Find Nearby Plumbers In Davenport, Iowa

Always Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across its review history. On the positive side, a substantial number of reviewers praised punctuality, friendliness, reasonable pricing, and quality workmanship — with multiple repeat customers citing consistent satisfaction over years. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews describes serious failures: missed appointments without notice, gas leaks caused by faulty installation, a six-month incomplete job, poor callback responsiveness, undisclosed fees, and unprofessional conduct. The negative reviews are specific and detailed, lending them high credibility and significantly pulling down scores in professionalism and project completion. Pricing scores are moderate-positive overall, but one review flagged a lack of transparency around written estimates and cash-only upfront payment requirements. The review base spans nearly two decades, and the most recent reviews (2022–2023) include both a positive and a negative experience, suggesting inconsistency persists.

• 5 reviews contain only the text 'unknown' with no usable content — these were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• 2 reviews contain only punctuation ('.') or are otherwise blank — excluded from scoring.
• Several older 5-star reviews (2013–2016) use very similar language praising Fred Deutsch following Cary Granite referrals — possible referral-cluster bias, though reviews contain enough specific detail to be considered genuine.
• Two reviews from April 2010 (one 5-star, two 1-star) were posted within days of each other and may reflect a dispute or coordinated review activity — treated with reduced weight.
• Review base spans 2005–2023 (18 years). The majority of reviews are older than 3 years. Only 2 reviews are from the past 12 months (2022–2023), limiting recency confidence.
• Multiple serious negative reviews describe gas leaks from faulty installation, a 6-month incomplete job, and repeated no-shows — these are safety-relevant findings that materially reduce project completion and experience scores.
• The 2011 detailed negative review describing post-installation gas leaks at multiple connection points is a significant safety flag and was weighted heavily in the project completion and experience dimensions.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning 18 years, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in pattern detection, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the wide variance in service quality, the age of most reviews, and the presence of serious safety-related complaints that suggest inconsistent technician performance across different operators under the Always Plumbing name.

Active Plumbing receives broadly positive marks for professionalism — many reviewers note punctuality, courteous staff, and clear communication — but this is significantly tempered by a recurring pattern of poor attitude and dismissiveness in a meaningful minority of interactions. Pricing is the most consistently criticized dimension across the review set: multiple reviewers independently describe feeling overcharged, encountering bait-and-switch tactics, opaque billing, and quotes that were far above what competitors ultimately charged for the same work. Project completion is mixed — while many jobs were finished satisfactorily and the company does honor callbacks and warranty repairs in several documented cases, there are serious failures including an abandoned permit job, a no-show after a maintenance plan was sold, and a case where the company never made contact at all. Technical experience is similarly split: skilled diagnosis and problem-solving are praised in many reviews, but multiple reviewers discovered after the fact that technicians misdiagnosed simple problems (e.g., flappers vs. expensive seal replacements, incorrect water hardness advice), raising real concerns about diagnostic integrity versus upsell motivation.

• PRICING CONCERN — SYSTEMIC: At least 15 reviews independently describe pricing as excessive, non-transparent, or structured around upselling. Multiple reviewers found the same work done by competitors for 50–75% less. This is a strong and consistent signal, not isolated incidents.
• UPSELL / BAIT-AND-SWITCH PATTERN: Several reviewers explicitly use terms like 'bait and switch,' 'lost leader,' and 'hidden charges.' The $39 inspection deal appears to be used as a lead-generation tool for high-margin upsells, which multiple customers found deceptive.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: At least 4 reviewers report that Active Plumbing technicians recommended expensive repairs that turned out to be unnecessary — simple DIY fixes or cheap parts resolved the issues. This raises questions about whether misdiagnosis is skill-based or incentive-based.
• SENIOR CITIZEN TARGETING: Three separate reviews from self-identified senior citizens describe feeling taken advantage of financially. This is a notable and concerning pattern.
• PERMIT ABANDONMENT (2019): One review documents a serious failure — a natural gas line was installed without a permit being pulled, the customer was given six false dates for resolution, and the company ultimately stopped responding. This is a significant safety and ethics flag.
• RECENCY NOTE: Only 1 review is from the past 12 months (February 2024), and it is a 1-star review describing hidden charges and poor billing ethics. The vast majority of reviews are from 2016–2019. The score should be treated with caution as current performance is largely unknown.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews vary substantially in length, detail, tone, and rating. No significant clustering of identical phrasing or suspiciously generic praise was detected. The review set appears authentic.

The WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but users should note that nearly all reviews are 5+ years old, the single recent review is strongly negative, and the pricing and misdiagnosis concerns are too consistent and specific across independent reviewers to dismiss — this contractor should be approached with caution, particularly regarding quoted prices and inspection recommendations.

Right On Time Plumbing shows a strong pattern of fast response and availability, which customers consistently praise, and pricing is noted as affordable and fair by multiple reviewers. However, two serious negative reviews — both describing incomplete or misdiagnosed repairs, refusal to return, and a $85 charge for unresolved work — significantly drag down the project completion and professionalism scores. The project completion dimension is the most damaging: two customers explicitly report that leaks reappeared after the plumber left, that the company denied the problem existed, and that follow-up calls were refused or ignored. Positive reviews are largely older (2018–2021), while the two most critical reviews are from 2022 and 2024, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The two most negative reviews are the most recent (2024-02-28 and 2022-05-23). The majority of positive reviews are from 2018–2021, indicating a potential decline in service quality in recent years.
• CALLBACK FAILURE PATTERN: Two separate customers (2024 and 2022) independently report that the company refused to return after a failed repair and charged $85 for unresolved work. This is a significant and consistent pattern of poor follow-through.
• MISDIAGNOSIS CONCERN: In both negative reviews, the plumber dismissed or denied the existence of a continuing leak that the customer could visibly observe. This raises concerns about diagnostic honesty and technical accountability.
• SCOPE LIMITATION: One negative review notes the company refused to perform an in-wall pipe repair, stating 'we don't do that kind of repair' — a significant limitation not disclosed upfront that left the customer without resolution.
• NO SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: Positive reviews contain specific details (drain contents, faucet brand, location, time of day) and vary in tone and length. No fake review pattern detected.

This WW Score is based on 8 reviews with moderate overall confidence; the score should be treated cautiously given that the two most recent reviews describe serious service failures, which outweigh the older positive reviews in practical relevance.

Blondell Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all dimensions. Professionalism is the most heavily flagged area, with two separate 1-star reviews explicitly describing staff and field owners yelling at customers — one a prospective new client, one an existing paying customer — which significantly drags the score down despite several positive reviews praising respectful, communicative service. Pricing is similarly split: positive reviewers call them fair and honest, while one negative reviewer explicitly describes feeling overcharged for minimal work. Project completion and experience receive moderate positive marks, with multiple reviewers praising craftsmanship, thoroughness, and technical range, but one reviewer describes a new drain pipe installation that introduced a new problem (gurgling) that was not resolved. The overall picture is a contractor with genuine skill and loyal repeat customers, but with a documented pattern of hostile responses to complaints or new inquiries.

• Two separate reviews (2021 and 2018) independently describe staff or field owners raising their voice and becoming hostile when customers asked questions or raised concerns — this is a consistent and credible pattern, not an isolated incident.
• One review (2020) contains an odd phrase 'so great gym for such a great company' which appears to be garbled or copied text, suggesting it may have been submitted carelessly or inauthentically. Confidence in that review's detail is reduced.
• Most reviews are from 2018–2021, with the most recent being from February 2021. All reviews are more than 3 years old as of a 2024 evaluation date. Current service quality cannot be reliably inferred from this data.
• Review volume is very low (6 reviews total), which limits statistical reliability across all dimensions. Scores should be treated as directional rather than definitive.

This WW Score carries MODERATE reliability at best — the low review count, age of all reviews (none within the past 3 years), and one potentially inauthentic review mean this score should be used as a starting signal only, and prospective customers are strongly advised to seek more recent references before hiring.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 2017–2023. Professionalism is mixed: positive reviews praise courtesy and communication, but recent reviews cite unresponsiveness, no-shows, and unprofessional behavior (staff on phones, unlicensed workers). Project completion is problematic—multiple reviews report incomplete fixes, callbacks that incur new charges, and damage during work (cracked pipes, damaged walls). Pricing concerns include unexpected charges, double-billing, and refusal to warranty work. Experience is the strongest dimension, with several reviews acknowledging technical skill and problem-solving. The contractor appears to have deteriorated in service quality over time, with the most recent negative reviews (2022–2023) being severe.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2017–2019 (4–6 years old). Most recent reviews (2022–2023) are predominantly negative, suggesting service quality decline.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: Multiple reviews report callbacks within days/weeks, with contractor refusing to warranty work or charging diagnostic fees for same issue. This is a critical failure pattern.
• PRICING RED FLAG: Double-billing incident, unexpected charges after initial estimate, and refusal to honor warranty all suggest pricing transparency and fairness issues.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: Recent reviews cite unresponsiveness, no-call-no-show behavior, staff unprofessionalism (phone use during work), and unlicensed workers. Contradicts older positive reviews.
• POTENTIAL BUSINESS CHANGE: The shift from 'Lenny's Drain Cleaning' to apparent broader plumbing services may indicate ownership/management change or expansion that degraded quality.

This score should be treated with caution due to stark divergence between older (2017–2019) and recent (2022–2023) reviews. The WW Score of 68.2 reflects current performance risk; the contractor's recent track record on project completion and professionalism is concerning, and the recency-weighted assessment suggests declining reliability.

Triton Plumbing Services shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 2013–2024. While some customers report excellent service (quick response, fair pricing, quality work), multiple recent reviews document serious failures: rude phone staff, incomplete repairs requiring callbacks, refusal to honor warranty work, and unresponsiveness to service calls. The 2024 review alleges overcharging via warranty programs, and the 2018 reviews indicate the company does not stand behind its work. Older positive reviews (2013–2016) contrast sharply with recent negative experiences, suggesting either service degradation or inconsistent quality. The company demonstrates technical capability but fails consistently on accountability and follow-through.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 8+ years old (2013–2016); most recent reviews (2024, 2021, 2018) are negative. This suggests service quality decline over time.
• PATTERN OF NON-ACCOUNTABILITY: Multiple reviews (2018, 2024) explicitly state the company does not stand by work, ignores callbacks, or refuses warranty service. This is a critical red flag.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: One review alleges $1000 overcharge via warranty program; another praises 'reasonable' pricing. Suggests potential exploitation of warranty customers.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE: 2018 review claims company ignores service calls and denies receiving them. This directly contradicts positive reviews praising quick response.
• SAMPLE SIZE LIMITATION: Only 8 reviews total; confidence is moderate at best. Negative reviews are concentrated in recent years, which may skew perception.

This WW Score should be treated with caution. While based on 8 reviews with moderate data density, the stark temporal divide between older positive and recent negative reviews, combined with explicit allegations of non-accountability and overcharging, suggests the company's current reliability is significantly lower than its historical reputation. Recent customers should weight the 2024, 2021, and 2018 reviews more heavily than older testimonials.