Find Nearby Plumbers In Detroit, Michigan

Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is significantly dragged down by two detailed, credible 1-star reviews describing no-shows, failure to communicate, and complete lack of follow-through — patterns that appear to repeat across multiple customers. Positive reviews do praise punctuality and politeness, but the negative incidents are specific and serious enough to prevent a high score. Project completion is similarly mixed: positive reviews describe jobs finished thoroughly and well, but the two no-show incidents represent a complete failure to even begin work, which must be factored in. Experience scores moderately well based on a handful of reviews describing competent electrical and plumbing work, though most of those reviews are from 2018–2020. Pricing has only one mention and must be treated with very low confidence.

• Two of the five positive reviews are very brief and generic ('Great company to work with', 'Nick is amazing') with minimal specifics — these carry lower evidentiary weight.
• The reviewer in the 1-star review from 2022 explicitly notes that Nick had done the same no-show behavior to another reviewer previously, suggesting a recurring pattern rather than an isolated incident.
• Most positive reviews are from 2018–2020, meaning they are 4–7 years old. The two most recent reviews (2021 and 2022) are both 1-star complaints. Recency weighting significantly undermines the positive signal.
• The note in the 2022 review suggesting possible bias against female customers cannot be verified but is noted as a potential concern raised by a reviewer.
• With only 7 total reviews, the sample size is very small and the WW Score should be treated with caution.

This WW Score has LOW reliability due to a very small review sample (7 total), a clear recency trend toward negative experiences, and the fact that the two most recent and most detailed reviews both describe serious professionalism failures.

Attles PHC presents a deeply mixed picture across all dimensions. On the positive side, three reviews praise reasonable pricing and two highlight strong technical expertise — particularly with niche systems like steam boilers and Unico cooling. However, these positives are severely undermined by serious negative incidents: one review describes workers causing physical damage to a home, failing to complete the job, and alleged theft by workers, followed by the owner blocking the customer. A second negative review describes the phone being hung up on twice, directly damaging professionalism scores. A third negative review concerns reckless driving by a company vehicle. The weight of these serious complaints — especially the incomplete work, property damage, and alleged theft — pulls the project completion and professionalism scores down substantially.

• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2021-01-16) alleges workers caused physical damage to walls and floors, failed to resolve the plumbing issue over three visits, and that two gold bracelets went missing after the visit. The reviewer states the owner blocked their number afterward. This is a severe flag for trustworthiness and worker vetting.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: The same 2021 review explicitly states the job was not completed and a second company had to be called to fix the problem — a direct negative signal for project completion.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: A 2018 review reports being hung up on twice when calling for service, indicating a potential pattern of poor phone communication.
• DRIVING COMPLAINT: A 2022 review criticizes a company vehicle driver for dangerous and inconsiderate driving. While not a direct service complaint, it reflects on company culture and professionalism.
• RECENCY NOTE: Only one review is from the past 12 months (2024-08-30). The majority of reviews are from 2018–2022, meaning current service quality is difficult to assess with confidence.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: With only 7 total reviews spanning 6 years, the dataset is too small to draw highly reliable conclusions. Scores should be treated with caution.

This WW Score carries LOW reliability due to the small review volume (7 reviews over 6 years), the presence of at least one serious misconduct allegation that could not be verified, and the fact that only one review is recent — meaning the score may not reflect the contractor's current service quality in either direction.

This contractor has a deeply mixed and concerning review profile. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension and is heavily dragged down by multiple accounts of no-shows, failure to call, unprofessional confrontations with tenants, and dismissive attitudes — particularly toward women. Pricing shows some positive signals, with one reviewer praising transparent, competitive pricing and no hidden fees, but this is offset by one reviewer who was never even provided a formal quote after 10 days of follow-up. Project completion is a significant concern: at least two reviews describe jobs that were left incomplete or unresolved, including a clogged toilet that was never fixed and a drain snaking job that was abandoned mid-visit. Experience scores are mixed, with some reviewers praising fast, capable technicians while others explicitly questioned the competence of the plumbers sent to their home.

• Three of the four positive reviews are from 2018 or earlier, and the most recent positive review is from April 2021 — the overall review set spans 2016 to 2021 with no reviews in the past 12 months relative to a 2024/2025 evaluation date, significantly reducing recency reliability.
• The positive reviews are relatively brief and generic in praise (e.g., 'great responsible and experienced techs'), while the negative reviews contain highly specific, detailed accounts — this asymmetry may suggest the positive reviews carry less evidentiary weight.
• One reviewer explicitly states the company appeared to prefer cash-only transactions and never delivered a formal quote, which is a potential red flag for business transparency and legitimacy.
• One reviewer describes an owner making a scene to a tenant about personal wealth and refusing to complete a job — this is a serious professionalism incident that goes beyond a typical service complaint.
• A gender-based discrimination complaint is present (Review dated 2016-12-08), which is a significant flag regarding equitable service practices.

With only 7 reviews spanning a 5-year period and no data from the past 12+ months, this WW Score should be treated as a limited historical snapshot — the pattern of negative experiences is credible and specific, but the small sample size prevents a fully reliable assessment of current service quality.

Pauley's Plumbing receives overwhelmingly negative reviews across all four scored dimensions, with the most damaging patterns centered on no-shows, price gouging, and dishonest upselling. Professionalism is severely undermined by at least six documented no-call/no-show incidents, rude behavior, and failure to return calls or messages. Pricing is the single most cited complaint, with multiple reviewers describing quotes that ballooned to two, four, or even ten times the original amount, and at least two reviews alleging deliberate targeting of elderly or vulnerable customers. Project completion is mixed — a small number of positive reviews describe jobs finished on time and within estimate, but several negative reviews describe work that failed to solve the problem, incomplete invoiced repairs, or damage caused during service that the company refused to fix without additional large charges. Experience scores marginally higher due to a handful of detailed positive reviews praising specific technicians by name, but these are outweighed by accounts of misdiagnosis, ineffective repairs, and a $14,000 job that failed to identify a backed-up city sewer line.

• PRICE GOUGING PATTERN: At least 8 reviews independently describe being charged significantly more than the quoted price — ranging from $250 over quote to more than quadruple the quoted amount. This is a consistent and serious pattern, not isolated incidents.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 6 reviews describe scheduled appointments where no plumber arrived and no proactive communication was made. This is a systemic reliability failure.
• PREDATORY PRICING CONCERN: Two reviews explicitly allege that elderly customers were targeted and charged 3–10x fair market rates for work that was either unnecessary or incomplete. One reviewer mentions considering legal action and media involvement.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of negative reviews span 2016–2024, indicating these problems are not historical anomalies but persistent issues. The most recent reviews (2024) still contain serious complaints about pricing and misdiagnosis.
• POSITIVE REVIEW CREDIBILITY: The positive reviews are outnumbered roughly 3:1 by negative reviews. Some positive reviews are generic in nature (e.g., 'great value,' 'friendly service') with limited specifics, while others are detailed and name specific technicians. The positive reviews do not appear fabricated but carry limited weight against the volume and specificity of negative accounts.
• RECENCY WEIGHTING: Reviews older than 12 months (pre-June 2023) were given reduced weight. However, the pattern of complaints is consistent across all time periods, including the most recent 12-month window, so recency adjustment does not materially change the score.

This WW Score is based on 20 reviews spanning 2015–2024 with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, yielding HIGH confidence — the score of approximately 34 should be treated as a reliable signal of serious and persistent service quality problems at this company.

The review pool is very small (4 reviews) and spans multiple years, limiting reliability significantly. One strongly positive review (2024) praises promptness, professionalism, and value, but three other reviews raise serious concerns. The 2022 review describes clock-padding by a senior technician, billing disputes, and unprofessional social media conduct by staff. The 2021 review details a deeply problematic project involving alleged misrepresentation during quoting, poor workmanship (thin cement, improperly installed grease trap), and a failure to deliver on explicit promises. The 2020 review alleges a dishonest diagnosis on a vulnerable elderly customer, a $320 charge for no resolution, and an attempt to upsell a $3,200 installation that was not needed. Across three of four reviews, recurring themes of dishonesty, poor follow-through, and unprofessional conduct significantly drag all dimension scores down.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score has very low statistical reliability and should be treated with caution.
• Three of four reviews (75%) describe serious negative experiences including alleged dishonesty, billing disputes, and substandard workmanship.
• Two reviews specifically mention vulnerable individuals (a special-needs adult, a 94-year-old woman) being potentially taken advantage of — this is a significant ethical red flag.
• The sole positive review (2024) is generic in some respects and lacks specific job detail, though it does reference a named technician and a specific context, reducing but not eliminating fake-review concern.
• Review dates span 2020–2024, meaning three of four reviews are more than 12 months old. The most recent review is the only positive one, which may reflect improvement or may be an outlier.
• Staff engaging in public arguments with customers on Facebook (noted in 2022 review) is a documented professionalism concern.
• Alleged misdiagnosis and upselling on a vulnerable elderly customer (2020 review) corroborated by a city inspector — this is a serious credibility and ethics flag.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning four years and should be considered LOW reliability — the score directionally reflects serious recurring concerns but cannot be statistically trusted without a much larger review sample.

This contractor's review set is deeply polarized, with 4 of 8 reviews being 1-star accounts describing serious misconduct including use of Flex Tape on plumbing repairs, work not completed to code, failure to return money, and misrepresentation of licensing status. Project completion is the most damning dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly describing abandoned jobs, no-shows after scheduling callbacks, and repairs that failed within days. The positive reviews (4 of 8, all from late 2023 to early 2024) do describe responsiveness, fair pricing, and satisfactory work, but they are insufficient to offset the severity and specificity of the negative accounts. Professionalism scores are dragged down heavily by documented ghosting, dishonesty about credentials, and disappearing after collecting payment. The licensing concern raised in the April 2024 review — that his apprentice license has expired while he advertises as licensed, insured, and bonded — is a serious red flag that affects all dimensions.

• LICENSING FRAUD RISK: One reviewer explicitly states the contractor's apprentice license has expired, yet he continues to advertise as licensed, insured, and bonded. This is a significant legal and safety concern.
• PAYMENT FRAUD PATTERN: At least one reviewer reports paying $800 for work that was never performed, with the contractor refusing to issue a refund. Another reviewer reports wasting over $2,000 on a failed repair using Flex Tape.
• REPEATED NO-SHOW / GHOSTING PATTERN: Multiple reviews (May 2024, April 2024) describe the contractor scheduling follow-up visits and never appearing, then becoming unresponsive. This is a consistent behavioral pattern, not an isolated incident.
• SUBSTANDARD WORKMANSHIP: Use of Flex Tape (a consumer TV product) on a plumbing repair is a serious workmanship failure and potentially a code violation. Work described as 'not to code' in a separate review.
• RECENCY CONCERN: All four negative reviews are from April–September 2024, which are the most recent reviews in the dataset. The positive reviews are from late 2023 to early 2024. The trend is clearly deteriorating over time.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW CONCERN (MINOR): The four positive reviews are somewhat generic in praise and lack the specificity of the negative reviews. However, they do include some unique details (snow visit, Sunday oven installation, garbage disposal shopping) so this flag is low-confidence. Noted but not heavily weighted.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 8 reviews total. Scores should be treated with caution despite HIGH confidence labels on mention counts, as the absolute number of data points is limited.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability due to the small sample size of 8 reviews, but the pattern of serious misconduct documented in the four most recent negative reviews is specific, credible, and consistent enough to justify a low score — prospective customers should treat this contractor as high-risk until a substantially larger body of recent positive reviews emerges.