Find Nearby Plumbers In West Des Moines, Iowa

Miller Plumbing shows a deeply inconsistent track record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension and reveals a stark split: many reviewers praise courteous, prompt technicians while others describe missed appointments, late arrivals, rude behavior, and poor communication. Pricing is a significant concern — multiple reviewers explicitly describe costs as high or outrageous, one review describes a potentially fraudulent $7,100 estimate for an unnecessary replacement, and several note billing for time not actually worked. Project completion is similarly mixed, with some jobs finished smoothly and on time but others involving incomplete work, jobs taking far longer than promised, and unresolved callbacks. Experience scores moderately, with several reviewers praising technical knowledge and skill, but offset by at least two serious incidents of poor workmanship including wrong parts installed, a resulting leak, and a technician who admitted not knowing how to remove a standard faucet.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are from 2013–2017, with the most recent review dated May 2017. No reviews from the past several years are present. Current performance cannot be reliably assessed from this data.
• POTENTIAL FRAUD/MISCONDUCT FLAG: One review (April 2011) describes a technician recommending a $7,100 water heater replacement that a second company resolved for $200, suggesting possible upselling or misdiagnosis. This significantly impacts pricing and experience scores.
• BILLING IRREGULARITY FLAG: Multiple reviews mention being charged for time not worked, travel time disputes, and receiving bills significantly higher than expected or quoted. This is a recurring pattern across multiple independent reviewers.
• INCOMPLETE WORK FLAG: At least two reviews describe work left unfinished — one shower left without a trim kit, and one boiler job that could not be completed as contracted. This is a meaningful pattern for project completion.
• OWNER CONDUCT FLAG: Two separate reviews describe the owner (Steve Miller) behaving aggressively or unprofessionally toward customers — one accusing a customer of being a deadbeat before sending a final bill, and another getting angry when a customer complained about poor work.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary significantly in tone, detail, rating, and specificity. Language is not repetitive. Both positive and negative reviews contain specific, credible details. No fake review suppression applied.

This WW Score is based on 24 reviews spanning 2006–2017 with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but the score should be treated with caution due to the age of the data, a consistent pattern of billing complaints, at least one serious potential fraud incident, and documented incomplete work — the score of 62.1 likely reflects a contractor with capable individual technicians but unreliable and sometimes problematic overall service delivery.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. The single review mentions pricing favorably ('saved me time and money') and experience/skill ('Licensed Professional master Plumber,' 'trust his work'), but provides no explicit detail on professionalism dimensions (punctuality, communication, attitude) or project completion specifics (timeliness, follow-through). A single review cannot support reliable scoring across all dimensions.

• Only 1 review provided — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation
• Review is generic and lacks specific details about the work performed, timeline, or communication
• No explicit mention of professionalism (punctuality, communication, responsiveness) or project completion (on-time delivery, callbacks)
• Suspiciously generic praise with no concrete examples or specifics about the job

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score. A minimum of 3 reviews is required; only 1 review was provided. Do not rely on any scoring from this report.

This single review paints a consistently negative picture across nearly all dimensions. The contractor failed to complete the job on the initial visit, avoided a callback by dismissing the complaint, and explicitly admitted he did not understand the type of faucet he was hired to repair. Project completion is scored extremely low as the job was never properly finished and ultimately required a second plumber to resolve. Experience is also scored very low given the contractor's own admission of unfamiliarity with the fixture type and the poor outcome. Professionalism suffers due to the ignored callback and lack of follow-through, though he did respond promptly on the initial call. Pricing is scored moderately as the reviewer explicitly noted the price was acceptable.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from 2013, which is over 10 years old. This data should be treated with significant caution regarding current contractor performance.
• Contractor explicitly admitted mid-job that he lacked knowledge of the fixture type — this is a direct competency red flag, not an inference.
• Callback was effectively ignored on first attempt, with the contractor deflecting using an anecdote about his wife rather than returning to resolve the issue.

This score is based on a single review from 2013 and carries very low reliability — no conclusions about current contractor quality should be drawn from this data alone.

Only a single review is available, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer praises responsiveness and quick turnaround on a Sunday furnace repair, which speaks positively to professionalism and follow-through. The job appears to have been completed successfully, supporting a modest project completion score. Some implied technical competence is present given the furnace was fixed, but no detail on workmanship quality is provided. Pricing is entirely unmentioned and cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is from December 2020, making it over 4 years old. Recency weighting is a concern as this may not reflect current service quality.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — that dimension is completely unscored.
• Single review with generic praise and limited specifics — confidence in all dimension scores is LOW due to minimal evidence base.

This WW Score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review data; only 1 review was provided, and all dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence at best.