Find Nearby Plumbers In Indianapolis, Indiana

Bedell Home Services earns strong marks for professionalism in the majority of reviews, with customers frequently praising punctuality, friendliness, communication, and cleanliness — however, a meaningful minority of reviews describe rude office staff, condescending attitudes, and in one case a technician making physical threats, which significantly tempers the professionalism score. Pricing is a notable weak point: while many customers describe fair or reasonable rates, a recurring pattern of complaints about prices being 'extremely high,' bills exceeding quoted amounts, and charges significantly above competitors pulls the pricing score well below average. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with multiple detailed negative reviews describing abandoned work, missed appointments, jobs left incomplete, non-compliant installations, and situations where customers had to hire a second company to fix Bedell's errors — including a serious repeated pattern with a ductless mini-split installation. Experience scores moderately, as most technicians are described as skilled and knowledgeable, but several reviews document diagnostic errors, incorrect installations, and technicians lacking the expertise to complete complex jobs. The volume and specificity of negative reviews across all dimensions prevent a higher overall score despite the large number of positive reviews.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The ductless mini-split complaint (1-star, dated 2021-11-12) appears three times with nearly identical text. Only one instance was counted for scoring purposes, but this pattern may indicate a review platform artifact or deliberate submission — it does not appear to be a fake positive review but rather a repeated legitimate complaint.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN — LOW LEVEL: A significant number of 5-star reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Rachel is fantastic!', 'Great service, will do business again.', 'Very well, replaced both units, very professional.') with no specific detail. While not conclusive, this pattern warrants mild caution. These reviews were included but weighted conservatively.
• 9 REVIEWS HAD NO TEXT — only a star rating was provided. These were excluded from dimensional scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review set spans from 2013 to 2025. A meaningful cluster of serious negative reviews falls between 2017 and 2021, while more recent reviews (2024–2025) trend more positive. However, one significant negative review exists from June 2024 involving a gas leak misdiagnosis and condescending office staff, indicating issues have not been fully resolved.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY FLAG: Multiple reviews explicitly describe being charged more than the quoted price (one citing $300 over quote, another $200 over quote), and at least two reviews describe prices quoted as 3–3.5x higher than competitors. This is a systemic concern, not isolated incidents.
• PROJECT ABANDONMENT PATTERN: At least 5 separate reviews describe Bedell failing to return for scheduled follow-up visits, not completing contracted work, or leaving customers worse off than before service began. This is a significant and recurring pattern.
• SERIOUS SAFETY CONCERN: One detailed 2024 review describes Bedell dismissing a confirmed gas leak (verified by the gas utility) as 'normal,' which posed a genuine safety risk to the customer. This was factored heavily into the project completion and experience scores.
• ONE REVIEW (2016) describes a technician threatening physical violence against a customer. This is an extreme professionalism failure and was factored into the professionalism score.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (125 reviews, 116 with usable data) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in terms of volume; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously because the review pool contains a significant number of serious, detailed negative experiences that are partially masked by a high volume of brief, generic positive reviews — consumers should read the negative reviews carefully before hiring for complex or multi-visit projects.

Mowery receives overwhelmingly positive feedback on professionalism and technician demeanor across recent reviews, with dozens of customers praising named technicians for punctuality, friendliness, clear communication, and respect for the home. However, a persistent and credible pattern of pricing complaints — spanning multiple years — significantly drags down the pricing dimension, with multiple reviewers citing markups of 2x to 10x on parts (capacitors, water heaters, freon), hidden service call fees, and aggressive upselling tactics. Project completion is generally strong in recent reviews but is undermined by older accounts of abandoned work, missed appointments, improper installations, and warranty disputes. Experience scores are solid based on recent reviews praising technical thoroughness, but older reviews raise serious concerns about misdiagnosis and unnecessary repair recommendations that cannot be ignored.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review from 'Jim came and fixed a loose connection on our back up sump pump...' appears twice with identical text, posted on 2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06. This was counted as one unique review for scoring purposes.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A large cluster of reviews share the same date of 2025-04-07 (approximately 50+ reviews). This is highly unusual and may indicate bulk-imported or backdated reviews rather than organically posted ones. Confidence in the volume of positive reviews from this date cluster is reduced.
• PRICING CONCERNS — SERIOUS AND RECURRING: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2013, 2016, 2019, 2022, 2023, 2024) report being quoted prices 2x–10x above market rate for parts including capacitors ($300 charged vs $17 retail), water heaters ($2700 vs ~$1200 elsewhere), freon ($50/lb vs market rate), and a compressor muffler ($663 for a $21 part). This is a consistent pattern, not isolated incidents.
• UPSELLING AND ETHICS CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (2016, 2017, 2019, 2021, 2022) allege technicians recommended unnecessary repairs or replacements. One detailed 2021 review describes a furnace blower motor diagnosis costing $3,374 that a second company fixed for $399. A 2017 review describes a neighbor being quoted $6,000 for a new system that a competitor fixed for $175. These are serious credibility concerns.
• WARRANTY AND FOLLOW-THROUGH ISSUES: Reviews from 2014, 2020, and 2023 describe warranty work being refused, missed service appointments, and a $700 labor charge applied to a warranty water heater replacement. These pull down the project completion score.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTE: The vast majority of positive reviews are from 2025 and late 2024. The majority of negative reviews are from 2013–2022. It is possible service quality has genuinely improved, but the pricing complaints extend into 2023 and 2024, suggesting pricing issues persist.
• ONE BLANK REVIEW: One review contained no text (only a 5-star rating dated 2025-04-07) and was excluded from dimensional scoring.

The WW Score of 72.1 carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given the suspicious same-date clustering of ~50 positive reviews, a well-documented and multi-year pattern of pricing complaints, and credible allegations of unnecessary upselling — all of which suggest the true customer experience may be more polarized than the aggregate score implies.

Burney's Plumbing has a long track record of responsiveness and punctuality, with dozens of reviews praising prompt arrival and professional demeanor — these are genuine strengths. However, pricing is a significant and recurring concern: multiple detailed, credible negative reviews describe charges that reviewers and even trade-experienced relatives considered grossly inflated, unauthorized work billed without consent, and defensive or hostile owner responses to billing complaints. Project completion is mixed — most jobs were finished, but at least two notable cases involved unresolved problems after payment, substandard work requiring remediation, and work not up to code. Experience scores moderately well overall, with many satisfied customers citing quality workmanship, but offset by specific instances of technical errors, improper installations, and a failure to correctly diagnose problems. The score is pulled down meaningfully by a cluster of serious 1–2 star reviews that are detailed, specific, and credible.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of positive reviews are from 2003–2014, with very few reviews from the past 5 years. Only one review is from the past 12 months (2023). The contractor's current quality and practices cannot be reliably assessed from this data.
• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple independent, detailed reviews (2010, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2019) describe significant overcharging, bills far exceeding quotes, unauthorized work billed without owner consent, and an owner who responded to complaints with hostility rather than resolution. This is a consistent pattern, not isolated incidents.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERN: At least two reviews describe jobs where the problem was not resolved after payment — one reviewer had to fix the drain themselves after a $1,050 bill, and another had a repaired faucet fail, mold develop from an unaddressed second leak, and a furnace vent installed out of code.
• OWNER CONDUCT FLAG: Multiple reviews independently describe the owner (Burney/James) as defensive, dismissive, and verbally aggressive when customers raised billing concerns. One review describes him yelling at both a customer and their spouse on separate calls.
• GENERIC/THIN REVIEWS: Several reviews marked 'unknown' with no text content were excluded from scoring. A number of older 5-star reviews consist of only one or two sentences with no specific detail, reducing their evidentiary weight.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW: The 'unknown' reviews (6 total) with no text are suspicious as padding. However, the detailed positive reviews appear genuine and varied enough that widespread fabrication is not strongly indicated. Confidence is not significantly reduced on this basis alone.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the volume of reviews, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given that most reviews are over 5 years old, a clear and recurring pattern of pricing disputes and owner misconduct is documented across multiple independent reviewers, and the contractor's current operational standards are essentially unknown.

317 Plumber has a large volume of positive reviews praising individual technicians — particularly Jason, Trayvon, and Danny — for friendliness, punctuality, and clear communication, which drives the professionalism score upward. However, several serious negative reviews significantly drag down all dimensions: one reviewer alleges a bait-and-switch pricing scheme with a $917 estimate for a sub-$65 parts job, another alleges theft by the owner Danny, and a third describes a $13,000 installation using incorrect equipment that failed within years. Project completion is further penalized by documented incidents of improperly installed systems requiring return repairs, unfilled excavation holes left for days, and a refusal to restore landscaping disturbed during work. Pricing receives the lowest score due to multiple credible, detailed complaints about excessive charges, lack of upfront estimates, and refusal to adjust invoices for incomplete or incorrect work — balanced only partially by a handful of reviews citing fair or competitive pricing.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: A cluster of 10 reviews all dated 2025-05-10 are suspiciously concentrated on a single date, several are blank (no text, only a 5-star rating), and the remaining ones are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Excellent work, knowledgeable and friendly.' / 'Jason very efficient and professional. Friendly great customer service.'). This pattern is consistent with coordinated or incentivized review activity and reduces confidence in the positive review pool.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 6 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating (5 stars in 5 cases, 1 star in 1 case). These have been excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• THEFT ALLEGATION: One detailed 1-star review (dated 2025-05-02) alleges that the owner Danny stole personal items (razor and iron) from the reviewer's home during a service visit. The reviewer is a former police officer and provides a specific timeline. This is a serious integrity flag.
• PRICING MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: A 1-star review (dated 2025-06-04) alleges a bait-and-switch scheme — charging a $79 trip fee with no upfront estimate, then presenting a $917.35 quote for parts worth under $65. The reviewer also alleges an unauthorized credit card charge attempt after explicitly withholding approval.
• OVERCHARGING ALLEGATION: A 1-star review (dated 2025-01-10) alleges the owner Danny charged $545 for a valve replacement the reviewer claims should cost $150-$200 maximum, and that Danny was evasive about pricing with the reviewer's wife in his absence.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURE: A 1-star review (dated 2024-07-23) describes a $13,000 water treatment installation using equipment that third-party specialists confirmed was never appropriate for the problem. The system failed within 2.5 years and the company was slow to respond to the callback.
• PROJECT MANAGEMENT FAILURES: A detailed 1-star review (dated 2025-03-11) describes multiple serious project management failures on a neighborhood-scale job: 7-8 foot deep unfilled holes left unbarricaded for 5 days, no communication during service outages, excavators driven over landscaping, and refusal to adjust pricing after scope was reduced due to a code issue the customer had to identify themselves.
• RECENCY NOTE: Several positive reviews are from 2016-2022 and carry reduced weight per recency rules. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) contain both the strongest praise and the most serious complaints, suggesting inconsistent service quality rather than a clear trend in either direction.
• UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT ALLEGATION: The 2025-03-11 negative review also alleges that staff pulled the male homeowner aside to solicit his opinion separately from his wife, spoke negatively about the couple to neighbors, and that the office manager was argumentative and dismissive when the 2025-05-02 reviewer called about landscaping restoration.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the volume of reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously — the presence of multiple detailed, credible negative reviews alleging pricing misconduct, theft, workmanship failures, and project mismanagement represents material risk that is not fully offset by the high volume of brief or potentially coordinated positive reviews.

Rooterman earns solid marks for professionalism, with the majority of reviewers praising punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous technicians across many years of reviews. However, pricing is a persistent and significant concern — multiple reviewers across different time periods explicitly called out costs as excessive, with specific complaints about $300/hour rates, $890 hydro-jet jobs, and charges that far exceeded what competitors later quoted. Project completion is the most damaging dimension: several reviewers reported that the problem was not resolved after payment, that callbacks were ignored or refused, and in at least two cases the customer had to fix the issue themselves or hire another company. Experience scores moderately well, with many reviewers praising technical knowledge and skill, but offset by incidents of misdiagnosis, property damage during service, and failed repairs. The combination of recurring pricing complaints and incomplete job resolution pulls the WW Score meaningfully below what the volume of positive reviews might otherwise suggest.

• Several reviews contain no substantive content (e.g., 'no comment', 'Good', 'Great', '{0}', 'Nothing at this time') — these were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• At least 4 reviews explicitly describe jobs that were not fixed after payment, with the contractor either refusing to return, demanding full additional payment, or being unreachable — this is a material project completion risk.
• Multiple reviews spanning 2017–2024 independently cite pricing as significantly above market rate, suggesting a systemic pattern rather than isolated incidents.
• One review (2019-01-28) describes property damage (scratched toilet, dented ceiling) and alleged misrepresentation of repair needs, which is a serious workmanship and ethics flag.
• One review (2018-10-07) describes a failed repair where the customer ultimately fixed the problem themselves using rented equipment after the contractor declined to return.
• Review dated 2020-09-17 describes a contractor who took full payment without resolving the issue and did not respond to a refund request — a significant trust and completion concern.
• A large portion of reviews are older than 3 years (many from 2006–2020), which limits the reliability of the score as a predictor of current performance. Recent reviews (2023–2024) are more favorable, suggesting possible improvement, but the sample is small.
• No strong fake review patterns detected; reviews vary in tone, detail, and rating, which supports authenticity across the dataset.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning nearly two decades, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but consumers should weigh the recurring and independently corroborated complaints about pricing and incomplete job resolution before hiring.

Atwell Plumbing scores strongly across all four dimensions based on consistent positive feedback across 7 reviews. Professionalism is the standout dimension, with nearly every reviewer commenting on promptness, responsiveness, respectful communication, and courteous service. Project completion is also well-supported, with multiple reviewers noting jobs were finished thoroughly, on time, and with care — including one notable case where a callback was honored at no charge after an initial misdiagnosis. Pricing received positive mentions from several reviewers, with no complaints of hidden charges and one explicit confirmation that no unexpected costs were added despite a difficult installation. Experience scores well based on specific mentions of skilled workmanship, problem-solving, and quality repairs, though the small total review count limits full confidence in the overall score.

• All 7 reviews are 5-star (one is 4-star), which warrants mild scrutiny, though the reviews contain specific details, varied scenarios, and distinct writing styles that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• 3 of the 7 reviews are older than 5 years (2021 or earlier), with 2 reviews dating back to 2015-2016. These older reviews carry reduced weight under recency rules and may not reflect current service quality.
• Total review count is low (7 reviews). While the WW Score is calculable, it should be interpreted with caution given the limited sample size.

This WW Score is moderately reliable — the reviews are specific and credible, but the small sample size (7 reviews) and the presence of several reviews older than 5 years limit the confidence that this score fully reflects the contractor's current and consistent performance.