Find Nearby Plumbers In Kokomo, Indiana

All Pro Plumbing has a large and highly polarized review base. The majority of reviews praise individual technicians — particularly Ifran, Eddie/Lalo, Brandon, Jerry, and others — for punctuality, friendliness, clear communication, and technical skill. However, a significant and recurring minority of negative reviews describe serious failures: no-shows without notification, ghosting after payment, incomplete work, overcharging (especially of elderly and vulnerable customers), and confrontational or dishonest office staff (particularly referencing 'Michelle' and 'Ifran' in separate negative contexts). Pricing is a mixed picture — many reviewers cite fair or below-market rates, while others describe feeling gouged or misled on costs. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with multiple credible accounts of abandoned jobs, failed callbacks, and warranty promises that were never honored. The experience dimension scores highest, as technical competence is frequently praised when work is actually completed, but is undermined by instances of misdiagnosis and substandard workmanship.

• SUSPECTED FAKE OR LOW-QUALITY REVIEWS: A cluster of reviews dated 2025-05-09, 2025-05-18, and 2025-05-25 use nearly identical templated language ('arrived on time,' 'fixed the issue quickly,' 'very polite,' 'highly recommend') with no specific technician names, job details, or unique context. These appear to be generic, possibly fabricated 5-star reviews and have been discounted in scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review from 'Ifran came and did a thorough inspection...' (grey water leak, toilet) appears verbatim twice with dates 2024-09-19 and 2024-09-20. Similarly, the emergency kitchen sink leak review appears twice on 2024-09-10. These duplicates were counted once each.
• MULTIPLE CREDIBLE ACCOUNTS OF NO-SHOWS AND GHOSTING: At least 15 distinct reviews across multiple years describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and the company did not call to reschedule or apologize. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• FINANCIAL MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews allege technicians kept cash payments without crediting the company, that promised refunds were never issued, that a warranty water heater check was cashed by the technician personally, and that discounts (first responder, veteran, senior) were promised but not applied. These are serious credibility and trust concerns.
• INCOMPLETE WORK AND WARRANTY FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe jobs left unfinished, work that failed inspection, and warranty promises that were explicitly not honored when customers called back. This pattern significantly depresses the project completion score.
• OFFICE STAFF COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews specifically name 'Michelle' (described as an owner or manager) as dishonest, confrontational, or unresponsive. This suggests a systemic customer service issue at the administrative level, separate from individual technician quality.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2019 to present, with a strong concentration in 2024-2025. Older reviews (pre-2018) are sparse and have been given reduced weight. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show continued mixed patterns — both strong positive individual technician reviews and continued no-show and communication complaints.
• ENTITY AMBIGUITY: Reviews reference multiple different owners, managers, and operating locations (Bay Area CA, Camarillo CA, McHenry IL, Fresno CA, Reno NV, Texas, Florida, Indiana, and others). It is likely that 'All Pro Plumbing' is a name used by multiple unrelated businesses. Scores reflect the aggregate of all reviews as submitted but users should be aware that this may not represent a single unified company.
• ROAD RAGE INCIDENTS: Two separate reviews (2024 and 2019) describe dangerous or aggressive driving by employees in marked company vehicles. While not directly related to plumbing quality, these reflect on company culture and employee conduct.

This WW Score of 72.1 is based on a very large review set and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its direction, but should be interpreted cautiously due to strong evidence of fake or templated reviews inflating the positive signal, serious and credible recurring complaints about no-shows, financial misconduct, and incomplete work, and likely entity ambiguity across multiple unrelated businesses operating under the same name.

Mike's Sewer Service receives consistently positive feedback across professionalism, pricing, and workmanship from customers who explicitly mention these dimensions. Multiple reviewers highlight reasonable and affordable pricing, with one noting significant savings versus a competitor, lending solid confidence to the pricing score. Professionalism is supported by mentions of timeliness, friendly attitudes, and good communication across several reviews, though one 1-star review raises a concern about a driver's conduct and dismissive phone response from staff, which moderately pulls that dimension down. Project completion is supported by references to reliable, repeat service and standing behind their work, though explicit detail on job completion specifics is limited. The overall score is tempered by the age of several reviews — the majority predate 2023 — and two reviews consisting only of punctuation marks that provide no usable data.

• Two reviews consist entirely of punctuation marks ('.' and a string of dots) with 5-star ratings and no text content — these are not usable and were excluded from scoring.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months; only 2 of 8 reviews are from the past 12 months (2023–2024), which reduces recency confidence in the overall score.
• One 1-star review (2019) describes a serious road safety incident involving a company driver and an allegedly dismissive response from staff — this is a professionalism concern that was factored into the professionalism score.
• Review volume is low (8 total, 6 usable), which limits statistical reliability. Scores should be interpreted with caution.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a small and largely dated review pool, two non-informative placeholder reviews, and a notable negative incident involving staff conduct — prospective customers should seek more recent feedback before making a hiring decision.

King's Heating and Plumbing shows a mixed performance profile. While many customers praise professionalism, speed, and workmanship quality, significant concerns emerge around communication failures, follow-through on commitments, and inconsistent service delivery. Recent reviews (2025) reveal serious issues with scheduling, parts ordering, and billing disputes. Pricing is generally viewed favorably when transparent, but several customers report being charged for incomplete diagnostics or unnecessary part replacements. The company demonstrates strong technical capability in many cases but struggles with accountability and customer communication consistency.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Multiple recent negative reviews (Feb-Apr 2025) suggest deteriorating service quality or operational issues. The most detailed negative review from April 2025 documents systematic failures in communication and follow-through over 6+ weeks.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Stark contrast between positive reviews (often generic praise with few specifics) and detailed negative reviews (specific dates, technician names, recorded conversations). Negative reviews contain far more corroborating detail.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: At least 6 reviews explicitly mention poor communication, missed callbacks, rude dispatchers, or failure to follow up on commitments. This is a recurring theme across multiple years.
• DIAGNOSTIC CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (2024-2025) report technicians recommending expensive part replacements without proper diagnostics, or charging for service calls that yielded no resolution or incorrect advice.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several 5-star reviews from June 9, 2024 are suspiciously generic ('Great!!!', blank text with 5-star rating, 'Great place') with no substantive detail. These may inflate positive sentiment artificially.
• SERVICE CALL CHARGES: Multiple complaints about being charged for service calls where no actual service was rendered or where technicians lacked proper tools/knowledge.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While based on 50 reviews, the data is heavily skewed by a cluster of generic 5-star reviews from June 2024 and serious, detailed negative reviews from 2025 that suggest operational deterioration. The company's recent performance appears significantly worse than its historical reputation, and customers should prioritize recent reviews (past 6 months) when making decisions.

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.

This contractor's review record is deeply mixed, with serious recurring complaints dragging down multiple dimensions. Professionalism is heavily penalized by multiple no-shows, a tech entering a woman's room without knocking, dismissive office staff, an owner who abandoned a job mid-completion in anger, and billing disputes — these are not minor issues. Project completion is similarly damaged by an abandoned sewer job, a broken septic pipe left unrepaired, a water heater old unit not removed as promised, and repeated missed appointments. Pricing receives a moderate score because some reviewers praised competitive estimates and fair value, while others reported overbilling for time and a final invoice that ballooned from $2,800 to $4,000. Experience scores somewhat better, as several reviewers acknowledged the work itself was technically competent when completed, and one reviewer noted the contractor correctly identified a problem another company missed entirely. The overall WW Score reflects a contractor with real technical capability undermined by serious and repeated failures in reliability, professionalism, and job follow-through.

• Multiple reviews describe abandoned or incomplete work, which is a serious pattern and not isolated incidents.
• A deeply concerning incident was reported in which a technician entered a woman's room without knocking while she was undressed, and the office staff blamed the victim rather than addressing the complaint appropriately.
• Billing irregularities appear in multiple reviews: one job went from $2,800 to $4,000 with a lien placed on the customer's home; another customer was charged for time the technician was not actively working.
• The owner reportedly left a job unfinished after becoming angry with the customer, leaving a kitchen drain disconnected on a Friday afternoon.
• Most reviews are older than 3 years, with the most recent usable review dated April 2021. Only one review falls within the past 12 months relative to a 2024 analysis window, significantly limiting recency confidence.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary substantially in tone, detail, rating, and content, suggesting authentic submissions.

The WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a reasonable volume of reviews with substantive detail, but is tempered by the age of most reviews and the absence of any recent data to confirm whether service quality has improved or declined.

Priority Plumbing has a mixed record across these four reviews. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by one detailed 1-star review describing poor communication, lack of accountability, and dismissive responses from staff, though two other reviews explicitly praise communication and professionalism. Project completion is the most concerning dimension: the 1-star review describes incomplete work, property damage including a struck buried power line, and a yard left in disarray, which heavily offsets the positive completion experiences noted in other reviews. Experience and pricing each have limited positive signals but are undermined by the severity of the negative account. Overall, the score reflects a contractor with some satisfied customers but at least one serious, well-documented failure.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and low-reliability.
• Reviews span from 2017 to 2021; the most recent review is over 3 years old as of 2024, meaning recency weighting is limited and current performance is unknown.
• The 1-star review is highly detailed and specific (named damages, named parties, named third-party warranty company), lending it strong credibility and significant negative weight.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in tone, detail, and rating, suggesting authentic submissions.
• The positive reviews are relatively brief and generic compared to the detailed negative review, which may slightly inflate positive dimension scores relative to actual performance.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning several years and should be considered LOW reliability — prospective customers should seek additional recent references before making a hiring decision.