Find Nearby Plumbers In Fort Wayne, Indiana

Crew2's review corpus spans nearly two decades and is dominated by negative experiences, particularly around project completion and professionalism. The most frequently cited issues are no-shows, failure to return calls, abandoned or incomplete work, and poor scheduling communication — all of which severely drag down the project completion and professionalism scores. Positive reviews do exist and tend to praise specific individual installers by name (Sheldon, Shane, Hugo, Darry, etc.), suggesting that quality is highly dependent on which subcontractor is assigned rather than any consistent company-wide standard. Pricing received a moderate score because a handful of reviewers noted fair or reasonable pricing, but others flagged hidden charges, inflated estimates, and bait-and-switch pricing tactics. Experience scores reflect a wide variance: some installers demonstrated genuine skill and problem-solving, while others caused property damage, made critical measurement errors, and installed work incorrectly.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review dated 2014-12-01 and 2014-12-20 for 'Sheldon' and the vinyl/carpet installation appear to be near-identical or duplicate submissions — both scored 5 stars with nearly identical content. One instance was counted once.
• GENERIC/NO-CONTENT REVIEWS: At least 8 reviews contain only the word 'unknown' with no descriptive content. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of highly negative, detailed reviews span 2013–2024, with the most recent negative reviews (2022, 2024) confirming that poor practices have persisted over time. Positive reviews are more evenly distributed across years but tend to be shorter and less specific.
• SUBCONTRACTOR VARIABILITY WARNING: Multiple reviews explicitly note that Crew2 uses independent subcontractors paid per unit installed, which creates inconsistent quality. Positive reviews almost always name a specific individual installer, while negative reviews tend to describe systemic organizational failures.
• PATTERN OF SYSTEMIC COMMUNICATION FAILURE: Across more than 20 detailed negative reviews spanning 2005–2024, the same complaint recurs — unanswered calls, unreturned voicemails, no-shows, and schedulers who never follow through. This is a structural pattern, not isolated incidents.
• POSSIBLE REVIEW POOL MIXING: Several reviews (particularly the 2013 Chem-Dry carpet cleaning reviews) appear to describe a different company or service type entirely and may have been misattributed to Crew2. These were scored conservatively where content was ambiguous.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning nearly 20 years, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given extreme variance between individual crew experiences and persistent systemic issues that have not improved over time.

MJM receives sharply divided feedback across only 4 reviews, making any score highly tentative. Two 5-star reviews from September 2023 praise workmanship, knowledge, and pricing, while two negative reviews — one from 2022 and one from 2019 — raise serious concerns about poor communication, delayed and careless quoting, subpar HVAC and plumbing work, and alleged use of unlicensed workers. The allegation of unlicensed workers is a significant red flag that heavily suppresses the experience and professionalism scores. The positive reviews lack granular specifics and the contrast between glowing praise and serious complaints creates meaningful uncertainty across all dimensions.

• SERIOUS CONCERN: One review explicitly alleges unlicensed workers performing HVAC and plumbing work — this is a legal and safety issue that significantly undermines confidence in the experience and professionalism scores.
• REVIEW VOLUME WARNING: Only 4 reviews total. This is an extremely small sample and no dimension score should be treated as reliable.
• RECENCY NOTE: The two positive reviews are from September 2023 and carry more recency weight. The negative reviews are from 2022 and 2019 respectively, but their severity means they cannot be dismissed.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: The two 5-star reviews were posted on the same date (2023-09-28) within approximately one hour of each other. This pattern is suspicious and may indicate coordinated or inauthentic reviews. Confidence in positive signals has been reduced accordingly.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: The 2022 review documents a specific, detailed pattern of delayed and duplicated quoting, suggesting systemic responsiveness issues that may still be relevant.

This WW Score is of very low reliability due to the extremely small review sample, a suspicious same-day double posting of 5-star reviews, and the presence of a serious allegation regarding unlicensed labor — prospective customers should seek significantly more independent verification before hiring.

Freedom Heating and Plumbing demonstrates severe operational and customer service failures across multiple dimensions. While technical competence is evident in isolated positive reviews (installation quality, quick diagnostics), the company is plagued by chronic professionalism issues including poor communication, unresponsiveness, and staff unavailability. Project completion is particularly problematic, with documented cases of abandoned work, year-long billing delays, and failure to follow through on scheduled services. Pricing concerns are compounded by lack of transparency and office staff unable to answer questions. The company's pattern of overstaffing issues, missed callbacks, and broken commitments suggests systemic management problems that undermine any technical strengths.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 5+ years old (2014-2019). Only 2 reviews from 2022 are recent, both highly negative. Limited current data to assess if company has improved.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Stark contrast between 5-star reviews (professional, fast, knowledgeable) and 1-star reviews (unresponsive, abandoned work, poor management). Suggests either inconsistent service delivery or significant operational changes over time.
• MERGER IMPACT: One review explicitly mentions merger with Yahne company in 2019, with customer reporting service degradation post-merger. This may explain timeline of complaints.
• SYSTEMIC MANAGEMENT ISSUES: Multiple reviews cite owner non-responsiveness, receptionist failures, and staffing problems, suggesting leadership/operational deficiencies rather than isolated incidents.
• ABANDONED PROJECT: Review from 2014 documents incomplete work (exterior clean out never installed) followed by year-long billing delay with late fees—serious red flag for project completion.

This score should be treated with caution due to age of most reviews and limited recent data; however, the consistency of negative patterns across multiple years and the severity of documented failures (abandoned work, billing delays, unresponsiveness) suggest genuine systemic problems rather than isolated incidents, warranting skepticism about the company's reliability.

Tressler Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews. While one recent review (April 2024) praised punctuality and reasonable pricing, two older reviews (2021–2022) reveal serious professionalism and project completion issues: failure to show up for appointments, unresponsiveness to calls, and lack of respect for customer property (tracking sludge through carpets). The professionalism score of 45 reflects mixed evidence with a strong negative signal from the 1-star review. Project completion scores 60 due to work being finished but marred by poor execution and follow-through. Pricing data is minimal (one mention). The WW Score of 54.3 reflects a contractor with reliability concerns and inconsistent service quality.

• Significant recency gap: two reviews are 2–3 years old (2021–2022), one is recent (April 2024). The older reviews describe serious service failures (no-shows, non-responsiveness) that may or may not reflect current operations.
• High volatility: ratings range from 1.0 to 5.0 with no middle ground, suggesting either dramatic service changes or inconsistent execution across jobs.
• Limited sample size (n=3) means confidence in overall score is constrained; additional recent reviews needed to establish current reliability.
• Professionalism concerns are explicit and serious: failure to honor appointments and ignoring customer calls are red flags for business reliability.

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (3 reviews) and significant age of two reviews. The recent 5-star review suggests possible improvement, but the pattern of no-shows and non-responsiveness documented in 2022 is a serious concern that warrants verification with more recent customer feedback before engaging this contractor.

This contractor has a deeply mixed record across only 5 reviews spanning over a decade. Two reviews explicitly describe deceptive pricing practices — quoting one price and billing a significantly higher amount — which severely drags down the pricing and project completion dimensions. The positive reviews praise friendliness, communication, and reasonable prices, but these are largely older reviews (2012, 2015) and lack specific detail. The most recent review (2024) is brief and generic, offering limited evidentiary weight. The two 1-star reviews are specific and consistent in their complaints about bait-and-switch tactics, which is a serious red flag that cannot be dismissed.

• SERIOUS CONCERN: Two separate reviews (2015 and 2016) independently describe identical bait-and-switch pricing behavior — quoting a price then billing significantly more. This is a consistent and specific pattern of alleged deceptive business practice.
• RECENCY WARNING: Most reviews are older than 1 year. Only 1 of 5 reviews is from the past 12 months (2024). The 2024 review is brief and generic with no specifics, limiting its reliability.
• REVIEW VOLUME WARNING: Only 5 total reviews exist. This is an extremely small sample size and the WW Score should be treated with caution.
• GENERIC POSITIVE REVIEW FLAG: The 2024 5-star review ('Great service - reasonable prices. Dave is my go-to man...') is very short and non-specific, which reduces its evidentiary value.
• SCORE RELIABILITY: With only 5 reviews and a significant split between detailed negative complaints and older positive reviews, this score carries LOW overall reliability.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews — several of which are over 8 years old — and should be considered highly unreliable; the two specific and consistent complaints about deceptive pricing practices are a serious concern that prospective customers should not overlook.

J.O. Mory exhibits severe inconsistency across reviews spanning multiple decades. Two recent reviews (2015 and 2020) document critical failures: repeated installation errors causing water damage to customer homes, and unprofessional appointment cancellations without regard for customer schedules. A single positive 2015 review praises fair pricing and timely work, but this is heavily outweighed by documented quality and professionalism failures. The 2020 review describes catastrophic workmanship defects that caused structural damage, while the 2015 service review reveals systemic disregard for customer commitments. The company's apparent inability to execute basic plumbing tasks correctly (rubber gaskets on drain installations) and honor scheduling commitments severely undermines trust.

• CRITICAL: Two reviews document serious quality failures and customer harm. The 2020 review describes repeated identical installation errors (missing rubber gaskets) on two separate fixtures in new construction, resulting in ceiling and wall water damage requiring drywall replacement.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are from 2015 or earlier (8+ years old). Only one recent review (2020) is available, which is highly negative. Limited current data on whether issues have been corrected.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: 2015 review documents that the company cancelled customer appointments twice in one week due to internal scheduling convenience, and management stated this was 'normal operation.' This indicates systemic disregard for customer commitments.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between the single positive 2015 review and two detailed negative reviews describing serious failures. The positive review lacks specificity about the actual work quality.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews total is insufficient for high-confidence scoring. Results should be treated as preliminary.

This score should be treated with caution due to very limited review volume (n=3) and significant recency gaps. However, the documented failures in the available reviews—particularly the 2020 account of repeated installation defects causing structural damage and the 2015 account of unprofessional appointment cancellations—are serious enough to warrant concern regardless of sample size. The score reflects genuine documented problems rather than speculation.