Find Nearby Plumbers In Des Moines, Iowa

Pipe Monkeys shows a deeply mixed record across all dimensions. On the positive side, two detailed reviews praise professional conduct, punctuality, cleanliness, and quality workmanship — including a slab leak resolved on-budget and a washer installation handled with care. However, three negative reviews introduce serious concerns: one customer was flatly refused service after asking a reasonable question, another was deprioritized for not being on a monthly plan despite advertised 24/7 availability, and a third encountered a contradictory fee policy with zero follow-up communication. Pricing transparency is a notable weak point, with one reviewer explicitly flagging a hidden $85 bid fee that contradicted the company's own website. The small review pool and wide rating spread (three 5-stars, three 1-stars) make it difficult to draw confident conclusions, and the score reflects this polarization rather than a reliable average.

• Review pool is very small (6 reviews total), severely limiting statistical reliability.
• Extreme rating polarization: exactly 3 reviews rated 5-star and 3 reviews rated 1-star — no middle-ground ratings exist, which is unusual and warrants caution.
• Most reviews are dated 2020 or earlier; the most recent review is from December 2020, meaning all reviews are over 3 years old. Current performance cannot be assessed.
• One review (2017) flags a direct contradiction between the company's website policy ('no service fees') and what was communicated by phone ($85 bid fee), suggesting possible deceptive or inconsistent business practices.
• The 2020-03 review raises a concern about advertised 24/7 availability being conditional on a paid monthly plan — a potential misleading marketing claim.
• No fake review patterns detected; negative reviews contain specific, credible detail and positive reviews include concrete observations, suggesting authenticity across the board.

This WW Score should be treated with LOW trust: the sample size of 6 reviews is insufficient for confident conclusions, all reviews are more than 3 years old, and the extreme 5-star/1-star split suggests the contractor may perform inconsistently depending on customer type or circumstance.

This contractor has a deeply mixed record across only 3 reviews spanning several years. Two positive reviews highlight prompt service, courteous staff, and competent workmanship on sump pump installation and sewer odor diagnosis. However, the single negative review is severe — alleging unprofessional conduct, a lawsuit over billing disputes, and causing financial harm to the customer by delaying another contractor. The negative review significantly drags down professionalism and pricing scores, as billing disputes and causing monetary loss to a client are serious red flags. With only 3 reviews and a wide date range (2017–2022), confidence in any dimension is low and the WW Score should be treated with caution.

• Only 3 reviews total — this is the minimum threshold for a WW Score calculation and results are highly unreliable.
• The most recent review is from April 2022, meaning there is no data from the past 12 months relative to a typical analysis window. Recency is a concern.
• The negative review (2017) alleges a lawsuit initiated by the contractor against a customer over a disputed bill — a serious professionalism and business conduct red flag.
• The negative review also alleges the contractor caused financial harm by delaying another contractor's work, suggesting possible project completion or scheduling failures.
• The two positive reviews are relatively generic in praise and lack granular detail, though they do reference specific job types (sump pump, sewer odor, emergency plumbing), which reduces fake review suspicion slightly.
• Wide date spread (2017–2022) with no reviews in recent years makes it impossible to assess current service quality.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews with a wide date range and one severe negative review involving legal action — it should be considered highly unreliable and insufficient to make a confident hiring decision.

Elite Water Systems demonstrates severe deficiencies across all dimensions, particularly in professionalism and pricing. Nine reviews explicitly document aggressive, deceptive marketing tactics including impersonating city officials, circumventing Do Not Call registries, misleading door-to-door canvassing, and false claims about free services. Pricing complaints appear in six reviews, with customers reporting being charged $10,000 for systems worth approximately $5,000 elsewhere, combined with hidden maintenance fees ($400/year) that were allegedly promised free. Only two reviews mention actual service work, with one positive experience (Ray's leak repair) and one negative (misleading water quality testing). The company's business model relies on aggressive sales tactics rather than service quality, and customer trust has been fundamentally broken through repeated deception.

• CRITICAL: Pattern of deceptive marketing practices documented across 8 of 10 reviews—impersonating government officials, false 'welcome' mailings, circumventing Do Not Call registry, misleading 'prize' tactics, and aggressive follow-up calls after explicit refusals.
• PRICING FRAUD INDICATORS: Multiple reviews (2021, 2013) report being charged $10,000 for systems worth $5,000 elsewhere. Hidden fees ($400/year maintenance) were allegedly promised free. This suggests systematic overpricing and misrepresentation.
• SUBCONTRACTING CONCERNS: 2021 review reveals company subcontracts service work and sales, then disclaims responsibility post-sale. Warranty claims disputed by contracted service providers.
• WATER TESTING INTEGRITY: 2013 review documents independent testing contradicting company's in-home water analysis (company claimed hard water/high chlorine; independent test showed soft water/low chlorine), suggesting manipulated or fraudulent testing to justify sales.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most reviews are 5-9 years old (2013-2018), with one recent 2021 review. Older reviews may reflect historical practices, but 2021 review confirms core issues persist.
• SINGLE POSITIVE REVIEW: Only one 5-star review (2018, Ray's service) provides positive data. This is heavily outweighed by nine 1-4 star reviews focused on deceptive practices.

This WW Score of 32.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 10 reviews with consistent, explicit documentation of deceptive marketing, pricing fraud, and service failures. The company's business model appears predicated on aggressive deception rather than legitimate service delivery, and the single positive service review cannot offset systematic patterns of consumer harm.

The overwhelming majority of reviews describe serious failures across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is heavily penalized by multiple accounts of rude owner behavior, missed appointments without callbacks, and unprofessional communication — with only one positive review offering any counterweight. Project completion is similarly poor, with at least two reviews describing work that was promised but never completed or followed through on. Experience scores low due to a vague, inconclusive diagnosis in one review and an unresolved furnace repair in another, though one positive review does credit a successful furnace and AC installation. Pricing receives a slightly higher score only because one reviewer explicitly praised fair pricing, but this is offset by a surprise invoice complaint in another review.

• One review is from a non-direct customer (in-law's experience), which reduces its evidentiary weight slightly, though the described behavior is consistent with other reviews.
• The single 5-star review (2017) is vague in detail and uses generic praise ('such good people'), which warrants mild scrutiny, though it does name specific technicians (Nate and Jason), lending it some credibility.
• A serious allegation of prescription medication theft was made in one review (2017). This is unverified but represents a significant integrity concern that cannot be ignored.
• Most reviews are from 2017–2021, with no reviews from the past 12 months. The recency of this data is limited and the contractor's current performance cannot be reliably assessed.
• With only 5 total reviews, the sample size is very small. The WW Score should be treated as directional only and not definitive.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning 2017–2021, with no recent data, and should be treated as LOW reliability — the score directionally signals serious concerns but cannot be considered statistically robust.

Of the three reviews provided, only one contains usable content. That single review from May 2013 describes the job as done well and in a timely manner, which provides minimal signal for project completion and experience. The remaining two reviews are entirely unusable — one contains only a period and the other only the word 'unknown.' Because nearly all reviews are over a decade old and only one carries any substantive information, no reliable WW Score can be calculated. Scores assigned to project completion and experience are conservative given the extremely limited evidence base.

• Two of three reviews contain no usable text ('unknown' and '.') and cannot be scored on any dimension.
• All reviews are more than 8 years old — recency is a significant concern and these scores should not be treated as reflective of current performance.
• With only 1 usable review out of 3 total, the dataset is far too small to produce a reliable WW Score.
• The 3.0-star rating from 2016 has no accompanying text, making it impossible to determine what drove the negative sentiment.

This score report has extremely low reliability due to only one substantive review being available, all reviews being over 8 years old, and two of three reviews containing no usable content whatsoever.

This contractor exhibits severe and consistent deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Two detailed negative reviews from August 2023 document serious issues: non-completion of work despite payment collection, complete communication breakdown (no responses to texts, calls, or emails), and poor workmanship quality (HVAC and insulation problems). The third review from July 2022 is suspiciously generic with no specific details and contradicts the recent pattern entirely. The owner faces federal indictment for money laundering and wire fraud. Given the gravity of documented failures and legal issues, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated—the data suggests fundamental business integrity problems that transcend normal performance metrics.

• CRITICAL: Owner Zach Flaherty indicted on federal money laundering and wire fraud charges (trial scheduled February 2024). This is a legal/integrity red flag of highest severity.
• PATTERN OF ABANDONMENT: Two independent reviews document project abandonment, non-responsiveness to customer contact, and failure to complete work despite payment received.
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW: July 2022 five-star review is generic, lacks specifics, uses promotional language ('top notch premier business'), and contradicts two detailed negative reviews from same year. Possible fake/planted review.
• PAYMENT COLLECTION ISSUES: Evidence of collecting payment before work completion and before contractual milestones (50% down, then 25% before inspection passed).
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: Multiple mentions of inability to reach contractor, no responses to repeated contact attempts over weeks.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent reviews are from August 2023 (nearly 2 years old). No recent positive reviews to suggest improvement.

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient data volume (3 reviews) and severe contradictions suggesting potential fake reviews; however, the documented pattern of non-completion, non-responsiveness, poor workmanship, and federal criminal charges against the owner presents overwhelming evidence of business failure that should disqualify this contractor regardless of scoring methodology.