Find Nearby Plumbers In Lowell, Massachusetts

This is a franchise brand with hundreds of locations, and the review pool reflects wildly inconsistent quality across different operators and technicians. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a large volume of reviews describing rude, condescending, or outright hostile technicians and office staff, though many positive reviews praise specific named technicians as courteous and professional. Pricing is the most damaging dimension: an enormous number of reviews describe a bait-and-switch pattern where a low advertised rate (often $49) is used to gain entry, followed by aggressive upselling to hydro-jetting, camera inspections, and pipe replacement at prices reviewers consistently describe as two to ten times market rate. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are completed satisfactorily and quickly, but a significant minority of reviews describe incomplete work, warranty refusals, no-shows, and jobs that required a second company to actually fix the problem. Experience scores reflect genuine skill from certain technicians but are undermined by repeated accounts of misdiagnosis, fabricated damage, and work that failed within days or weeks.

• STRONG BAIT-AND-SWITCH PATTERN DETECTED: Dozens of independent reviews across multiple years and locations describe an identical pattern — low advertised price ($49 drain special) used to gain entry, followed by claims the snake cannot work and escalating upsells to hydro-jetting ($500-$1200), camera inspection, and full pipe replacement ($3,000-$15,000+). This is a systemic business practice, not isolated incidents.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE SIDE: A notable cluster of short, generic 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'Good experience', 'Great service!', 'You guys great!', blank text with 5 stars) appear throughout the dataset, many dated in close proximity. These lack specificity and are consistent with review padding. Confidence in the positive score pool is reduced accordingly.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact duplicates submitted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., identical text for 'Many other contractors proposed to snake the sewer line', 'Very Pleased with results', 'Did a great job excellent work', 'Prompt, polite, professional', etc.). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate manipulation.
• MULTI-LOCATION FRANCHISE ISSUE: Reviews clearly reference dozens of different geographic locations (Sacramento, Orange County, Reno, Framingham MA, Spartanburg SC, Baton Rouge, etc.) and different named technicians. This is not a single contractor — it is a franchise brand. Scores reflect the aggregate brand, not any single operator. Individual location quality varies enormously.
• SERIOUS FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews allege criminal-level conduct including: charging for work not performed, fabricating damage on camera footage, partnering with restoration companies (Bolmer Restoration named repeatedly) to generate fraudulent insurance claims, opening credit cards in customers' names, placing mechanics liens on homes, and targeting elderly and vulnerable customers. One review references a revoked NV business license and cancelled contractor license.
• WARRANTY REFUSAL PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe the company refusing to honor stated warranties when problems recurred within the warranty period, often citing new reasons to charge again.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURE PATTERN: A significant number of reviews describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and calls were not returned, sometimes leaving customers without water or sewage service for days.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review dataset spans from approximately 2010 to June 2025. Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show a continued mix of strong positives for specific named technicians and serious negatives for pricing and scam-like upselling, suggesting the pattern has not materially changed. More recent reviews were weighted slightly higher in scoring.

This WW Score of 58.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-LOW trust as a hiring signal: while it accurately reflects the deeply polarized nature of this franchise brand, the score is based on a mixed pool that includes suspected fake positive reviews, duplicate submissions, and reviews from dozens of geographically distinct franchise locations — meaning the score does not reliably predict the quality of any single local operator, and the systemic pricing and upselling complaints documented across hundreds of independent reviews represent a material risk that any prospective customer should investigate carefully before engaging this company.

This contractor has a deeply mixed record across all dimensions. Professionalism is significantly dragged down by three explicit complaints: a no-show with no callback, a promise of a quote that was never delivered, and a pattern of upselling work without follow-through — offset by several reviews praising responsiveness, same-day service, and going above and beyond. Project completion is similarly split, with one serious allegation that a plumber billed for work not actually performed (valve base not replaced), while other reviews describe timely, thorough completions including emergency situations. Pricing feedback is mixed: some reviewers found them fair and transparent, while one reviewer paid $680 total for a job where the core work may not have been done correctly, and another noted they are not always the cheapest option. Experience scores moderately, with positive mentions of quality workmanship and knowledgeable staff, but undermined by the valve fraud allegation and the upselling complaint. The majority of reviews are from 2012–2014, making the data significantly dated, with only one review from the past three years.

• RECENCY WARNING: 9 of 11 reviews are from 2012–2014, making them 10+ years old. Only 1 review is from the past 3 years (2022). Current performance cannot be reliably inferred from this data.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2014) explicitly states the plumber billed for replacing a valve base but did not perform the work — the old pipe and valve were still in place upon inspection. This is a significant integrity concern.
• PATTERN — NO-SHOW / NO-CALLBACK: Two separate reviews (2022, 2013) independently describe the contractor promising follow-up (estimate visit, quote call) and then going completely silent. This is a recurring pattern, not an isolated incident.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 11 reviews total, spanning nearly a decade. This limits statistical reliability across all dimensions.
• One review (2015, 5-star) contains no usable information: 'Unable to be there. It was my daughter at home.' This review was excluded from scoring as it provides no evaluable data.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — the small review pool, heavily dated data (mostly 2012–2014), and serious allegations of non-performance and no-shows create meaningful uncertainty about the contractor's current reliability and integrity.

This contractor exhibits a stark bifurcation in performance. Five older reviews (2016–2018) consistently praise professionalism, punctuality, fair pricing, and high-quality workmanship across heating, plumbing, and kitchen remodeling projects. However, two recent reviews (2023) describe catastrophic bathroom remodels with severe defects: failed tile work, cracked shower benches, unlevel construction, leaking showers, and poor subcontractor management. The contractor refused accountability and directed customers to deal with subs directly. The 2023 reviews explicitly document incomplete remediation and abandonment of callbacks, directly contradicting the earlier pattern of excellence. This suggests either significant operational decline or a fundamental breakdown in quality control for complex projects.

• CRITICAL: Extreme recency divergence. Five 5-star reviews from 2016–2018 versus two 1-star reviews from 2023 describing identical failure patterns (tile/grout failure, unlevel work, shower leaks). This suggests either a major operational change or loss of quality control.
• SUBCONTRACTOR LIABILITY: Both 2023 reviews cite failed subcontractor work (tile, construction). Contractor deflected responsibility rather than standing behind subs, violating professional accountability.
• CALLBACK ABANDONMENT: 2023 reviews explicitly state contractor refused to address defects and subcontractor no-showed with no follow-up. This is a critical project completion failure.
• FINANCIAL IMPACT: Both 2023 reviews report $10k–$13k losses on incomplete/defective work. Pattern suggests systemic issue, not isolated incident.
• RECENCY BIAS: Older reviews may not reflect current operational standards. Recent performance is substantially worse.

This score should be treated with caution due to extreme temporal divergence in review quality. While professionalism and experience scores are supported by consistent historical data, the recent catastrophic failures in project completion suggest the contractor's current reliability is significantly lower than the overall WW Score indicates. The 2023 reviews are more predictive of current performance than the 2016–2018 reviews.

Thiede Plumbing shows highly polarized performance with a significant gap between positive and negative customer experiences. While some customers praise responsiveness, technical competence, and professionalism (5 five-star reviews), a substantial number report serious issues including poor communication, lack of follow-up on callbacks, unprofessional owner behavior, lack of pricing transparency, and inadequate workmanship. Professionalism scores are dragged down by multiple reports of rudeness, avoidance of customer calls, and defensive attitudes when mistakes are acknowledged. Pricing concerns are consistent across negative reviews, with complaints about hidden charges, lack of transparency, and inflated labor/travel costs. Project completion is compromised by unresolved issues requiring recalls and incomplete diagnostics. The company demonstrates technical capability in some cases but inconsistent quality and accountability.

• POLARIZED REVIEWS: Stark contrast between 5-star and 1-star ratings with little middle ground suggests inconsistent service quality or possible service-dependent outcomes.
• OWNER BEHAVIOR PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2019, 2017) cite owner Dave as unprofessional, defensive, rude, and unwilling to take responsibility for mistakes. One review documents threat to abandon job unless payment made.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: At least 4 reviews explicitly mention non-responsiveness, voicemail avoidance, ignored calls, and delayed callbacks—a recurring systemic issue.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY: Multiple reviews (2019, 2022) report lack of itemized breakdowns, hidden charges, inflated travel/labor costs, and charges for minimal work (e.g., 10-second pop-up fix charged as full service).
• WORKMANSHIP QUALITY: Reviews document improper installations (outdoor faucet inaccessible for repair), faulty AC installation (leaking tray), thermostat wiring errors, and misdiagnosis (claimed main board failure when simple 10-minute repair needed).
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews are from 2016–2019 (older), but 2022–2023 reviews show mixed results. Recent positive review (Feb 2023) is brief and generic; recent negative reviews (Sept–Oct 2022) are detailed and specific.
• INSURANCE COMPANY PATTERN: Multiple reviews mention American Home Shield (AHS) or HSA warranty involvement; company appears more responsive to warranty company pressure than direct customer requests.

This WW Score of 54.8 should be treated with caution due to extreme polarization in reviews and documented patterns of inconsistent service, communication failures, and owner conduct issues; the score reflects a company with significant reliability and accountability concerns despite occasional positive outcomes, and customers should request detailed written estimates and expect potential follow-up challenges.

Professionalism is the most heavily penalized dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly citing poor responsiveness, failure to return calls and texts, and inconsistent communication — including one reviewer who never received a response at all before a job began. Pricing drew mixed signals: two reviewers praised Gordon as reasonably priced and transparent, while one reviewer described an $850 charge for a simple blower cage repair as 'outrageous' and felt blindsided by the cost after the work was done. Project completion scores reflect a split record: two positive reviews describe Gordon going above and beyond to finish jobs under difficult circumstances, while the refrigerant/AC review documents a failure to diagnose properly on the first visit, wasting $685 and requiring a return call. Experience is similarly mixed, with two reviewers praising deep technical knowledge (especially on Baxi systems) while one reviewer was explicitly told by Gordon mid-job that he had never performed that type of repair before. The overall WW Score reflects a contractor with genuine capability in some areas but serious and recurring weaknesses in communication and pricing transparency.

• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary significantly in tone, detail, rating, and date, suggesting authentic submissions.
• RECENCY WARNING: Only 1 of 7 reviews is from the past 12 months (2023). Four of the seven reviews are from 2016–2018, meaning the score may not reflect current performance. The most recent review (2023) is a 1-star citing complete non-responsiveness.
• TREND WARNING: The most recent reviews skew negative (1-star in 2023, 2-star in 2019), while the positive reviews are older (2016–2018). This suggests a possible decline in service quality or responsiveness over time.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly states they were not informed of the cost before work was completed, which is a material transparency failure regardless of the final amount charged.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability — the review count is low (7 reviews), most data is 5–8 years old, and the most recent evidence points toward declining responsiveness, which meaningfully undermines confidence in current performance.

Tango Plumbing receives a critically low WW Score of 42.3, driven primarily by severe professionalism deficits and aggressive pricing practices. While the company demonstrates solid technical workmanship when jobs are completed (65/100 experience score), this is overwhelmed by pervasive communication failures, rudeness, and financial exploitation. Professionalism scores just 38/100 due to consistent non-responsiveness, broken promises, aggressive behavior toward customers, and unprofessional phone conduct. Pricing is catastrophically low at 28/100, with customers reporting markups of 60%, hourly rates of $190–$260, and charges 3–4x market rates for simple jobs. Project completion is marginally better at 52/100, reflecting that work is often completed but frequently incomplete, delayed, or requiring callbacks. The company's reputation has deteriorated significantly over time, with recent reviews (2024, 2023) showing no improvement.

• CRITICAL: Owner Mark Tango exhibits aggressive, threatening, and abusive behavior toward customers on phone calls, including screaming, profanity, sexist language ('hunny,' 'sweetheart'), and threats of liens and home seizure over minor disputes.
• PATTERN: Systematic non-responsiveness to callbacks and follow-ups. Multiple customers report promised callbacks never occurring, quotes promised but never delivered, and appointments scheduled with no-shows or late arrivals.
• PRICING ABUSE: Consistent pattern of extreme overcharging. Examples include $595 for a $15 patch (100+ hour rate), $425 for 40 minutes of work, $325 for simple toilet repair, $550/hour implied labor rates. Customers report 3–4x market rates.
• DECEPTIVE PRACTICES: Refusal to provide itemized bills or transparent hourly rates. Company claims 'job-based pricing only' while charging rates equivalent to $190–$260/hour. One customer reports being charged $100 mandatory 'service club fee' after work was already completed.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: Crew manager with expired plumbing license sent to customer homes. Toilet installed 4 inches from wall instead of against wall. Dishwasher work incomplete; customer referred to appliance repair shop. Relay device destroyed during removal.
• UNAUTHORIZED WORK: Technician re-entered customer home without permission and performed unauthorized work, then charged customer for extended time.
• PAYMENT COERCION: Owner demands payment in cash or check only (no credit cards). Insists on immediate payment at job completion; refuses to send invoices. One customer threatened with nighttime home visit if payment not collected immediately.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2013–2024, showing no improvement over 11-year period. Recent 2024 reviews are as damaging as oldest reviews.
• POSITIVE REVIEW PATTERN: The 5–6 positive reviews (2011–2021) are notably brief, generic, and lack specific detail about work performed. Contrast sharply with detailed negative reviews. One positive review uses phrase 'seriously as good as it will ever get' which reads as hyperbolic. Positive reviews may not be representative of typical customer experience.
• INCONSISTENCY: Owner claims to prioritize contracting work over plumbing, suggesting plumbing customers are deprioritized. Multiple customers report being ghosted after initial contact.

This WW Score of 42.3 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 32 detailed reviews with consistent patterns of abuse, overcharging, and non-responsiveness spanning 11 years. The HIGH overall confidence reflects strong evidence across all four dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism (24 mentions) and pricing (15 mentions) data. The company's behavior is documented, specific, and corroborated across multiple independent customers. This is not a borderline case; the evidence overwhelmingly supports a low score.