Find Nearby Plumbers In Fort Wayne, Indiana

This contractor has a mixed but telling record across the reviews. Professionalism scores reasonably well historically — multiple reviews praise punctuality and responsiveness — but is significantly dragged down by the most recent 2024 review, which describes a no-show after explicit commitments were made. Project completion is the most damaged dimension: two reviews directly describe incomplete or failed work, including unresolved property damage from a sewer repair and a failure to locate a foreign object after two attempts. Pricing is a genuine bright spot, with multiple reviewers independently calling out fair and competitive rates. Experience scores moderately — older reviews reflect competent root-clearing work, but the 2024 review raises serious concerns about deteriorating workmanship quality since a key staff change.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent review (January 2024) is the only review within the past 12 months and is strongly negative, describing property damage, broken commitments, and a no-show. All positive reviews are from 2011–2017, making them 7–13 years old. The current quality of service may be significantly worse than historical scores suggest.
• BUSINESS CHANGE FLAG: The 2024 reviewer explicitly states that quality has deteriorated since 'Joe retired' and that the business has been revoked by the BBB. This is a material operational change that undermines confidence in all older positive reviews.
• UNUSABLE REVIEW: One review (2016-05-18) contains only the text 'unknown' and was excluded from scoring as it provides no usable data.
• FAKE REVIEW CHECK: No strong patterns of fake reviews detected. Positive reviews contain specific details (depth of clog, tools used, repeat usage history) that suggest authenticity. However, the volume of older 5-star reviews versus the single recent 1-star review warrants caution.

This WW Score should be treated with LOW trust for current hiring decisions — the only recent data point is a serious negative review describing property damage and broken commitments, and the business appears to have undergone significant changes since the bulk of positive reviews were written.

Perkins Septic and Drain Service shows a mixed performance profile across a small review set. Professionalism scores moderately well, with three reviews praising courteous, communicative technicians who called ahead and kept customers informed — but one serious negative review describes repeated no-shows, broken promises, and poor communication over two weeks, which meaningfully drags the score down. Project completion is the most concerning dimension: one review explicitly describes a $300 charge for an unresolved clog with no follow-through, while the other three reviews describe completed work — resulting in a below-average score that reflects real risk. Experience is generally positive where mentioned, with technicians demonstrating problem-solving ability (e.g., choosing not to hydro-jet to avoid flooding), though the failed job undermines confidence. Pricing receives a low score due to the negative review's implication of being charged $300 for incomplete work, with no other reviews providing offsetting pricing commentary.

• Small sample size of only 4 reviews — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• One review (2019-06-12) is over 5 years old and one (2016-12-05) is nearly 8 years old — two of the four reviews are significantly dated and may not reflect current service quality.
• The most recent review is from April 2023, meaning there is no data from the past 12 months to assess current performance.
• The single 1-star review describes a serious failure: incomplete work, a $300 charge, no-show follow-up, and inconsistent communication — this is a significant red flag that carries disproportionate weight given the small review pool.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in detail, tone, and rating, suggesting authentic submissions.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning nearly 8 years, with no data from the past 12 months, making it LOW reliability — the score should not be used as a definitive indicator of current service quality without a larger and more recent review sample.

12 Kilo Plumbing presents a deeply split picture across its reviews. On the positive side, multiple customers from late 2023 praised Chancellor's punctuality, communication, friendliness, and technical competence on completed jobs. However, three separate 1-star reviews from early-to-mid 2024 describe a serious and recurring pattern: the contractor accepted payment for jobs he was not licensed to perform in Auburn, failed to disclose this upfront, delayed customers for weeks or months, and then returned refunds incorrectly — a significant professionalism and project completion failure. The licensing issue is not a minor complaint; it represents an inability to legally complete contracted work, which heavily penalizes both the project completion and professionalism dimensions. Pricing received a moderate penalty because while some customers praised fair pricing, others paid deposits for work that was never performed and had money held without authorization. Experience scores remain relatively higher because the negative reviews cite licensing and business conduct failures rather than poor workmanship on jobs that were actually completed.

• SERIOUS CONCERN: Three independent reviewers (March and May 2024) report the same pattern — contractor accepted payment for work he was not licensed to perform in Auburn, delayed customers for months citing pending certification tests, and returned deposits incorrectly (short by $1). This is a systemic business conduct issue, not an isolated complaint.
• LICENSING ISSUE FLAGGED: Multiple reviews explicitly state the contractor lacked the required contractor license for Auburn at the time of booking. This is a legal and consumer protection concern that materially affects trustworthiness.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The three most recent reviews (2024) are all 1-star and describe the licensing/non-completion issue. The positive reviews are predominantly from 2023 and may not reflect the contractor's current operational status or compliance.
• POSSIBLE DUPLICATE REVIEW: The two 1-star reviews dated 2024-03-05 describe nearly identical experiences (same timeline, same dollar-short refund detail, same certification delay). These may be from the same reviewer submitted twice, or two separate customers with near-identical experiences. Either way, the pattern is credible and corroborated by a third independent 2024 review.
• FAKE REVIEW AWARENESS: The positive reviews from 2023 are generally specific and varied enough to appear genuine. No fake review flag is raised for those, but the contrast between 2023 positivity and 2024 complaints suggests a possible deterioration in business operations rather than review manipulation.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to sufficient review volume, but the score itself should be treated with serious caution given that the most recent reviews document an active, unresolved licensing and consumer protection issue that may render the contractor unable to legally complete work in certain jurisdictions.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews. While technical skill and range of services are evident (reverse osmosis, tankless heaters, gas lines), professionalism is severely compromised by reports of rudeness, dismissiveness, and argumentative behavior. Project completion is undermined by one detailed account of abandoned work, incomplete repairs, and unresponsiveness after payment. Pricing appears reasonable in most cases but one customer noted it was 'a little high.' The stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews and damaging 1-star reviews suggests either highly variable service quality or potential reliability issues in follow-through.

• CRITICAL: One detailed negative review (2023-12-13) describes serious issues: incomplete work, non-responsiveness after full payment, sloppy workmanship, and argumentative owner behavior. This is not a minor complaint and significantly impacts trustworthiness.
• INCONSISTENCY ALERT: Extreme polarity in ratings (three 5-star, two 1-star) with no middle ground suggests either highly variable service delivery or potential selection bias in reviews.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERN: Explicit report of rude behavior and refusal of service based on customer profile (Review 2024-01-07) is a serious red flag for attitude and respect.
• FOLLOW-THROUGH RISK: Multiple mentions of incomplete callbacks and abandoned work after payment received indicates potential project completion risk.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent review (2024-10-04) is positive, but the serious project completion failure is from 2023-12-13, only weeks prior. Pattern suggests ongoing issues.

This score should be treated with caution. While the WW Score of 58.3 reflects the mixed data, the presence of serious allegations regarding incomplete work, non-responsiveness, and unprofessional conduct after payment creates significant risk. The small sample size (5 reviews) and extreme polarity limit confidence. Prospective customers should request references and clarify payment terms and completion guarantees before engaging.

Gene's Sewer Service shows a deeply polarized review pattern with severe deterioration over time. Recent reviews (2017–2020) are overwhelmingly negative, citing poor workmanship, non-responsive communication, failure to honor warranty work, and rude behavior. Older reviews (2007–2013) are predominantly positive, suggesting a significant decline in service quality, possibly linked to generational management change noted in one review. Professionalism scores are dragged down by repeated complaints about unreturned calls, lack of apologies, and hostile interactions. Project completion is compromised by incomplete work requiring repeat visits and customer-reported poor quality. Pricing complaints emerge in recent years as overcharging relative to competitors. The company demonstrates technical capability in problem-solving but fails consistently in follow-through and accountability.

• RECENCY BIAS ALERT: 71% of reviews are older than 5 years (pre-2017). Only 5 reviews from 2017 onward, all 1-star. This suggests a dramatic service quality collapse in recent years.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: Reviews from 2012–2016 contain several extremely generic entries ('Great', 'same as above', '.', 'unknown') with 5-star ratings and no substantive detail. These lack credibility and may inflate historical scores artificially.
• MANAGEMENT TRANSITION: One 2018 review explicitly states 'Gene did a fine job when he was running the place, but it seems his grandson has taken over and the quality of service has suffered.' This corroborates the sharp quality decline visible in recent reviews.
• PATTERN OF NON-RESPONSIVENESS: Multiple recent reviews (2019–2020) document repeated failure to return calls, delayed callbacks, and unresponsiveness to customer complaints. This is a systemic professionalism failure.
• WARRANTY/GUARANTEE FAILURE: Multiple reviews document work that failed within 2–8 days and company refusal to honor or re-do work at no charge, indicating poor workmanship and lack of accountability.
• CUSTOMER ESCALATION: One customer reported filing a Better Business Bureau complaint due to repeated failed work and poor service.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 21 reviews, the dataset is heavily skewed toward older, potentially unreliable reviews (generic praise with no detail) and a sharp recent collapse in service quality. The score of 58.2 reflects current performance risk; prospective customers should weight recent 1-star reviews (2017–2020) far more heavily than older positive reviews, as they indicate the company's actual current state. The company appears to have experienced a significant operational and management decline.

Klotz Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews. One recent positive review (2023) highlights quick response, effective problem-solving, fair pricing, and good communication. However, two older reviews (2020, 2018) document serious concerns: alleged check fraud, aggressive pricing practices (70% markup on materials, travel charges), rudeness when questioned about pricing, and poor job site conduct. Professionalism and pricing are the primary weaknesses, with documented instances of dishonesty and customer disrespect. Project completion appears adequate when work is performed, but trust and ethical concerns substantially undermine overall reliability.

• SERIOUS ETHICAL CONCERN: 2020 review alleges check fraud—customer instructed contractor not to cash check; contractor allegedly cashed it 5 months later anyway. This is a major red flag for dishonesty.
• PRICING PRACTICES: 2018 review documents 70% markup on materials purchased locally (Menards) and $52.50 travel charge, with customer perception of exploitation. Contractor became 'very angry and rude' when questioned about pricing.
• PROFESSIONALISM ISSUES: 2018 review describes poor job site conduct (attempting to carry dirty pump through new carpet without protection until customer intervened) and rudeness.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent review (2023) is positive, but two older reviews (2020, 2018) contain serious allegations. Pattern suggests either improvement or inconsistent service quality.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews limits statistical reliability. Recommend caution until more recent data available.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (3 reviews) and significant recency gap between positive (2023) and negative (2018–2020) reviews. The allegations of check fraud and pricing manipulation in older reviews are serious and unresolved; the recent positive review does not fully offset these concerns. Additional recent reviews are needed to establish current reliability.