Find Nearby Plumbers In Louisville/Jefferson County, Kentucky

This contractor shows severe deficiencies in professionalism and project completion. Three of four reviews explicitly cite poor communication, unresponsiveness, and failure to follow through on callbacks and appointments—critical failures in a service business. One positive review from April 2024 praises punctuality and courtesy, but this is heavily outweighed by three negative reviews documenting repeated communication breakdowns and incomplete work. The single mention of technical skill (water line replacement) is insufficient to offset systemic operational failures. Recent reviews (October 2024, May 2024) indicate these problems are ongoing.

• CRITICAL: Pattern of unresponsiveness and failed follow-through across multiple reviews. Two reviews explicitly mention inability to reach the company after initial contact; one review documents months of failed callback attempts.
• Project completion concerns: Review from October 2024 states work was incomplete and company has failed to return for 'months' despite repeated promises.
• Recency: Three of four reviews are from 2024 (recent), indicating current operational issues, not historical problems.
• Limited positive data: Only one 5-star review with specific praise; three negative reviews with detailed complaints suggest pattern rather than isolated incidents.

This score should be trusted with moderate confidence. While the sample size is small (4 reviews), the consistency of complaints across multiple recent reviews about communication and follow-through, combined with one credible positive review, provides a reliable signal of systemic professionalism and completion issues.

This contractor exhibits severe and consistent professionalism failures, with two detailed 1-star reviews documenting missed appointments, failure to reschedule, and complete lack of communication follow-up. A single positive review from 2022 praising emergency responsiveness and fair pricing provides limited counterweight. Project completion is critically undermined by documented no-shows and abandoned commitments. The contractor's technical experience appears adequate when work is actually performed, but professionalism and reliability issues dominate the overall assessment. The stark contradiction between the two negative recent reviews (2023) and older positive reviews suggests deteriorating service quality.

• CRITICAL: Two highly detailed, credible 1-star reviews from 2023 and 2023 document identical failure patterns (missed appointments, no communication, no rescheduling). This is not generic complaint language but specific, corroborated evidence of systemic operational failure.
• Positive reviews are significantly older (2021-2022) while negative reviews are recent (2023), suggesting service quality has declined.
• The positive review from 2022 uses somewhat generic praise ('amazing service', 'not enough kind words') but includes a specific detail (no after-hours fee) that adds credibility. However, it is outweighed by two recent, detailed failure accounts.
• Total review count is low (4 reviews), limiting statistical confidence, but the consistency and recency of negative reviews is concerning.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE confidence due to low review volume, but the pattern of recent, detailed, and corroborated failures in professionalism and project completion is credible and concerning. The score reflects a contractor with serious operational and communication issues that have worsened recently, despite some historical positive feedback.

Onsite Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. On the positive side, one recent 2024 review highlights strong problem-solving, fair pricing, and going above and beyond for a customer, and two older reviews praise courteous, competent service. However, these positives are significantly offset by serious negative reviews: one documents a clear code violation causing property damage and sloppy workmanship across multiple installations, another describes a technician unable to diagnose and resolve a recurring HVAC issue after multiple visits, and one review raises alarming professionalism concerns. Project completion and experience scores are dragged down substantially by documented failures to resolve problems, improper installations, and ignored warranty claims. Pricing scores modestly positive overall but the sample is small.

• Most reviews are older than 1 year; only one review (2024) falls within the past 12 months. The majority of data reflects service quality from 2014–2017, which may not represent current performance.
• The 2014 review documents a confirmed code violation (condensate pipe routed to unconditioned space), resulting in property damage, ignored warranty correspondence, and multiple additional workmanship failures — this is a serious quality and liability flag.
• The 2017 review describes repeated failed diagnostic visits and installation of non-factory parts without resolution, indicating a significant technical competence gap on HVAC work.
• The 2016 review alleges unprofessional on-site behavior by workers, though it lacks corroborating detail and stands alone in this specific allegation.
• No fake review patterns detected; reviews vary in rating, detail level, and writing style, suggesting authentic authorship.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to the small review sample (6 reviews), the predominance of reviews older than 7 years, and significant contradictions between positive and negative accounts that make it difficult to establish a consistent quality baseline.

Leanhart's performance is highly inconsistent across a small sample of reviews spanning 5+ years. One recent positive review (2017) highlights responsive emergency service, professional staff (Josh), transparent pricing, and fast problem resolution. However, three negative reviews cite poor customer service (rude front desk staff), high pricing ($140/hour + $70 service charge), incomplete work requiring a second plumber, and lack of follow-up. The company appears capable of quality work but suffers from significant service delivery and communication inconsistencies. The limited review volume and age of most data (2015–2018) reduce confidence in this assessment.

• Only 4 reviews analyzed; score reliability is limited
• Most reviews are 5+ years old (2015–2018); only 1 review from 2020; recency is poor
• Extreme rating variance (1.0, 1.0, 2.0, 5.0) suggests inconsistent service quality or customer experience
• Pricing complaints are explicit and specific ($140/hour, $70 service charge, $210 minimum), but only 2 mentions
• Project completion failures are serious (incomplete work, inaccurate diagnosis, no follow-up) but based on only 2 older reviews
• No fake review patterns detected; reviews appear authentic with specific details

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size (4 reviews) and age of most data (5–9 years old). The score reflects genuine inconsistency in service quality, but additional recent reviews are needed to establish a reliable baseline.

Crestwood Plumbing's review record is heavily mixed, with a significant cluster of serious negative experiences dragging scores down across all dimensions. Professionalism is a major concern, with multiple reviews citing the owner cursing at customers, technicians arguing with clients, no-shows without notice, and poor communication — offset only partially by a handful of older reviews praising punctuality and friendliness. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with three separate reviews explicitly alleging price inflation, bait-and-switch quoting, and outright attempts to upsell unnecessary work, against only two reviews praising fair or accurate pricing. Project completion is severely impacted by reviews describing abandoned work, unresolved repairs after multiple visits, property damage left unaddressed, and broken promises to return — though a few older reviews describe quick, complete service. Experience scores slightly higher due to some positive reviews noting competent workmanship, but is undermined by accounts of incorrect water heater installations, misdiagnosis, and an inability to solve problems after three attempts. The majority of positive reviews are from 2006–2013, while the most recent reviews (2021–2024) are predominantly negative, suggesting a meaningful decline in service quality over time.

• RECENCY CONCERN: All reviews from 2021–2024 are 1-star with serious complaints. Positive reviews are predominantly from 2006–2013, indicating a likely significant decline in service quality. Recent reviews should be weighted more heavily.
• ONE UNUSABLE REVIEW: The review dated 2015-06-04 contains only the word 'unknown' with a 5-star rating and provides no usable data for any dimension. It was excluded from scoring.
• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: Three separate reviews (2024, 2023, 2021) independently allege that the company attempted to overcharge, did not honor quotes, or recommended unnecessary and costly work. This is a notable pattern, not an isolated incident.
• OWNER CONDUCT FLAG: One detailed review (2021) explicitly states the business owner (Jerry) cursed at a customer on two separate occasions during a billing dispute. This is a significant professionalism red flag.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE: One review (2014) describes the company scratching sinks and a bathtub, breaking a hot water knob, and causing backed-up water to flood a crawl space — none of which were remediated.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews vary in length, detail, tone, and rating. No suspicious uniformity suggesting coordinated fake reviews was identified.

This WW Score of 42.1 is based on 16 usable reviews spanning 2006–2024, but should be interpreted with caution given that the most recent reviews (2021–2024) are uniformly negative and suggest the company has materially deteriorated from its earlier performance; the score likely overstates current service quality due to the inclusion of older positive reviews.

This contractor shows a mixed and concerning track record across the reviews analyzed. On the positive side, multiple reviewers noted same-day or quick response times and courteous behavior for routine jobs. However, two separate reviews — one from 2016 and one from 2017 — explicitly describe a pattern of failed follow-through on larger or more complex jobs, with repeated unanswered calls and no-shows. The one review marked 'unknown' was excluded from scoring as it contained no usable data. The overall picture is a contractor that may handle small jobs adequately but has documented failures in communication and project completion for more demanding work.

• One review contained only the word 'unknown' and was excluded from scoring as it provides no usable data.
• Most reviews are significantly older than 12 months — the most recent usable review is from May 2021, and the majority are from 2014–2018. Recency weighting is a concern; current performance cannot be reliably inferred.
• Two independent reviews explicitly describe the same failure pattern: contractor stops communicating and does not return calls when a larger or more complex job is involved. This is a notable red flag for project completion reliability.
• The positive reviews tend to be brief and generic ('They have been good.', 'Always quick to show up, courteous, and neat.') with limited specifics, which reduces their evidentiary weight compared to the more detailed negative reviews.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to a small review pool, predominantly outdated reviews (most over 5 years old), and a significant split between generic positive feedback and detailed, specific negative experiences that directly impact core scoring dimensions.