Find Nearby Plumbers In Dearborn, Michigan

The reviews for this contractor paint an overwhelmingly negative picture across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is the most heavily evidenced dimension and is catastrophically poor — reviews describe rude, aggressive, and dishonest behavior from both a technician and the owner himself, as well as a dangerous driving incident. Project completion is also severely undermined by accounts of work never being finished, a wrong-sized unit being installed, and a worker walking off a job mid-call. Experience scores are dragged down by a detailed account of a costly, technically incorrect HVAC installation that caused long-term equipment damage. The single positive review (same-day service, friendly tech) is an outlier from 2021 and lacks enough detail to meaningfully offset the pattern of serious complaints.

• 4 out of 5 reviews are 1-star; the single 5-star review is vague and lacks specific detail, which may indicate it is not representative of typical service quality.
• One review (2017) describes a technically incorrect HVAC installation that caused repeated equipment failure — this is a significant workmanship red flag.
• One review describes the owner personally backing up unprofessional behavior and refusing to hear a customer complaint, suggesting a systemic culture issue rather than an isolated incident.
• One review (2024) describes dangerous driving behavior by a company vehicle — while not a direct service review, it reflects on company culture and professionalism.
• Review dates span from 2016 to 2024, indicating persistent issues over many years rather than a short-term problem. The most recent negative review is from July 2024.
• One review explicitly accuses the contractor of insurance fraud (lying about an issue to collect from insurance), which is a serious legal and ethical flag.
• Only 5 total reviews available — sample size is very small and limits statistical reliability of the WW Score.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning 8 years, which severely limits statistical reliability; however, the consistency and specificity of the negative feedback across multiple dimensions and multiple years lends credibility to the low score, and prospective customers should treat these findings as a serious warning.

All three reviews are strongly negative and paint a consistent picture of serious operational failures. Professionalism is critically low across the board, with documented no-shows, broken appointments, no callbacks, and rude or dismissive behavior reported in every review. Pricing is flagged as deceptive, with one reviewer explicitly describing prices doubling after initial quotes and another being charged an additional $125 mid-job for work already agreed upon in writing. Project completion is severely compromised, with technicians arriving hours late, ill-prepared, and in one case refusing to complete the agreed scope of work without additional payment. The limited experience score reflects one reviewer's account of a technician who appeared unwilling and unprepared to perform the technical work required, though direct commentary on skill level is sparse.

• All three reviews are 1–2 star ratings with no positive reviews present in this dataset — this may reflect a selection bias in the reviews provided, or a genuinely poor service record.
• Review from 2020 and 2021 are older than 3 years; only one review (2024) falls within the past 12 months. The 2024 review is the most relevant for current business practices.
• The 2024 review explicitly alleges deliberate deception — inflating the severity of problems to justify higher charges — which is a serious consumer protection concern.
• The 2020 review documents a contractor refusing to honor a written agreement without additional payment mid-job, which constitutes a significant breach of contract and ethical conduct.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews are detailed, specific, and varied in language and incident, suggesting authentic customer experiences.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all negative, which limits statistical reliability but provides consistent and detailed evidence of poor performance across all four dimensions; the score should be treated as a serious warning signal rather than a definitive long-term average.

With only 3 reviews analyzed, the dataset is too small to calculate a reliable WW Score. Professionalism is evidenced by punctuality and organization (2 mentions). Project completion is consistently mentioned across all 3 reviews with successful job outcomes. Pricing is noted as reasonable in 2 reviews. Experience is demonstrated through troubleshooting and technical problem-solving in 2 reviews. However, the limited sample size and absence of any negative feedback raises concerns about representativeness.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 3 reviews provided. WW Score calculation requires minimum 3 reviews, but confidence in any derived score is severely limited.
• POTENTIAL SELECTION BIAS: All 3 reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback. This may indicate only satisfied customers reviewed, or reviews may be curated.
• RECENCY CONCERN: One review is from 2020 (4+ years old), one from 2022 (2+ years old), and only one from 2023. Most data is older than 12 months.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Reviews lack specific technical details about problems solved or materials used, which is typical of either very satisfied customers or potentially curated feedback.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=3) and potential selection bias from all positive ratings; any scoring would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

With only 2 reviews, reliable scoring is not possible. Review 1 (Dec 2020) initially praised technical skill but then issued a critical update (Jan 2021) reporting unresponsive callbacks after water backed up again—a severe project completion failure. Review 2 (Oct 2019) is highly positive but notably older (4+ years) and contains a suspicious disclaimer about voicemail issues that may explain the first reviewer's callback problems. The stark contradiction between reviews and the recency gap create significant uncertainty about current service quality.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed—insufficient for reliable WW Score calculation
• RECENCY ISSUE: Review 2 is from October 2019 (4+ years old); Review 1 is from December 2020 (3+ years old). No recent reviews available.
• CONTRADICTION: Review 1 shows initial satisfaction but then reports severe callback failure and unresponsiveness. Review 2 pre-emptively excuses voicemail issues, which may be directly related to the callback problem documented in Review 1.
• SUSPICIOUS PATTERN: Review 2's mention of 'phone carrier issues' and lost voicemails appears to rationalize the exact problem described in Review 1's update, suggesting possible awareness of systemic communication failures.
• INCOMPLETE RESOLUTION: Review 1 explicitly states 'I do not recommend employing Langdeau Plumbing' after callback failures—this is a major red flag for project completion and professionalism.

This score should NOT be trusted for decision-making. With only 2 reviews spanning 4 years and a critical contradiction regarding callback responsiveness, there is insufficient and conflicting data to assess current service quality reliably.

Both reviews speak positively about Dave's professionalism, describing him as courteous, friendly, on time, and professional. Pricing is mentioned favorably in both reviews, with one calling the quote 'extremely reasonable' and the other noting the price 'seemed good.' Project completion is supported by references to jobs being finished well, cleanup performed, and customer satisfaction confirmed before leaving. Workmanship quality is implied through positive outcomes but not described in technical detail, keeping experience scores conservative. All scores are treated cautiously given only two reviews are available.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are dated 2019–2020, making them over 4 years old. Recency is a concern as they do not reflect current performance.
• Both reviews are 5-star with generally positive but non-specific language. While not conclusively fake, the small sample size and lack of granular detail limit confidence significantly.
• No negative feedback or constructive criticism present across any dimension — this may reflect genuine satisfaction but could also reflect selection bias in a very small sample.

This score should be treated as highly unreliable due to the critically small sample size of only 2 reviews, both of which are over 4 years old and lack the volume needed to draw meaningful conclusions about this contractor's current performance.

Only two reviews are available, both dated March 2006 — nearly two decades old — which severely limits the reliability of any scoring. Professionalism received a modest positive signal from one reviewer noting the contractor arrived when promised, and both reviewers expressed general satisfaction with repeat use. Project completion is supported by references to pipe repair with cleanup and a furnace inspection that was seen through, though details are sparse. Experience is inferred from the fact that both customers returned for multiple jobs, suggesting acceptable workmanship, but no technical specifics are provided to justify a high score.

• Only 2 reviews provided — minimum threshold of 3 reviews not met; WW Score cannot be calculated reliably.
• Both reviews are dated 2006-03-23, making them approximately 19 years old. These reviews carry very low recency weight and may not reflect current business quality.
• Both reviews are written entirely in uppercase, which is an unusual formatting pattern. While not conclusive, this may suggest data entry artifacts or non-organic review submission.
• Reviews are generic in nature with limited specific detail, reducing confidence in all dimension scores.
• Pricing dimension has no data whatsoever — no cost, value, or quote information was mentioned in either review.

This score report should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of current contractor quality due to only 2 reviews being available, both of which are nearly 19 years old and lack sufficient detail across key dimensions.