Find Nearby Plumbers In Fort Wayne, Indiana

WC Borchelt & Sons shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning multiple years. While some customers report excellent long-term relationships and quality workmanship, multiple recent reviews (2020–2023) document serious professionalism failures including poor communication, lack of transparency on pricing, incomplete work, and unresponsiveness to callbacks. The most damaging pattern is inadequate disclosure of costs and scope—customers were charged substantially more than expected without prior consent. Project completion issues include incomplete installations, damage to customer property, and failure to follow up on callbacks. Pricing feedback is mixed: some customers report reasonable rates, while others felt overcharged due to undisclosed work. Experience scores are supported by mentions of quality workmanship, but this is undermined by execution failures.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2021, 2023) cite identical core complaint—lack of communication and failure to disclose costs/scope before performing work. This suggests a systemic operational problem, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2020–2023 (recent); most positive reviews are from 2016–2021 (older). This indicates potential service quality decline over time.
• DAMAGE INCIDENTS: Two reviews document property damage (faucet paint damage in 2023; accidental gas shutoff in 2021) with inadequate remediation.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE: One review (2020) documents failure to respond to emergency 4 AM call, with customer left without water until Thursday.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Multiple reviews cite unfinished installations (missing sink ring, leaking faucet post-installation, unresolved issues requiring callbacks).
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY: Systematic pattern of customers being surprised by final bills significantly exceeding expectations due to undisclosed scope changes.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While based on 9 reviews with substantive data, the company shows a clear pattern of deteriorating service quality and systemic communication failures in recent years, particularly around pricing transparency and scope disclosure. The positive reviews are older (2016–2021) and may not reflect current operations. Potential customers should prioritize obtaining detailed written estimates and explicit scope agreements before engaging this company.

Auburn Heating shows a split personality in its review history: older reviews (2011–2014) are consistently positive about professionalism, pricing, and workmanship, while more recent reviews (2019–2023) reveal serious and recurring failures in punctuality, communication, and follow-through. The professionalism score is significantly dragged down by three explicit complaints about no-shows, missed appointments with no notification, and outright rude behavior from staff. Project completion is similarly penalized by a $12,000 job that was lost because an estimate was never delivered after months of follow-up, and a service appointment that was simply never fulfilled. Pricing feedback is mixed but leans positive, with most reviewers calling prices reasonable or excellent, offset by one reviewer noting a high HVAC estimate. Experience scores are moderate-positive, with reviewers citing knowledgeable staff and skilled technicians, but the pattern of not following through undermines confidence in overall service delivery.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are from 2011–2014, which are over 10 years old. The most recent reviews (2019–2023) skew negative, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time. Recent reviews were weighted more heavily in scoring.
• VAGUE REVIEWS: Several reviews ('They're very good.', 'Their service was really good.', 'Fine', 'unknown', 'Nothing') contain no usable detail and were excluded from dimension scoring. These reviews may inflate the star rating without providing meaningful evidence.
• REPEATED PATTERN OF NO-SHOWS: At least two separate reviews (2021 and 2019) independently describe Auburn Heating failing to show up for scheduled appointments without any notification or apology. This is a systemic flag, not an isolated incident.
• ESTIMATE ABANDONMENT: One reviewer explicitly documented waiting nearly 3 months for an estimate that never arrived, ultimately costing Auburn Heating a $12,000 job. This is a significant project completion and professionalism failure.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in length, specificity, tone, and rating. No suspicious clustering of identical phrasing was observed.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — while mention counts are sufficient for statistical confidence in each dimension, the heavy skew of positive reviews toward dates older than 10 years and the concentration of negative reviews in the most recent period (2019–2023) means the score likely overstates current service quality, and prospective customers should weight the recent negative experiences heavily.

This contractor's review profile is deeply mixed and spans over two decades, making reliable assessment difficult. Recent reviews (2023–2024) include serious allegations: one reviewer claims the contractor is unlicensed and overcharges for poor work, another accuses the company of fabricating a plumbing problem to extract nearly $3,000, and a third documents late arrivals, price discrepancies, and dirty workmanship. These are offset by several genuine-seeming positive reviews praising punctuality, politeness, and fair pricing — most notably a long-term customer of 10+ years. Pricing is a particular concern, with multiple independent reviewers citing overcharging or bait-and-switch pricing tactics. Project completion also has documented failures, including a contractor who abandoned a gas installation job out of anger and workers who left job sites dirty and unfinished.

• SERIOUS CREDIBILITY CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly states the contractor is not a licensed plumber (2024-07-06). This is a significant red flag that could not be verified from reviews alone but warrants independent verification before hiring.
• FRAUD ALLEGATION: A 2024-01-10 review accuses the company of fabricating a plumbing problem to charge $2,600 for unnecessary work. The reviewer states a second plumber resolved the issue with a simple snake. This is a serious allegation.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple independent reviewers (2023-04-12, 2024-01-10, 2024-07-06) cite overcharging, hidden fees, or prices that changed after the job. This pattern across unrelated reviews is a meaningful signal.
• RECENCY CONCERN: A significant portion of positive reviews are from 2003 or earlier (2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2007), which are over 20 years old and carry very little weight in assessing current service quality. These were included in mention counts but given minimal scoring weight.
• POSSIBLE MULTI-ENTITY REVIEW MIX: Reviews reference multiple named individuals (Cale, Gary, Guillermo, Eric Brown) and appear to describe different contractors or companies. This suggests the review pool may aggregate reviews for more than one business, reducing the reliability of any composite score.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW LEVEL: Several older reviews (2000–2003) are written in all-caps with generic praise and no specifics. While this may reflect the review platform style of that era, they add little evidentiary value and were treated with reduced confidence.
• ABANDONED WORK DOCUMENTED: A 2018 review documents a contractor (Cale) refusing to complete a gas installation job because a different plumber had finished the water portion — a clear project completion failure.
• WORKMANSHIP COMPLAINT: A 2023 review documents workers leaving job sites dirty, arriving late, and rushing work due to scheduling pressure from the company.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — while mention counts are high enough to generate scores, the review pool spans 24 years, likely covers multiple contractors or business entities, and contains serious unresolved allegations of unlicensed work, fraud, and price manipulation that materially drag down trustworthiness.

This contractor has a deeply mixed record across all dimensions. Professionalism is the most heavily evidenced dimension and is significantly dragged down by multiple serious complaints: one review describes the owner telling a waiting customer to 'call someone else,' another cites rudeness and no-shows, and a third documents repeated broken commitments over the course of a week. Positive reviews do praise punctuality, mask-wearing, and courteous service, but the negative incidents are severe enough to substantially lower the score. Project completion is the weakest area — two reviews explicitly describe unfinished or worsened work, a refused refund, and repeated failure to return as promised, which are critical failures for a service business. Pricing and experience fare better, with multiple reviewers praising fair quotes, transparency about costs, and solid technical knowledge, though these positives are partially offset by one reviewer who felt ripped off by a prior company and one who had their issue made worse. The overall picture is a contractor with genuine skill and fair pricing on good days, but with serious reliability and professionalism failures that represent real risk to customers.

• Several reviews are older than 3 years (2016–2019), and the most recent reviews skew toward 2020–2022. Recency weighting applied — older positive reviews carry reduced influence.
• The 1-star review from July 2021 is highly detailed and specific, describing a week-long sequence of events including direct quotes from the owner. This is treated as high-credibility negative evidence.
• The 1-star review from December 2017 describes work being made worse and a refused refund — a serious project completion failure.
• No strong fake review patterns detected, though several 5-star reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Communication and excellent service every time!'). These were scored conservatively.
• The owner's alleged direct quote — 'Well I can tell you how to fix that, just call another plumber' — represents a significant professionalism red flag and was weighted heavily in the professionalism score.

This WW Score is based on 12 reviews spanning 2016–2022 with usable data across all four dimensions; confidence is moderate-to-high on individual dimensions, but the wide date range and presence of serious, credible negative reviews mean prospective customers should treat this score as a meaningful warning signal rather than a reliable endorsement.

A&R shows a genuinely mixed track record across its review history. Professionalism is the most frequently discussed dimension and reveals a stark split: several reviewers praise courteous, friendly, and responsive staff, while one highly detailed negative review describes a serious failure in after-hours support during an emergency, unannounced technician visits, and over a year of unresolved follow-up — all of which significantly drag the score down. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with one reviewer spending over 8 weeks being repeatedly rescheduled without resolution, and another describing a service agreement that failed to deliver meaningful help during a crisis, alongside the positive reviews that describe timely and complete jobs. Pricing feedback is limited but generally positive, with at least two reviewers noting costs matched quotes and one citing an affordable $220 charge. Experience scores moderately well, with multiple reviewers noting knowledgeable technicians, though one reviewer explicitly noted the tech admitted uncertainty about whether their repair would be effective.

• One review (2020-01-14) describes a negative employment/hiring experience rather than a service experience. This review has been excluded from dimension scoring as it does not reflect contractor service quality, though it raises concerns about business practices.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months relative to a current 2025 date. Only one review (2024-07-04) falls within the past 12 months, meaning recent performance is largely unknown and the score may not reflect current service quality.
• The single most recent review (2024) is cautiously positive but notes the technician admitted uncertainty about the effectiveness of their own repair — a notable transparency flag that tempers confidence in experience scores.
• The severe negative review (2021) describing an emergency mishandled by after-hours staff, unannounced visits, and over a year of ignored follow-up is highly specific and detailed, lending it strong credibility and significant weight in scoring.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in tone, detail, rating, and specificity, suggesting an authentic review set.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: the review set is small (11 reviews), spans over 7 years with only one review in the past 12 months, and includes one highly credible and damaging negative experience that meaningfully offsets the cluster of older positive reviews — prospective customers should treat this score as directional rather than definitive and seek more recent references before hiring.

Professionalism is the most heavily flagged dimension, dragging the overall score down significantly. Two serious incidents stand out: a no-show with no callback in 2022, and a contractor who spoke disparagingly about a client to their tenant in 2024 — both are severe professionalism failures that offset the positive impressions left by other reviewers. Pricing is polarizing: one reviewer documented labor rates estimated at $150–$200/hour with an initial quote of $1,600 for roughly 3–4 hours of work, while two other reviewers praised affordability and fair pricing. Project completion is moderately positive — most jobs described were finished, one reviewer noted the contractor absorbed extra difficulty without upcharging, but the no-show incident represents a complete failure to deliver. Experience scores reasonably well, with reviewers noting persistence, thoroughness, and quality workmanship on completed jobs.

• SERIOUS CONDUCT FLAG: In the most recent 1-star review (April 2024), the contractor allegedly told the client's tenant that their landlord was a 'cheapass' after a pricing disagreement. This is a significant professionalism and reputational red flag.
• NO-SHOW FLAG: A 2022 review documents a confirmed appointment where the contractor failed to appear, did not answer calls, and never returned messages. This represents a complete failure of both professionalism and project initiation.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: One reviewer documented an initial labor quote of $1,600 (later negotiated to $700) for work estimated at 3–4 hours, implying rates of $150–$200/hour. This conflicts sharply with two other reviewers who praised affordability. Pricing experience appears highly variable.
• RECENCY NOTE: The two most negative reviews are also the two most recent (2022 and 2024), which under Rule 6 carry greater weight. The positive reviews are predominantly from 2022–2023. This trend is concerning and suggests possible declining service quality.
• REVIEW VOLUME WARNING: Only 8 reviews total. While scoreable, the small sample size limits statistical reliability. A single bad or good experience has outsized influence on the score.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the review count is low, the most recent experiences skew negative, and two of the eight reviews document serious conduct failures that meaningfully suppress confidence in consistent service quality.