Find Nearby Plumbers In Dearborn, Michigan

This review set spans multiple companies operating under similar names (All Pro Plumbing NW, AA Plumbing, A&A Plumbing) across different regions and time periods, which significantly complicates scoring reliability. Professionalism scores well on average due to a large volume of positive mentions of courteous, punctual, and communicative technicians, but is meaningfully dragged down by a notable cluster of serious complaints including a technician arriving smelling of alcohol, aggressive behavior toward customers, no-shows, and failure to return calls after incomplete work. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly citing overcharging, hidden fees, non-refundable deposits not disclosed upfront, and quotes dramatically above market rate, though a comparable number praised fair and reasonable pricing. Project completion is moderately strong, with many reviews confirming jobs were finished same-day or within promised timeframes, but offset by credible accounts of abandoned work, warranty failures within a year, sloppy workmanship requiring correction, and a mechanics lien dispute. Experience scores similarly mixed, with many reviewers praising skilled diagnostics and quality craftsmanship, while others documented incorrect diagnoses, reversed pipe connections, uninsulated lines that later froze, and work left worse than found.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to span at least three distinct business entities (All Pro Plumbing NW LLC, AA Plumbing in Ohio/Texas, and A&A Plumbing in California). These are likely different companies whose reviews have been aggregated together. Scores should be interpreted with extreme caution as they do not reflect a single contractor.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: The cluster of reviews all dated 2023-06-10 and 2024-06-09 with no review text (blank entries rated 5 stars) and several extremely generic one-line 5-star reviews with no specifics (e.g., 'Excellent work!', 'Very Responsive', 'Cincinnati's best roofing contractor') are highly suspicious. One review explicitly references Cincinnati roofing, which is unrelated to plumbing and suggests review padding or cross-contamination.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2009 to 2025. A significant portion of reviews predate 2022 and reflect potentially different ownership, staff, and operational standards. Recent reviews (2024-2025) are weighted more heavily but still show mixed signals.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENTS: Multiple credible 1-star reviews describe technicians arriving smelling of alcohol (two separate reviewers), a technician abandoning a job mid-visit and never returning, a $900 non-refundable deposit not disclosed upfront, warranty work failing within one year with no coverage offered, a mechanics lien placed on a customer's home, and a whole-house replumb leaving extensive damage and mess.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED FROM SCORING: Approximately 15 reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Pricing sentiment is sharply polarized. Roughly half of pricing-mentioning reviews praise affordability and fairness while the other half describe significant overcharging, undisclosed fees, and quotes far above market rate. This suggests inconsistent pricing practices across technicians or entities.

This WW Score carries LOW-TO-MODERATE reliability due to the strong likelihood that reviews from multiple distinct business entities have been aggregated together, the presence of suspected fake or padded reviews, a wide date range spanning 16 years, and sharply polarized sentiment across all four dimensions that suggests inconsistent service quality rather than a coherent contractor profile.

This contractor has a large and deeply mixed review record spanning many years and what appears to be multiple operating entities or franchise locations (Plumbing Express, Total Tech, GMR Plumbing) reviewed together. The majority of positive reviews praise specific technicians — Rod, Dave, Daniel, Antonio, Austin, and others — for punctuality, communication, and quality workmanship on jobs ranging from repiping to water heater installation. However, a significant and consistent pattern of serious negative reviews exists, particularly from customers dispatched via home warranty companies, who report technicians refusing to do work, misrepresenting findings to warranty companies, rude office staff, property damage left unaddressed, and warranty non-compliance. Pricing complaints are notable and recurring, with multiple reviewers citing charges far above competitors and a $39–$69 service call fee that is not credited toward work. Project completion failures — including no-shows, abandoned jobs, and unresolved callbacks — appear in enough reviews to meaningfully suppress the completion score. The overall picture is a company with genuinely skilled and professional individual technicians whose performance is undermined by inconsistent office management, pricing transparency issues, and a troubling pattern of behavior specifically in home warranty contexts.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Several reviews appear verbatim or near-verbatim across multiple dates (e.g., 'Excellent work and expertise' on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-06; 'My experience was excellent. No complaints.' on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-06; the full sewer line review on both 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-06; the Richard Dalton/Matthew review duplicated across platforms). These duplicates inflate the positive review count and reduce confidence in the authenticity of the review pool.
• MULTIPLE BUSINESS ENTITIES: Reviews reference at least three distinct business names — Plumbing Express, Total Tech (Arizona), and GMR Plumbing — suggesting this profile aggregates reviews for related but potentially distinct operations. Scores may not reflect a single consistent business.
• HOME WARRANTY PATTERN: A statistically significant cluster of 1-star reviews specifically involves customers dispatched via home warranty companies (Fidelity National, Old Republic, First American). Complaints include technicians misrepresenting findings to deny claims, refusing to perform work, and collecting service fees without completing jobs. This pattern is too consistent to be coincidental and represents a systemic risk.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 25–30 reviews contain no text, only a star rating (mostly 5-star). These provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring but may artificially inflate the average star rating.
• WARRANTY NON-COMPLIANCE: One review (Oct 2024) describes a $9,000+ job where the company allegedly left an 80-year-old part in the wall, causing flooding, and then refused to honor a purchased 3-year warranty. Another review describes a failed permit inspection that was never scheduled. These are serious flags for project completion integrity.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe property damage caused by technicians (chipped porcelain, drywall dust throughout home, damaged floors) with the company denying responsibility. One reviewer pursued small claims court.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review set spans from 2004 to 2025. Reviews from 2013 and earlier are given minimal weight. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show predominantly positive reviews, but the home warranty and pricing complaints persist into 2024–2025.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple independent reviewers across different years and locations describe pricing as significantly above market rate, with one reviewer documenting a $700 quote for a job completed by a competitor for $98. The service call fee policy ($39–$69, non-refundable) is a recurring complaint.

This WW Score of 72.1 should be treated with moderate-to-low trust: while the HIGH confidence label reflects the large volume of reviews, the score is significantly complicated by duplicate reviews, multi-entity aggregation, a persistent and credible pattern of home warranty misconduct, and pricing transparency issues that collectively suggest the true customer experience is more variable than the score alone conveys — customers hiring directly for straightforward jobs are likely to have good experiences, while those using home warranty dispatch or undertaking large projects face meaningfully higher risk.

This aggregated review set spans multiple businesses operating under similar names (A Plus Plumbing, AAA Paradise Plumbing, A2Z Atomic Plumbing, and others), which significantly complicates scoring reliability. The majority of reviews are strongly positive, praising prompt response times, courteous technicians, and solid workmanship across hundreds of jobs. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — roughly 15-18% of substantive reviews — describe serious failures including incomplete repairs, no-shows, billing disputes, hidden charges, rude owner behavior, and work that caused additional damage. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers citing rates they considered excessive or non-transparent, and several describing being charged without prior quotes. Project completion is also dragged down by recurring complaints about jobs left unfinished, callbacks not honored, and technicians failing to return as promised.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to span several distinct businesses (A Plus Plumbing in multiple states, AAA Paradise Plumbing, A2Z Atomic Plumbing, Mr. Plumber). Scores reflect an aggregate and may not represent any single contractor accurately.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A large cluster of reviews share the date 2024-06-09 and 2023-06-10 with generic, non-specific praise and no job details. This pattern is consistent with review padding. Confidence in the positive score direction is reduced accordingly.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — NOTABLE: One review (2024-06-09) is an elaborate original poem praising the company with no factual service details. This is atypical and may indicate a solicited or fabricated review.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2009 to 2025. A substantial portion of reviews predate 2022 and were given reduced weighting. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) contain both strong positives and several serious negatives.
• REPEATED NEGATIVE PATTERNS: Multiple independent reviewers across different time periods describe the same failure modes — no-shows, unreturned calls, incomplete work, and billing disputes — suggesting these are systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.
• OWNER CONDUCT: At least three separate reviews explicitly describe the owner (referenced as Sal or Steve in different reviews) as rude, threatening, or dishonest. This is a significant professionalism flag.
• BILLING TRANSPARENCY: Multiple reviewers report being charged without prior quotes, receiving unexpected fees, or discovering overcharges. This materially suppresses the pricing score.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Several reviews describe technicians leaving jobs unfinished, failing to return with parts, or not honoring verbal commitments to complete work at no extra charge.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be treated with caution as a contractor-level assessment because the reviews likely represent multiple distinct business entities, contain suspected padded or fake reviews, and show systemic negative patterns that the high volume of generic positive reviews may be obscuring.

Prime Plumbing receives strong and consistent praise for professionalism, with the vast majority of reviewers highlighting friendly, courteous, punctual, and communicative technicians across a large and diverse review base spanning many years. Technical experience and workmanship are similarly well-regarded, with numerous reviewers citing knowledgeable technicians who diagnosed and resolved complex issues effectively. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs described as finished correctly and on time, though a meaningful minority of negative reviews describe abandoned work, unresolved callbacks, misdiagnoses requiring repeat visits, and jobs left incomplete — including at least one case of water damage caused by faulty repair. Pricing is the most significant drag on the score: a substantial and recurring pattern of complaints describes charges perceived as grossly excessive, hidden fees, dispatch charges not rolled into jobs, credit card surcharges, and instances of what reviewers characterize as predatory pricing targeting elderly or uninformed customers — this dimension alone pulls the overall score down considerably.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review 'Thank you Brandon for the great service!' (5-star) appears verbatim on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04. The review 'My plumber Bobby C was friendly and highly skillful...' appears verbatim on 2025-06-06 and 2025-06-03. These are likely fake or bot-submitted duplicate reviews and have been flagged; confidence in the 5-star cluster from early June 2025 is reduced.
• SUSPICIOUS GENERIC REVIEWS: A significant number of reviews consist of a single sentence or less with no specific detail (e.g., 'Great job', 'He did a great job', 'Awesome service'). Several blank-text reviews with 5-star ratings are present and provide no usable data.
• ONE REVIEW REFERENCES A DIFFERENT COMPANY NAME: One review explicitly praises 'Modern Septic Plumbing in Ocala' rather than Prime Plumbing, suggesting it may have been posted to the wrong business profile or is fabricated.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE NUMEROUS AND SPECIFIC: At least 20+ reviews across multiple years describe overcharging, including $554 to snake a drain, $847.60 to unclog two toilets, $3,000 for a 40-gallon water heater, $600+ for simple snaking jobs, and $475 for an outdoor spigot. Multiple reviewers explicitly state the company targets elderly customers.
• FOLLOW-THROUGH AND CALLBACK FAILURES: Multiple independent reviews describe the company failing to return calls for weeks or months, not honoring quotes, not completing jobs after initial visits, and in one case abandoning an emergency repair mid-job. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2012 to 2025. The scoring gives appropriate weight to the large volume of recent reviews (2024-2025), which are more representative of current operations. Older reviews (pre-2020) reference specific technicians and owners (e.g., Dana) who may no longer be with the company, suggesting possible ownership or operational changes over time.
• UNRESOLVED DAMAGE CLAIM: At least one reviewer (January 2024) describes a botched toilet repair that caused water damage to ceilings and walls, with the company admitting human error but then failing to follow up or provide resolution — a serious project completion and liability concern.

This WW Score is based on a very large review set (290 reviews) spanning over a decade, giving HIGH statistical confidence in the dimensional scores; however, the presence of confirmed duplicate reviews, numerous generic or blank reviews, and a strong recurring pattern of pricing complaints and follow-through failures means the score should be treated as a realistic mid-range assessment — Prime Plumbing delivers competent and professional service in many cases but carries meaningful and well-documented risk around pricing transparency and job completion reliability.

Fast Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally professional service delivery, with many customers praising speed, responsiveness, and workmanship quality. However, the company is significantly undermined by persistent pricing concerns—including undisclosed diagnostic fees, inflated quotes, and lack of transparency about costs upfront. Project completion is solid overall, though several customers report incomplete diagnostics or follow-up issues. The wide variance in customer experiences suggests inconsistency in service quality and pricing practices, with some technicians delivering excellent work while others appear to oversell or misdiagnose problems.

• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CRISIS: Multiple customers (at least 12+ reviews) report being charged undisclosed diagnostic fees ($125–$500), quoted inflated prices ($675–$16,500 for routine work), or charged significantly more than quoted. This is the single largest complaint pattern.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The exact same review about a $675 quote for cartridge replacement appears verbatim in three separate entries (dates: 2024-06-09, 2024-03-12, 2024-03-12). This suggests either review manipulation or a customer posting the same complaint multiple times.
• DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY ISSUES: Multiple customers report incorrect leak detection, misdiagnosis of problems, or failed hydrostatic tests that missed obvious leaks. At least 5 reviews cite faulty diagnostics leading to unnecessary damage or wasted money.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Stark contrast between 5-star reviews praising specific technicians (Eric, Sparky, Steven, Jose) and 1-star reviews from customers who received poor service. This suggests highly variable technician competence or inconsistent management oversight.
• AGGRESSIVE COLLECTION PRACTICES: Several reviews describe threatening behavior, liens threatened against property, and aggressive follow-up for unpaid invoices—including one instance where a customer's bank rejected a fraudulent-appearing charge and the company responded with legal threats.
• OWNER CONDUCT CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (2016–2018) describe the owner (Lee Strickland) engaging in threatening behavior, showing up at customers' homes, and harassing customers who left negative reviews. One review explicitly mentions threats of a SLAPP lawsuit.
• EMPTY/MINIMAL REVIEWS: 11 reviews contain no text or only ratings (dates: 2025-05-10, 2024-06-09, 2022-06-10 x5, 2022-06-10 x3, 2017-04-27, 2015-06-23, 2014-09-10, 2014-01-29, 2014-01-14). These provide no usable data but inflate review count.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most detailed negative reviews are from 2019–2022. Recent reviews (2024–2025) are predominantly positive, which may reflect improved practices or selection bias (dissatisfied customers may not return to review).
• SLAB LEAK SCAM ALLEGATIONS: Two customers describe being quoted $8,000–$10,000 for slab leak repairs, then charged $1,315+ without being told the leak location, only to have another plumber fix it for $3,500. This pattern suggests deliberate overcharging on complex diagnostics.

This WW Score of 71.2 should be treated with CAUTION. While the company demonstrates genuine technical competence and speed (supported by 50+ positive reviews), the pervasive and consistent pricing complaints, diagnostic failures, and documented aggressive collection practices represent serious red flags that significantly undermine trust. The score reflects a company with strong execution capability but poor business ethics and transparency—customers should expect excellent workmanship but must negotiate pricing carefully and verify all quotes in writing before work begins.

Faithful Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for responsiveness, punctuality, and courteous behavior across 9 reviews. Pricing is competitive and fair according to 5 mentions. However, project completion shows significant concern: while most jobs are completed, one critical 1-star review from October 2024 documents a gas leak safety issue requiring two callbacks and equipment damage, substantially lowering this dimension's score. Experience is solid with 5 mentions of technical competence, though the gas leak incident raises questions about quality control. The company's overall score is pulled down by the recent serious safety failure despite otherwise strong performance.

• CRITICAL SAFETY ISSUE: October 2024 review documents gas leak from incorrect part installation on dryer hookup, requiring two callbacks. Owner allegedly knew the part was wrong but installed it anyway. This is a serious safety and liability concern.
• EQUIPMENT DAMAGE: Same October 2024 review reports a large dent placed on new dryer during installation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: One review from 2016 marked 'unknown' (1-star, no detail) and one from 2015 are too old to be reliable. Most usable data is from 2024 (13 of 15 reviews).
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple 5-star reviews from early 2024 (Jan-May) use similar generic praise language ('awesome', 'professional', 'highly recommend') with minimal specific detail. However, the detailed July 2024 review and the detailed negative October 2024 review provide credibility that these are not all fabricated.
• INCONSISTENCY: Strong positive reviews contrast sharply with the serious safety failure documented in the most recent review, suggesting either inconsistent quality or a significant operational failure.

This score should be treated with caution due to the recent critical safety incident (gas leak) that contradicts the otherwise positive trend, and the concentration of generic 5-star reviews in early 2024 that lack specificity; the October 2024 safety failure is particularly concerning and warrants independent verification before engaging this contractor.