Find Nearby Plumbers In Baton Rouge, Louisiana

The reviews present a deeply mixed picture of Cajun Maintenance and associated contractors. Professionalism scores were dragged down significantly by a no-show technician who abandoned a job without notice, a phone representative described as prioritizing profit over customer care, and a technician who refused further callbacks on a recurring issue — though a few reviews praised punctuality, courtesy, and respectful communication. Project completion is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviews describing incomplete or failed work: a water heater with a recurring pilot light failure, a botched dishwasher installation, a failed water heater repair that required replacement two days later, and a water damage restoration job that left moisture behind and resulted in a disputed refund. Pricing received moderate marks — a handful of reviewers found costs fair and transparent, but one reviewer noted a lack of cost breakdown on an invoice and another was charged nearly $400 for repairs that failed within 48 hours. Experience scores reflect serious technical failures including an improperly leveled dishwasher, misdiagnosed water heater issues, and an incomplete water damage drying process, partially offset by a few reviews praising thorough and skilled workmanship.

• Several reviews are significantly outdated: 6 of 11 reviews are from 2012–2017, meaning they are 7–13 years old and may not reflect current service quality.
• The most recent review (July 2024) is a 1-star complaint, suggesting quality issues may be ongoing rather than resolved.
• One review (2012, 5-star) appears to reference a different company — 'UFWDR' / 'United Fire and Water' — and may not be relevant to Cajun Maintenance. It was treated as low-relevance but not fully excluded.
• The 2011 1-star review also explicitly names 'United Fire and Water' as the company, not Cajun Maintenance. This review may have been misattributed and was treated with reduced weight in scoring.
• No strong fake review patterns detected, but the 5-star reviews tend to be older and the 1-star reviews are more recent, which is a concerning trend.
• The ratio of 1-star to 5-star reviews is nearly even (5 negative vs. 5 positive), indicating a polarized customer experience rather than consistent quality.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a reasonable mention count across dimensions, but is significantly undermined by the age of most positive reviews, the recency of negative reviews, and two reviews that may reference a different company entirely.

This contractor has a deeply split review profile. The majority of positive reviews are 3 to 10+ years old, describing timely, professional, and fairly priced work. However, two recent 2024 reviews raise serious red flags: one alleges the owner collects deposits and abandons jobs, operates without a proper journeyman license, and previously ran a failed company under a different name; the other simply states the company does not show up. A revised comment within an older positive review also describes a failed repair and an unprofessional response from the owner's wife. The recency of the negative reviews significantly drags down scores across all dimensions, particularly professionalism and project completion, as these are the most recent data points available.

• SERIOUS FRAUD ALLEGATION: One 2024 reviewer alleges the owner collects down payments and abandons jobs, operates without a valid journeyman license, and previously shut down a company called Westview Plumbing under similar circumstances. This is an unverified but highly specific and credible-sounding claim that warrants serious caution.
• NO-SHOW ALLEGATION: A separate 2024 reviewer states the company does not show up for jobs, directly contradicting older positive reviews about punctuality.
• RECENCY CONCERN: All positive reviews are from 2013–2021, with the most recent positive review being over 3 years old. Both 2024 reviews are strongly negative. This trend suggests a possible decline in service quality or business integrity.
• REVISED REVIEW WARNING: One reviewer who originally gave 5 stars later revised their comment to describe a failed repair, an additional unexpected charge, and rude behavior from the owner's wife — indicating a pattern of post-job issues.
• ONE REVIEW MARKED UNUSABLE: The review with text 'unknown' and a 5-star rating from 2014 was excluded from scoring due to no usable content.
• POTENTIAL BUSINESS CONTINUITY CONCERN: The detailed 2024 allegation suggests this may not be the same operational entity as the one that received positive reviews years ago, which could make historical positive reviews misleading.

This WW Score should be treated with LOW trust — while the volume of reviews is sufficient for calculation, the two most recent reviews contain serious and specific allegations of fraud and non-performance that directly undermine the credibility of the older positive review base.

This contractor exhibits severe and consistent professionalism failures across multiple dimensions. Eight reviews explicitly document unprofessional conduct including rude office staff, abusive language toward customers, unsafe driving, and dismissive attitudes toward legitimate complaints. Project completion is compromised by faulty workmanship (flooded homes, damaged fixtures, poor installation quality) documented in seven reviews. Pricing concerns emerge in one detailed account of attempted cash-under-the-table billing at inflated rates. While four positive reviews praise timely work and community involvement, they are substantially outweighed by serious failures in execution, customer service, and accountability. The contractor's willingness to ban customers rather than resolve issues and staff behavior (hanging up on customers, personal attacks) represent critical professionalism deficits.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document catastrophic failures resulting in thousands of dollars in property damage (flooded homes, water damage from negligence). These are not minor complaints.
• CRITICAL: Pattern of unprofessional office staff behavior including hanging up on customers, verbal abuse ('called me a whore'), and dismissive responses to legitimate complaints across multiple independent reviews.
• CRITICAL: One detailed review documents attempted fraud—technician attempting to charge $225/hr when company rate is $150/hr, requesting cash payment to avoid company documentation.
• CRITICAL: Contractor banned customer from future service rather than resolving legitimate service failures, suggesting unwillingness to take accountability.
• Positive reviews (4 of 12) are notably older (2013-2022) while negative reviews cluster more recently (2015-2023), suggesting potential service quality decline over time.
• One positive review from 2018 explicitly dismisses negative reviews as 'total lies' without addressing specific documented failures, which is a red flag for bias.
• Positive reviews lack specificity about pricing and timelines compared to detailed negative reviews, creating asymmetric evidence quality.

This WW Score should be trusted with moderate-to-high confidence. The score is driven by explicit, detailed documentation of serious failures (property damage, unprofessional conduct, billing fraud) across 8+ independent reviews spanning multiple years. While positive reviews exist, they do not credibly counter documented catastrophic failures and safety/conduct issues. The contractor's pattern of dismissing complaints rather than resolving them further undermines confidence in service quality.

The reviews paint a consistently negative picture across nearly all dimensions. Pricing is a major recurring complaint, with customers citing a $219 charge for under 5 minutes of work, a $350 drain snake fee with only a 30-day warranty, and a hidden charge for an advertised free estimate. Project completion is severely undermined by a technician who could not complete a camera inspection, a manager who promised follow-up visits and never returned, and a technician who refused to run a snake in the direction needed to clear an actual blockage. Professionalism scores slightly higher due to one positive interaction where a masked, friendly technician resolved an emergency quickly, but this is outweighed by multiple accounts of poor follow-through and deceptive practices. Experience scores low given the failed camera job, the refusal to address a confirmed blockage, and a repair that failed within two months.

• Several reviews are significantly outdated: two reviews are from 2010 and 2013, which are over 10 years old and may not reflect current business practices or ownership.
• The one strongly positive review (5-star, 2021) is notably isolated and contrasts sharply with the majority of negative reviews; it may reflect an atypical experience rather than a pattern of quality.
• A pattern of deceptive pricing practices is evident across multiple independent reviews: hidden charges on free estimates, high fees for minimal work, and short warranty periods not disclosed upfront.
• The 2013 review references 'Benard' as the owner of a 2-person business, which may indicate this location was under different ownership at that time, potentially skewing historical data.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to the small review pool of only 7 reviews, a wide date range spanning 14 years, and significant inconsistency in service quality across reviews; the score directionally reflects poor performance but should be interpreted cautiously given the sample size.

Port City's review record is deeply concerning across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is heavily dragged down by two separate instances of complete failure to return calls or follow up with customers, with only one older review noting responsiveness positively. Project completion is similarly troubled — the most recent and detailed review (2023) describes a $995 charge for work that not only failed to clear the clog but appears to have been performed incorrectly, with a second company finding the clog at 30ft where Port City claimed to have snaked 100ft. Experience scores are low due to that same 2023 incident, which raises serious questions about technical competence or integrity. Pricing receives a slightly higher but still poor score, as the one positive pricing mention is from 2013 and is outweighed by a nearly $1,000 charge for ineffective work.

• One review (2016) contains only the word 'unknown' with a 5-star rating and was excluded from scoring as it provides no usable data.
• The sole positive review mentioning price and responsiveness is from 2013 — over 10 years old — and should be weighted very lightly.
• The most recent review (2023) is the most detailed and credible, and it describes potential incompetence or deliberate overcharging, which is a serious red flag.
• Three of the four usable negative reviews span 2015–2023, suggesting persistent issues with responsiveness and follow-through over many years.
• Low total review count (5 reviews over ~10 years) limits reliability significantly. Score should be treated with caution.

This WW Score is based on only 4 usable reviews spanning a decade, with the most recent and detailed review being strongly negative — the score should be treated as LOW CONFIDENCE and prospective customers are advised to seek additional references before hiring.

This contractor demonstrates severe and consistent failures across professionalism and project completion. Four of five reviews report critical issues: incomplete work, unresponsiveness to callbacks, failure to show up, and refusal to provide documentation. Communication breakdowns are pervasive—customers report being ignored, receiving no follow-up, and experiencing long delays. Project completion is particularly problematic, with multiple reports of work that failed shortly after completion or was abandoned entirely. Only one positive review from 2012 (over a decade old) mentions quick service and professional behavior, but this is heavily outweighed by recent negative experiences. Pricing appears moderately fair when work is completed, but represents poor value when jobs fail or are left unfinished.

• CRITICAL: Four of five reviews are 1-star ratings with consistent complaints about non-responsiveness and incomplete work. This pattern suggests systemic operational failure rather than isolated incidents.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The single positive review is from September 2012 (12+ years old). All negative reviews are from 2018-2021. This indicates significant deterioration in service quality over time.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURE: Multiple reviews explicitly mention being ignored after initial service—calls and texts unanswered, promised callbacks never made. This is a red flag for customer service collapse.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Three reviews explicitly state work was not completed properly or failed shortly after completion, resulting in additional damage (flooded floors, sewage backup).
• NO DOCUMENTATION: One review reports the company refused to provide written proof of repairs despite agreeing to do so, which is highly unprofessional and suggests potential liability avoidance.

This score should be trusted with moderate-to-high confidence. The consistency of negative patterns across recent reviews (2018-2021) and the severity of complaints (incomplete work, non-responsiveness, property damage) indicate genuine systemic problems. However, the small sample size (5 reviews) and the presence of one very old positive review introduce some uncertainty. The dramatic decline from 2012 to 2018+ suggests the company may have changed significantly or deteriorated operationally.