Find Nearby Plumbers In Dearborn, Michigan

Schaefer Plumbing shows highly polarized performance with significant quality and reliability concerns. While positive reviews praise quick response times, reasonable pricing, and technical skill, multiple detailed negative reviews document serious failures in project completion (incomplete work, no-shows, abandoned callbacks) and professionalism (poor communication, unresponsiveness). The 2018 reviews reveal critical issues including unlicensed work, failure to complete repairs, and lack of follow-through that caused customer hardship. Recent positive reviews (2019-2024) suggest possible improvement, but the pattern of incomplete work and communication failures is too severe to ignore. The licensing concern raised in one review is particularly serious.

• CRITICAL: One review (2021-11-02) explicitly states Edwin Schaefer is not a licensed plumber and describes a failed sewer repair that recurred 4 days later, resulting in legal action. This is a major red flag for legitimacy and competence.
• PATTERN OF ABANDONMENT: Two detailed 1-star reviews (2018-08-17, 2018-03-10) document no-shows, failure to complete work, non-responsiveness to callbacks, and incomplete repairs requiring other plumbers to fix. These are not isolated complaints but describe systematic failures.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews are from 2019-2024, while serious negative reviews are from 2017-2021. Recent reviews may not reflect current operational issues, or company may have changed. However, the severity of documented failures (unlicensed work, incomplete repairs, customer harm) cannot be dismissed.
• GENERIC PRAISE: Some positive reviews use very generic language ('spectacular,' 'solid work') with minimal specific detail, though others provide concrete examples of quick response and problem-solving.
• CONFIDENCE REDUCED: Overall confidence is MODERATE rather than HIGH due to small sample size (11 reviews), extreme polarization (5 five-stars, 3 one-stars), and serious documented failures that outweigh positive sentiment.

This score should be treated with caution. While recent reviews are positive, documented evidence of unlicensed work, incomplete repairs, and systematic non-responsiveness in 2018-2021 raises serious concerns about reliability and competence. The extreme polarization suggests inconsistent service quality or operational changes. Verify current licensing status and request references before engaging.

CSI Sewer Inspections shows significant inconsistency in service delivery. While pricing is competitive and technical expertise is generally solid, the company struggles severely with project completion and follow-through on commitments. Multiple recent reviews (2024) document no-shows, failure to follow up on promised callbacks, and incomplete diagnostic communication. Older positive reviews (2019-2022) praise professionalism and quality work, but recent negative patterns suggest deterioration in operational reliability. The company's ability to manage timelines and honor commitments is the primary weakness driving the overall score down.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 2+ years old (2019-2022). Most recent reviews (2024, 2018) are negative, suggesting service quality decline over time.
• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple recent reviews cite failure to follow up on promised callbacks and communication breakdowns (reviews from 2024-05-30 and 2024-06-25).
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: Three separate reviews document incomplete work, delays, or abandonment (2024-06-25, 2024-05-30, 2018-01-09).
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between glowing older reviews and recent critical reviews suggests either service degradation or inconsistent quality across team members.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While based on 7 reviews with usable data, the dramatic recency shift from positive (older) to negative (recent) reviews indicates the company may be experiencing operational challenges. Recent 2024 reviews are more reliable indicators of current performance than older testimonials, and they reveal serious concerns about follow-through and communication that warrant careful consideration before engaging this contractor.

Professionalism scores moderately because while a large number of reviews praise individual technicians as friendly, courteous, punctual, and communicative, a significant and recurring minority describe rude office staff, dispatchers who hung up on customers, failure to notify customers of schedule changes, and at least one technician described as appearing impaired. Pricing is the most heavily penalized dimension: dozens of explicit complaints describe charges of $400–$1,800+ for jobs lasting under an hour, non-transparent fee structures, undisclosed dispatch fees, and quotes that ballooned after work began — with multiple reviewers stating they were charged more than quoted or charged for work that did not fix the problem. Project completion suffers from a meaningful pattern of abandoned or incomplete jobs, repeat visits for the same unresolved issue, parts never ordered, jobs left mid-way, and in several cases customers having to hire a second company to finish what Best Plumbing started. Experience scores in the moderate range because many individual technicians are praised for skill and problem-solving, but a notable subset of negative reviews describe misdiagnosis, wrong parts, broken equipment left behind, and work that made problems worse — suggesting uneven technical quality across the workforce.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two pairs of reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates (the long 'sewer backup on a Sunday' review appears twice on different dates; the 'Fast and prof Service' review appears twice; the 'Professional, Helpful, Communicative' Morgan Hoover review appears twice; the 'Best Plumbing Company is simply the BEST' Trent and Sheldon review appears twice). These duplicates were counted only once per unique text for scoring purposes but inflate the raw review count.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: A large cluster of reviews dated exactly 2024-06-06 with no review text (rating only, all 5-star) is highly suspicious and suggests possible review padding. These blank reviews were excluded from dimension scoring as they contain no usable data.
• PLATFORM DISCREPANCY NOTED: One reviewer explicitly states the company has a 1.5/5 rating on Consumer Checkbook and a 3.0 on Yelp versus a much higher Google rating, and questions whether positive Google reviews are authentic. This is consistent with the observed pattern of generic, brief 5-star reviews alongside detailed negative reviews.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive text span from 2006 to June 2025. Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) include both strong positives and several serious negatives including pricing complaints, incomplete work, and threatening collection behavior, suggesting the issues are ongoing and not historical.
• OWNER CONDUCT FLAG: One reviewer alleges the owner called months after a negative review to offer $100 to remove it, which if accurate represents a serious ethical concern about review integrity.
• BILLING PRACTICE FLAG: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe the same pattern — undisclosed dispatch/diagnostic fees, no upfront estimates, charges presented only after work is done, and refusal to itemize invoices. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: At least 8 distinct reviews describe jobs that were not completed, required multiple return visits for the same issue, or required a second company to finish — a significant project completion risk for prospective customers.
• THREATENING COLLECTIONS FLAG: At least two reviewers describe being threatened with police action or property liens when disputing bills, including in one case for work that did not fix the problem. This is a serious customer service and ethical flag.

This WW Score of 58.3 is based on a very large review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but prospective customers should weight it cautiously given strong evidence of systematic pricing opacity, a suspicious cluster of blank 5-star reviews that may artificially inflate the overall star average on other platforms, and a recurring pattern of incomplete work and aggressive billing practices documented across multiple years and geographies.

Edwards Plumbing & Heating shows a deeply polarized customer base with significant quality and reliability issues. While technicians often demonstrate competence and professionalism (68.5/100), the company is severely hampered by egregious pricing practices (38.2/100) and chronic project completion failures (54.8/100). Customers consistently report being overcharged by 2-4x market rates, billed for incomplete work, and experiencing repeated no-shows and scheduling failures. The company's experience level is solid (71.3/100), but this is undermined by poor follow-through, lack of accountability, and management unresponsiveness. The overall WW Score of 52.3 reflects a company that cannot be reliably trusted despite occasional competent technicians.

• CRITICAL: Extreme pricing complaints dominate negative reviews—customers report charges of $3,000+ for water heaters retailing at $800-1,300, $500+ for simple toilet repairs, and systematic overcharging across all service categories.
• CRITICAL: Chronic project completion failures—numerous reviews document incomplete work, multiple no-shows, rescheduling delays spanning weeks or months, and abandoned jobs requiring customers to hire competitors.
• CRITICAL: Management accountability failure—repeated complaints of unanswered calls, broken promises to call back, supervisors refusing to engage, and owner unresponsiveness despite escalation attempts.
• HIGH: Deceptive billing practices—customers report being charged without prior estimates, hidden fees appearing on final bills, refusal to provide itemized invoices, and charges for work never performed.
• HIGH: Scheduling system dysfunction—consistent pattern of 3-4 hour appointment windows with late arrivals, no-call no-shows, and technicians arriving unprepared without necessary tools or parts.
• HIGH: Quality control issues—multiple reports of incorrect diagnoses leading to unnecessary expensive repairs, work that failed immediately after completion, and damage caused during service (broken windows, damaged pipes, flooded basements).
• MODERATE: Potential fake review pattern—cluster of 5-star reviews from June 2025 with generic praise and minimal detail, though balanced by substantial volume of detailed negative reviews across multiple years.
• MODERATE: Financing fraud allegations—customers report being charged 20% interest on zero-interest financing agreements and difficulty obtaining refunds on cancelled deposits.

This WW Score of 52.3 is highly reliable given the large sample size (500 reviews, 487 usable) and consistent patterns across all dimensions, but the score masks a company with severe structural problems in pricing transparency, project management, and customer accountability that make it unsuitable for most customers despite occasional competent technicians.

Quint Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all dimensions. Professionalism is heavily dragged down by multiple reviews citing unresponsiveness, failure to follow up on quotes, poor communication from staff, and dismissive customer service — though a handful of reviews do praise quick response times and polite technicians. Project completion is a significant concern: several reviews describe incomplete work, damage caused during jobs, unleveled installations, broken fixtures left unfixed, and a pattern of follow-through failures spanning multiple interactions. On the experience side, the company shows genuine capability in some cases (notably solving a difficult tree root problem others could not), but other reviews describe plumbers who visibly struggled with basic tasks and caused physical damage to customer property. Pricing received the most positive feedback, with one detailed review praising transparent quotes, no hidden fees, and billing that matched the estimate exactly, though this is based on limited mentions. The overall score reflects a contractor with inconsistent quality and serious reliability concerns that outweigh its occasional strengths.

• Several reviews are older than 3 years (2015–2020), with only 2 reviews from the past 12 months (2022–2023). Recency weighting reduces confidence in positive older reviews.
• No suspected fake reviews detected — reviews vary significantly in tone, detail, rating, and specificity, suggesting authentic authorship.
• A recurring pattern of property damage (ceramic floor, gouged sink, door damage) across multiple independent reviews is a serious quality and liability flag.
• A recurring pattern of non-responsiveness and failure to follow up on quotes or job status appears in at least 3 separate reviews spanning multiple years, suggesting a systemic operational issue rather than isolated incidents.
• Technician quality appears highly inconsistent — described as 'hit or miss' by one reviewer and supported by the broader review set, indicating lack of standardized workmanship.

This WW Score is based on 10 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions and carries MODERATE-to-HIGH confidence in its directional accuracy, though the mix of older and recent reviews and the small total sample size mean the score should be treated as a cautionary signal rather than a definitive rating.

H-Core Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews, with stark contrasts between positive and negative experiences. Professionalism scores moderately well (72.5) based on four mentions praising individual technicians' courtesy and communication, but this is severely undermined by critical failures in project completion (35.0) and pricing transparency (25.0). Two reviews explicitly document unfinished work and non-responsiveness to callbacks, while another alleges deceptive practices regarding warranty claims. The company demonstrates technical capability in some instances but appears unreliable in follow-through and accountability. The oldest reviews (2013, 2016, 2017) suggest longstanding operational issues.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2017, 2016) document failure to complete work and non-responsiveness to customer callbacks and warranty company communications—this is a serious red flag for reliability.
• SERIOUS CONCERN: One detailed 1-star review (2017) alleges potential fraud—misrepresenting work completion and pressuring warranty claims for $3,000 in unnecessary repairs. Customer obtained independent verification that work was done correctly, contradicting H-Core's assessment.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Most negative reviews are 6-8+ years old (2013-2017), with only one recent positive review (2018). Cannot assess current operational standards reliably.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark polarization between 5-star and 1-star reviews with no middle ground suggests either highly variable service quality or potential selection bias in review sources.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (5 reviews), significant age of most data (2013-2017), and serious unresolved allegations of deceptive practices and non-responsiveness that directly contradict positive individual technician reviews; the score reflects historical performance and may not represent current operations.