while the most damaging reviews are more recent (2021–2022), suggesting a potential decline in service quality. The company demonstrates capability but has critical reliability and accountability gaps.

• CRITICAL: Two severe negative reviews (1-star ratings from 2021 and 2022) describe no-show appointment and property damage with refusal to fix—these are major red flags for professionalism and project completion
• RECENCY CONCERN: Positive reviews cluster in 2014–2018 (4–9 years old); negative reviews are more recent (2021–2022), suggesting possible service deterioration
• ACCOUNTABILITY ISSUE: One review explicitly states customer has proof of contractor fault but company refused to address damage—this is a serious liability and trust concern
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: No-show appointment with no callback or explanation indicates breakdown in basic professional communication

This score should be treated with caution due to conflicting evidence: strong technical skills and pricing are offset by serious professionalism and completion failures in recent years. The WW Score of 72.3 reflects this volatility, and potential customers should heavily weight the recent negative incidents when making a decision.

All four reviews speak positively about Mission Mechanical's professionalism, with explicit mentions of prompt communication, courteous staff, and professional conduct across multiple job types including HVAC installation, kitchen equipment, and plumbing repair. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers noting work finished on time or ahead of schedule, clean job sites, and thorough follow-through on complex repairs. Pricing is mentioned favorably in two reviews — one citing fair pricing generally and another citing a dramatic $7,500 savings versus a competitor — but the limited mention count keeps confidence low for that dimension. Experience and technical skill are affirmed across three reviews through references to competent diagnostics, correct repair recommendations, and high-quality workmanship. Overall, the reviews paint a consistently positive picture, though the small sample size and the age of two reviews (2015 and 2018) significantly limit reliability.

• Only 4 reviews total — sample size is too small to draw statistically reliable conclusions about this contractor's typical performance.
• Two of the four reviews are significantly outdated: one from 2015 and one from 2018. These are more than 6 years old and may not reflect current service quality. Only 2 reviews fall within the past 12 months (2024).
• All four reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback whatsoever. While the reviews do contain specific details and named individuals (Tom Day, Derone, Bobby), the uniformly perfect ratings across a small sample warrants mild caution.
• No negative experiences, complaints, or constructive criticism appear in any review. This is not necessarily a red flag given the small sample, but it means the score cannot account for any potential weaknesses.

This WW Score should be treated as preliminary and low-confidence due to the very small review sample (4 reviews), the age of half the reviews (2015 and 2018), and the absence of any critical feedback — consumers should seek additional recent reviews before making a hiring decision.