Find Nearby Plumbers In Des Moines, Iowa

Professionalism is the most heavily evidenced dimension and tells a mixed story: several reviews praise punctuality, courtesy, and responsiveness, but one detailed 1-star review documents a serious failure — a no-show, unapologetic tardiness of over four hours, and dismissive attitude — which meaningfully drags the score down. Pricing is flagged by two reviews: one praises Andy as 'unbelievably fair,' while another describes a $1,200 quote to move a pipe six inches and an undisclosed $39.95 service fee, indicating inconsistency and a lack of transparency. Project completion scores moderately well — most reviewers confirm jobs were finished successfully and cleanly, though one 2-star reviewer noted the repair 'took forever' before ultimately succeeding. Experience is generally positive, with multiple reviewers citing skill, thoroughness, and problem-solving ability, offset slightly by the 2-star reviewer who suggested limited capability for more complex work.

• One review (Rating: 5.0, Date: 2016-02-01) contains only a period as its text and provides zero usable data — excluded from scoring.
• Several older reviews (2007, 2009, 2012, 2014) are more than 10 years old and may not reflect current service quality. Only 3 reviews are from the past 12 months (2023–2024), limiting recency confidence.
• The earliest reviews reference different named plumbers (Andy, Tony, Kenny, Justin), suggesting possible staff turnover or multiple operators under the same brand — scores may reflect inconsistent personnel rather than a single consistent team.
• The 1-star review from 2019-02-25 is highly detailed and specific, lending it strong credibility. It describes a systemic scheduling and attitude failure that should be weighted seriously despite being older.
• No strong fake review patterns detected, though several 5-star reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'They are the best!', 'Prompt and courteous service!!'). These were included but treated as lower-evidence data points.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — there are enough reviews to produce a meaningful signal, but the wide date range spanning 17 years, inconsistent personnel across reviews, and a small number of recent data points mean the score should be interpreted as a rough historical average rather than a confident picture of current service quality.

Loren's the Plumber shows mixed performance across a small sample of reviews. Professionalism is significantly undermined by a critical failure: two no-shows on confirmed appointments that forced a customer to seek emergency service elsewhere, directly contradicting claims of reliability. However, positive reviews highlight strong technical expertise and speed of service completion. Pricing appears fair based on limited mention. The extremely small sample size (3 reviews) and age of data (oldest from 2021) severely limit confidence in this score.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed — insufficient data for reliable scoring
• Significant recency gap: oldest review from January 2021, middle review from August 2022, newest from June 2023 — no recent data from past 12 months
• Extreme polarity: one 1-star review describing critical service failures (no-shows on confirmed appointments) versus two 5-star reviews with generic praise
• The 1-star review provides specific, credible details of failures; the 5-star reviews lack specificity and contain generic language ('never disappoints', 'reliable, honest')
• Professionalism score heavily penalized by documented appointment no-shows — a fundamental professional failure

This WW Score should be treated with extreme caution due to insufficient review volume (n=3), significant data recency issues, and conflicting evidence that suggests either inconsistent service quality or potential data quality concerns. A minimum of 8-10 recent reviews is recommended before making service decisions based on this score.

Lovelady shows highly inconsistent performance across reviews spanning nearly a decade. Two older reviews (2020, 2022) praise professionalism, knowledge, and thoroughness with 5-star ratings. However, a detailed 2015 review documents significant failures: incomplete work, lack of technical knowledge (incorrect AC condensation explanation), poor communication, and unresponsive follow-up after charging $95 for an unresolved problem. The stark contrast between glowing praise and documented service failure, combined with very limited sample size and age disparity of reviews, creates substantial uncertainty about current reliability.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Two positive reviews are from 2020–2022, while the detailed negative review is from 2015 (9 years old). Cannot reliably assess current performance.
• EXTREME INCONSISTENCY: 5-star reviews lack specificity about plumbing work, while the 1-star review provides extensive detail about documented failures (incomplete job, incorrect technical advice, poor communication, unresponsive callbacks). This pattern suggests possible service quality variability or different service lines.
• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 3 reviews total. Score reliability is severely limited and should not be used for major decisions.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: The 2015 review explicitly documents abandoned/incomplete work (clogged pipe not cleared despite payment) and ignored callback request, which directly contradicts the positive reviews' claims of thoroughness.

This score should be treated with extreme caution due to only 3 reviews, significant age disparity, and a stark contradiction between glowing praise and documented service failure; the company's current performance cannot be reliably assessed from this data.

J&K Plumbing exhibits a deeply polarized performance profile with significant operational inconsistencies. While individual technicians (particularly Jake, Dustin, and Antonio) frequently receive praise for technical competence and friendliness, systemic issues severely undermine overall service quality. The company struggles with professionalism due to persistent complaints about rude office staff (especially the receptionist), poor communication, failure to return calls, and aggressive scheduling practices (15-minute notice windows). Project completion is compromised by incomplete repairs, failure to follow up on warranty claims, false reporting to insurance companies, and abandonment of work. Pricing concerns emerge around hidden charges, cash-only payment demands, and inflated quotes. The company's apparent strategy of collecting service fees while avoiding actual repairs—particularly through AHS warranty assignments—is documented across numerous reviews spanning over a decade.

• SYSTEMIC FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews (spanning 2008-2025) document identical schemes: marking jobs 'complete' to AHS without performing work, providing false diagnoses to deny warranty coverage, and collecting service fees without resolution. This pattern is too consistent to be coincidental.
• OFFICE STAFF CONDUCT: Receptionist (identified as 'Kathy' or 'Cathy') repeatedly described as rude, dismissive, and unprofessional across 40+ reviews. Multiple customers report being blamed for missed appointments despite company's own 15-minute notice policy.
• INTENTIONAL MISDIAGNOSIS: Documented pattern of technicians providing false information to warranty companies (roof leaks that don't exist, uneven floors, 'Act of God' clauses, foreign objects in toilets) to deny coverage. Licensed inspector review (2024) explicitly states company avoids work 'at all costs.'
• PAYMENT COERCION: Company demands cash/check only, refuses credit cards, and collects fees upfront before work completion. Multiple reviews note this prevents documentation and enables fee collection without service delivery.
• SCHEDULING ABUSE: Consistent complaints about 15-minute notice windows, technicians leaving immediately if customer is 2-5 minutes late, and charging $75 service fees for no-shows caused by company's own unrealistic timelines.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURE: Extensive documentation of unreturned calls, abandoned repairs, parts ordered but never installed (3+ months delays), and tickets marked complete without resolution.
• RECENCY CONCERN: While recent reviews (2025) show some positive experiences, negative patterns persist consistently through entire review history (2008-2025), suggesting systemic rather than isolated issues.
• REVIEW AUTHENTICITY: Some highly generic 5-star reviews lack specific details; however, negative reviews are overwhelmingly detailed and specific, reducing likelihood of fake negative reviews. One review mentions company offers 'prizes for good reviews,' suggesting potential review manipulation.
• INSURANCE COMPANY COLLUSION: Multiple reviews suggest company benefits financially from AHS assignments regardless of work completion, creating perverse incentive to avoid repairs.

This WW Score of 58.2 should be trusted as a reliable indicator of significant service quality problems, though it may understate the severity of systemic issues given the company's apparent strategy of collecting fees without completing work. The HIGH confidence is based on 365 reviews with consistent patterns across 17 years, but the score reflects a company with serious operational and ethical concerns that warrant extreme caution.

Golden Rule exhibits a stark bifurcation in customer experience. Professionalism and technical competence are consistently praised across recent positive reviews (2025-2022), with technicians described as friendly, knowledgeable, and punctual. However, pricing emerges as the dominant complaint across 67 reviews spanning the entire review history, with customers reporting charges 3-10x higher than competitors for identical work—including $800 for a $65 cartridge, $2,300 for a $50 part, and $1,250 for minor repairs. Project completion issues appear in 35 reviews, documenting incomplete repairs, failed callbacks, Gold Club membership promises unfulfilled, and work requiring multiple service calls. The company's aggressive upselling tactics and refusal to provide itemized invoices compound trust concerns. While recent 2025 reviews are overwhelmingly positive (likely reflecting improved operations or review filtering), the historical pattern of price gouging, deceptive diagnostics, and service failures significantly depresses the overall score.

• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: 2025 reviews (35 total) show nearly identical positive language ('very professional,' 'knowledgeable,' 'friendly,' 'explained well') with minimal specificity, all 5-star ratings, and no negative details. This contrasts sharply with detailed, specific complaints in older reviews. Suggests possible review manipulation or filtering.
• RECENCY BIAS ALERT: Reviews from 2025 and late 2024 are overwhelmingly positive (5-star), while reviews from 2023-2013 contain extensive documented complaints of price gouging, failed repairs, and deceptive practices. Most negative reviews are 2-7 years old, but pattern consistency suggests systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.
• PRICING FRAUD INDICATORS: Multiple reviews document identical deceptive tactics across years: (1) charging $72-99 'diagnostic fees' for quotes, (2) refusing itemized invoices, (3) quoting 3-10x competitor prices for identical work, (4) aggressive upselling of unnecessary services, (5) charging for waiting time while retrieving parts. This pattern appears deliberate company policy, not individual technician error.
• FAKE REVIEW DETECTION: One 2019 review explicitly documents Golden Rule posting a fake review from their own account and responding to it, which Yelp removed. Reviewer notes employees are smart enough not to use their names, suggesting family members may be writing reviews.
• MEMBERSHIP FRAUD: Multiple Gold Club members report unfulfilled promises—scheduled maintenance never performed, service checks delayed 6+ months, company citing 13,000 members as reason they cannot honor contracted services. This suggests systematic breach of membership agreements.
• SAFETY CONCERNS: One 2021 review documents a gas leak from newly installed water heater that required evacuation; company minimized risk with 'but it didn't blow up' response. One 2024 review alleges false CO leak claims to pressure water heater replacement.
• INCOMPLETE REPAIRS: Multiple documented cases of repairs failing within days, requiring multiple callbacks, or leaving work unfinished (e.g., shower still unusable after plumber cut wrong board and capped pipe).

This WW Score of 54.8 should be treated with HIGH confidence in its overall validity but with critical caveats: the score accurately reflects a company with genuine professionalism and technical skill undermined by systematic pricing practices that customers consistently characterize as predatory. The 2025 review surge suggests either genuine operational improvement or review curation; however, the 12-year historical pattern of identical pricing complaints, deceptive diagnostics, and service failures indicates structural business practices rather than recent anomalies. Customers should assume high professionalism but verify all quotes with competitors before proceeding, as pricing appears to be the company's primary revenue model rather than fair-market service delivery.

Holt Plumbing receives a below-average WW Score of 52.3, driven primarily by severe and consistent pricing complaints across 26 reviews. While professionalism scores reasonably well (72.5) with technicians frequently described as courteous, friendly, and punctual, this is overwhelmed by systematic overcharging documented across multiple service types (faucets, water heaters, garbage disposals, HVAC work). Project completion is adequate (68.0) with most jobs finished, though some required callbacks. Experience shows mixed results (55.0)—some technicians demonstrate strong technical knowledge, while others appear to lack competence or engage in unnecessary upselling. The company's post-acquisition decline (noted in recent 2024 reviews) and persistent pattern of pricing 2-4x higher than competitors severely undermines overall trustworthiness.

• CRITICAL: Overwhelming pattern of pricing complaints (26 of 33 reviews mention excessive costs). Multiple reviews cite prices 2-4x higher than competitors for identical work.
• PATTERN: Systematic use of high service call fees ($86-$99) as entrapment mechanism, followed by inflated labor rates and parts markups (e.g., R410A refrigerant marked up from $15/lb to $327/lb).
• QUALITY CONCERN: Multiple reviews document poor workmanship causing damage (wrench marks on fixtures, broken parts, leaks after repair) requiring additional costly fixes.
• COMPETENCE ISSUE: Several reviews describe technicians misdiagnosing problems or recommending unnecessary work (e.g., $1500 quote for shower repair vs. $9 part; $10k HVAC replacement when cleaning compressor solved issue).
• RECENCY: Most negative reviews span 2013-2024 with no improvement trend. Recent 2024 reviews cite post-acquisition deterioration in scheduling and staffing.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS CONCERN: The 5-star reviews (7 total) are notably generic and lack specific pricing details, while 1-star reviews provide extensive documentation. This asymmetry suggests positive reviews may not reflect typical customer experience.
• BUSINESS PRACTICE: Company refuses to provide upfront pricing information to customers, explicitly instructing staff not to disclose rates—a red flag for intentional opacity.

This WW Score of 52.3 is highly reliable (HIGH confidence) and should be trusted as a strong warning signal. The score is anchored by 26 detailed, specific pricing complaints with consistent corroboration across 11+ years, making the pricing dimension exceptionally well-documented. While professionalism and completion scores are moderate, they are substantially outweighed by systematic overcharging and documented instances of poor workmanship. Customers should treat this company as high-risk for financial exploitation.