Find Nearby Plumbers In Fort Wayne, Indiana

A-1 Sewer Service has a strong base of positive reviews praising same-day responsiveness, courteous technicians, and clear communication — with multiple reviewers specifically naming staff members like Kody, Mason, Kris, and Adam as professional and helpful. However, one highly detailed and credible 1-star review describes a serious incident in which the company allegedly severed a customer's sewer line, failed to proactively disclose it, charged for a scope under those circumstances, and the owner Maury responded with threats and zero apology — leaving a family with sewage in their basement. This single review carries significant weight due to its specificity, severity, and the nature of the alleged conduct, which directly impacts professionalism, project completion, and experience scores. Pricing feedback is generally positive across the reviews that mention it, with one reviewer noting A-1 was the best price after calling multiple companies. The overall score reflects a business with genuine strengths in day-to-day service but a documented and serious failure in accountability and customer care at the ownership level.

• One highly detailed 1-star review describes an alleged deliberate or negligent severing of a customer's sewer line, concealment of that fact, retaliatory billing threats, and complete failure to apologize — this is a severe conduct allegation that materially lowers professionalism and project completion scores.
• Several positive reviews are brief and lack specific detail (e.g., 'Huge shout out,' 'Highly recommend'), which limits their evidentiary weight, though they do not appear to be fake — some name specific staff members and describe real scenarios.
• Recency concern: Three of the eight reviews are from 2021 or earlier, including one from 2018. The most recent reviews are from 2022–2023. The negative review is from March 2023 and is the most recent substantive review, which is notable.
• The owner named 'Mourey' is praised in one 5-star review but is the subject of serious misconduct allegations in the 1-star review under the name 'Maury' — these appear to be the same individual, creating a direct credibility conflict at the ownership level.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the volume of reviews is low (8 total), the positive reviews are genuine but several lack depth, and the single negative review describes conduct serious enough that it cannot be dismissed as an outlier without further corroborating data.

Rockwood Plumbing receives consistently positive feedback across all four dimensions, with pricing being the most frequently and explicitly praised area — multiple reviewers noted prices were significantly lower than competitors. Professionalism is mentioned in a few reviews with references to David being professional and kind. Project completion is supported by references to completed installations (tankless water heaters, sink pipes, tub replacement) and one reviewer specifically noting leak tests were performed before leaving. Experience scores are moderate, supported by descriptions of quality workmanship, though reviews lack deep technical detail. Scores are held conservative due to serious fake review concerns detailed in the flags below.

• SUSPECTED DUPLICATE REVIEW: Reviews dated 2024-03-11 from two different entries describe an identical experience word-for-word (cast iron tub replacement, price comparison, David being professional and kind) — one uses HTML entity encoding (') suggesting a copy-paste from a different platform. This is a strong indicator of a duplicated or artificially submitted review.
• SUSPECTED FAKE/COORDINATED REVIEWS: Two reviews dated 2024-03-11 describe David installing a tankless water heater in nearly identical language ('Unlimited hot water' vs 'Endless hot water', 'work looks great'). This pattern strongly suggests fabricated or coordinated reviews.
• REVIEW CLUSTERING: Six of seven reviews share the exact same date (2024-03-11), which is statistically unusual and suggests a coordinated review campaign rather than organic customer feedback.
• ALL REVIEWS ARE 5-STAR: Every single review is rated 5.0 with no variation, which combined with the clustering and duplication patterns raises significant authenticity concerns.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 7 reviews total, with credible unique reviews potentially as few as 4-5 after removing suspected duplicates. This severely limits statistical reliability.
• RECENCY NOTE: All reviews are from March 2024, which is within the past 12 months relative to a mid-2025 evaluation, so recency is not a concern — but the tight clustering remains suspicious.

This WW Score should be treated with LOW trust due to strong evidence of duplicate and potentially coordinated fake reviews, an abnormal clustering of review dates, and a very small total review pool — independent verification of this contractor's work is strongly recommended before hiring.

Home Comfort Experts demonstrates strong professionalism with friendly, courteous technicians who communicate well and show up on time (78.5/100). However, the company is significantly undermined by persistent pricing concerns, with numerous customers reporting inflated quotes, hidden charges, and aggressive upselling tactics (52.0/100). Project completion is problematic, with multiple reports of unfinished work, delayed callbacks, no-shows, and failure to resolve issues on first visit (65.5/100). Technical experience is moderate, with skilled technicians offset by misdiagnoses, poor workmanship, and inadequate follow-through on warranty claims (72.0/100). The WW Score of 68.2 reflects a company with good customer-facing skills but serious operational and ethical concerns that erode customer trust.

• PRICING FRAUD PATTERN: 47 mentions of overpricing, hidden charges, bait-and-switch tactics, and inflated quotes. Multiple customers report being charged 2-3x market rates for parts and labor. This is the most consistent negative theme across reviews.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: 68 mentions including abandoned work, 5+ month delays, no-shows, canceled appointments, and failure to honor guarantees. One customer waited 5 months for AC installation completion; another had mini-split issues unresolved for 2+ months despite repeated promises.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: Multiple reviews report technicians incorrectly diagnosing problems (heat exchanger 'cracks' that were manufacturing marks, compressor issues misidentified as electrical, etc.). Customers obtained second opinions and found problems were either non-existent or fixable at 1/3 the quoted price.
• AGGRESSIVE UPSELLING: Consistent pattern of technicians recommending expensive replacements when repairs were possible. One customer paid $700 for a 'repair' that failed immediately; another company fixed it for $150 the next day.
• GHOSTING AND POOR FOLLOW-UP: Multiple reports of customers being ignored after complaints, promised callbacks never occurring, and refund requests taking months or requiring BBB intervention.
• DECEPTIVE SALES PRACTICES: Reports of forged signatures on documents, misleading product representations (mini-splits sold as year-round heating when they don't work in cold), and failure to disclose financing terms (liens on homes not disclosed).
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: Damaged vents during duct cleaning, unsealed holes after installation allowing pest entry, burnt wires, failed pressure switches, and incomplete work requiring customer follow-up.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews are from 2024-2025 (past 12 months), suggesting problems are ongoing or worsening. Positive reviews skew older (2012-2020), indicating potential service degradation over time.
• FAKE REVIEW INDICATORS: Multiple 5-star reviews with no text or generic praise ('Very Professional,' 'Great experience!!') clustered on 2025-06-09 and 2025-03-11. However, sufficient detailed negative reviews exist to confirm real problems.

This WW Score of 68.2 is highly reliable (HIGH confidence) based on 200 reviews with substantial detail across all dimensions. The score is conservative and reflects genuine customer harm: pricing fraud, project failures, and misdiagnosis are documented across dozens of independent reviews with specific dollar amounts, timelines, and corroborating second opinions. The company's professionalism score is dragged down by the ethical issues underlying its operations. Customers should exercise extreme caution and obtain independent quotes before engaging this company.

This aggregated review set spans multiple businesses and individual operators all operating under or associated with the 'Mr. Plumber' name across different regions and time periods, making direct comparison difficult but revealing a deeply polarized reputation. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a large volume of explicit complaints about rudeness, no-shows, broken appointments, and dismissive customer service — including multiple accounts of technicians yelling at customers, slamming doors, and hanging up on home warranty representatives. Pricing is the single most-criticized dimension, with dozens of reviewers citing charges 2x to 5x higher than competitors for identical work, non-itemized invoices, and aggressive upselling tactics; a minority of reviewers — particularly those dealing with individual operators like Oscar, Jeff, and Rick — praised fair and transparent pricing. Project completion suffers from a notable pattern of abandoned jobs, failed callbacks, work left incomplete for weeks or months, and instances where problems were made worse rather than fixed. Experience scores are moderate-positive, as many positive reviews do cite skilled diagnosis and quality workmanship from specific named technicians, but are offset by multiple accounts of misdiagnosis, incorrect parts installation, and damage caused during service.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: These reviews appear to aggregate multiple distinct businesses and sole operators all using the 'Mr. Plumber' name across different U.S. regions (Georgia, New Jersey, Oklahoma, California, New York, Indiana, Tennessee, etc.). Scores reflect a blended profile and should not be applied to any single operator without filtering by location.
• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: A significant cluster of 5-star reviews — particularly those dated 2025-05-07, 2025-05-10, and 2025-05-19 with no review text — are blank ratings only and provide zero usable data. Several other 5-star reviews are near-identical in phrasing (e.g., two reviews from 2025-05-07 and 2025-05-10 are word-for-word duplicates for 'Michael'). These have been excluded from scoring but inflate the raw star average.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two pairs of reviews are near-verbatim duplicates submitted on consecutive or same dates (the 'Michael' gas line reviews dated 2025-05-07 and 2025-05-10; the rude technician reviews dated 2023-08-09 and 2023-08-10). These were counted as single mentions.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly 5-star with minimal text, while the most detailed and substantive negative reviews span 2018–2024. The oldest reviews (2005–2013) skew positive but reflect a different era of the business. Recency weighting was applied conservatively.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 30+ reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from all dimension scoring as they provide no evidence per Rule 1.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEW: One review (dated 2021-06-07, 5 stars) references a healthcare provider ('very helpful with my daughter and son... ADHD and learning disabilities') and is clearly posted to the wrong business. It was excluded entirely.
• PRICING PATTERN: A recurring pattern of non-itemized invoices, refusal to provide cost breakdowns, and prices dropping significantly when customers push back strongly suggests systematic price gouging practices at certain franchise or affiliate locations, particularly those associated with Coolray/Mr. Plumber in the Atlanta, GA market.
• ABANDONED WORK PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews describe technicians starting jobs, leaving for parts, and never returning — sometimes for months. This pattern appears across different named technicians and locations, suggesting a systemic operational failure rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its practical reliability is MODERATE at best because the dataset aggregates multiple distinct businesses operating under the same trade name across different regions and time periods — consumers should filter reviews by their specific geographic location and verify the operator before relying on this blended score.

Summers Plumbing Heating & Cooling receives a WW Score of 62.3, reflecting a company with significant strengths in professionalism and technical expertise, but serious concerns around pricing and project completion reliability. Technicians are consistently praised for friendliness, knowledge, and courteous behavior (75.2 professionalism score). However, the company is heavily criticized for aggressive pricing practices, with numerous customers reporting markups of 200-400% on parts and labor, and widespread complaints about high-pressure sales tactics. Project completion issues are substantial, with many reviews documenting incomplete work, multiple service calls needed for the same problem, and scheduling cancellations that inconvenience customers. The company's reputation is further damaged by allegations of dishonest diagnostics designed to sell unnecessary replacements.

• PRICING FRAUD PATTERN: Extensive evidence of systematic overcharging. Multiple reviews document parts marked up 300-400% (e.g., $2 capacitor charged at $98-$268; $15 fill valve charged at $261; $10 part charged at $190). This pattern appears deliberate and company-wide, not isolated incidents.
• DISHONEST DIAGNOSTICS: Numerous credible reports of technicians recommending unnecessary replacements (furnaces, AC units, water heaters) that were later found to be functioning properly by second opinions. Pattern suggests sales-driven diagnostics rather than honest assessment.
• AGGRESSIVE SALES TACTICS: Multiple reviews describe high-pressure sales, bait-and-switch offers (free service calls with hidden fees), and manipulation of elderly customers. One review documented a technician deliberately disabling a furnace during inspection to justify replacement sales.
• POOR PROJECT COMPLETION: Significant number of reviews (198 mentions) document incomplete work, requiring multiple service calls for same issue, or work that failed within weeks. Some customers report 5-15 service calls for problems that should have been resolved in one visit.
• SCHEDULING UNRELIABILITY: Chronic pattern of last-minute cancellations, missed appointments, and failure to honor scheduled service windows. Customers report taking time off work only to be cancelled hours before appointment.
• FAKE REVIEW INDICATORS: Approximately 80-100 reviews contain minimal detail, generic praise with no specifics, or single-word/punctuation-only responses (e.g., '.' or '...'). These appear to be placeholder or artificially generated reviews. However, the volume of detailed negative reviews with specific dollar amounts and dates suggests the negative reviews are authentic.
• MANAGEMENT UNRESPONSIVENESS: Multiple reviews document failure of management to return calls, honor warranties, or address complaints. Pattern suggests systemic customer service failure at administrative level.
• WARRANTY VIOLATIONS: Several reviews document company refusing to honor stated warranties or charging diagnostic fees that contradict warranty terms.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most reviews are from 2013-2025, with significant concentration in 2024-2025. Recent reviews show same patterns as older reviews, indicating no improvement over time.

This WW Score should be treated with HIGH confidence due to the large sample size (1,000 reviews) and consistency of patterns across multiple dimensions and time periods. However, the score masks a deeply problematic company: while individual technicians are often professional and skilled, the company's business model appears built on aggressive upselling, dishonest diagnostics, and systematic overcharging. The 62.3 score reflects this contradiction—good execution on service delivery undermined by poor pricing practices and completion reliability. Customers should expect professional service but should obtain multiple quotes, verify diagnoses independently, and be prepared for significantly higher costs than competitors charge for identical work.

Shoda Sewer Service shows strong technical expertise and generally positive professionalism, but is significantly undermined by critical project completion failures. The most damaging issue is a 2022 incident where broken cable was left in a sewer line, causing catastrophic damage two years later and costing the customer over $2,000. A second recent review (May 2024) documents damage caused during service with inadequate accountability. While older reviews (2014–2021) praise the company's work quality and customer service, the pattern of incomplete work and property damage in recent years substantially lowers overall confidence. Pricing feedback is mixed, with some praising value and others noting high costs.

• CRITICAL: Two recent reviews (2024) document serious project completion failures with property damage and inadequate follow-through. The January 2022 incident involved leaving 14-15 feet of cable in a sewer line that caused major damage in September 2024.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 5+ years old (2014–2021). The two most recent reviews (May 2024, November 2024) are both 1-star with serious complaints. This suggests a significant decline in service quality.
• ACCOUNTABILITY ISSUE: In the May 2024 review, the technician broke a pipe during service and deflected responsibility ('must've been a weak pipe'), then offered only a guarantee rather than immediate correction.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Stark contrast between glowing older reviews and recent catastrophic failures suggests either deterioration in company standards or inconsistent crew performance.

This score should be treated with caution due to recency bias in negative reviews and a clear pattern of recent failures that contradict historical positive feedback; the WW Score reflects current risk based on documented 2024 incidents, but the company's older track record suggests it may have experienced a decline in quality control or consistency.