Find Nearby Plumbers In Detroit, Michigan

This contractor's reviews paint a deeply mixed picture with serious red flags. The most damaging review describes a plumber who damaged a copper pipe mid-job, promised to return with his boss, and then completely ghosted the customer — never returning, never calling back, and ignoring follow-up calls. Pricing transparency is a notable concern, with one reviewer being charged double the advertised camera fee ($200 vs. $99) and another receiving a quote dramatically higher than a competitor's completed job. On the positive side, two reviewers praised responsiveness, same-day service, and courteous behavior, with one plumber even waiving a service call fee when no work was needed. However, the positive reviews are outweighed by the volume and severity of the negative experiences, particularly around job abandonment and unprofessional conduct.

• ABANDONED JOB: Review from 2021-10-14 explicitly describes a plumber who damaged a pipe mid-job, promised to return, and then never showed up or returned calls — a serious project completion failure.
• PRICING DECEPTION: Advertised camera service fee of $99 was charged at $200 in one review, with the justification that the advertised price was 'old' — no prior notice given to customer.
• UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT: One reviewer reported the plumber made a dismissive and rude comment about a competitor's pricing, calling the other contractor 'on drugs.'
• DISCLAIMER CONCERN: One plumber stated they would not be responsible for collateral damage during a repair in a tight space — flagged by the customer as a concern.
• RECENCY NOTE: Only one review is from within the past 12 months (2021). Three reviews are from 2019, making the dataset somewhat dated. Recent performance may differ.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 5 reviews total. Scores should be treated with caution as a small number of experiences may not represent typical service quality.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in tone, detail, rating, and specificity. No signs of coordinated or fabricated reviews.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning two years, with the most recent being from 2021, making it LOW reliability — the score directionally indicates significant service quality concerns but should not be treated as a definitive assessment without more recent and voluminous data.

The review pool is extremely small (3 reviews) and deeply divided, making any score highly unreliable. Two of the three reviews are strongly negative, citing missed appointments, unanswered calls, and a $200 charge for no work performed — serious red flags for professionalism and project completion. The single positive review praises prompt response, fair pricing, and good workmanship, but it is from 2018 and carries less weight given recency rules. The two negative reviews are more recent (2020 and 2023), suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time. Overall, the negative signals outweigh the single positive data point.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score cannot be considered reliable with this sample size.
• Recency concern: The only positive review is from 2018 (over 5 years old). Both negative reviews are from 2020 and 2023, suggesting recent performance may be worse than historical reputation.
• One review explicitly reports being charged $200 for a visit where no work was performed — a significant consumer protection concern.
• One review reports missed appointments and no follow-up communication — a direct professionalism failure.
• No pattern of fake reviews detected, but the small sample size limits any meaningful pattern analysis.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 5 years and should be treated as highly unreliable — do not use this score to make a hiring decision without seeking additional references or more recent reviews.

This contractor's review set is small (6 reviews) and skewed heavily negative, with 4 of 6 reviews being 1-star. Professionalism is a major concern: one reviewer waited over a month and a half for a callback from the service manager, and another was stood up entirely with no call or explanation after a reschedule. Project completion is similarly troubled, with a snaking job failing within days and the company offering no meaningful remedy, and a no-show appointment with zero follow-up. Pricing drew explicit criticism from two reviewers who described rates exceeding $200/hour as unaffordable, though one long-term customer praised pricing as great. The two positive reviews are vague and lack specific detail, which limits their evidentiary weight.

• Only 6 reviews total — WW Score carries very low statistical reliability.
• The two positive reviews (5-star) are extremely generic with no specific details about work performed, technician names, or job type. This raises a mild concern about authenticity, though it cannot be confirmed.
• Four of six reviews are 1-star, indicating a strong pattern of dissatisfaction rather than isolated incidents.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months relative to a current analysis date; the most recent review is from August 2023 but describes an unresolved issue. Recency weighting is limited.
• No-show and no-callback incidents suggest possible systemic reliability issues at the operational/management level, not just isolated technician problems.

This WW Score is based on only 6 reviews with MODERATE confidence at best across dimensions — it should be treated as a preliminary signal only and not a definitive assessment of this contractor's quality.

This contractor's profile is severely undermined by serious concerns across multiple dimensions. Professionalism is heavily penalized by a report of no return calls and an unverified claim of unlicensed operation, alongside an allegation of price-profiling two female customers. Pricing is the most consistently mentioned dimension and skews strongly negative, with one reviewer describing prices as 'outrageous' for a simple job and another feeling taken advantage of; only one reviewer reported good value. Project completion is mixed — one job was completed satisfactorily, but the lack of responsiveness in another case suggests potential for abandoned or ignored work. No workmanship or technical skill data was available to assess experience.

• Claim of unlicensed operation mentioned in a 1-star review (2024-10-19) — this is a serious flag that warrants independent verification before hiring.
• Allegation of gender-based price profiling in a 2-star review (2024-08-15) — suggests potential predatory pricing practices.
• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as highly preliminary and unreliable.
• No return call reported by at least one customer, raising concerns about responsiveness and professionalism.
• The single positive review (5-star, 2024-08-31) is brief and generic with minimal detail, which limits its evidentiary weight.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews with significant negative signals and should be considered highly unreliable — do not use this score as a primary basis for hiring decisions without gathering substantially more evidence.

This contractor demonstrates severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by repeated no-shows, ignored callbacks, poor communication, and unprofessional conduct (using customer towels, leaving debris, damaging property). Project completion is the weakest area, with multiple reviews documenting abandoned jobs, incomplete repairs, and refusals to return despite promises. Pricing concerns emerge from customers being charged for work that created additional damage requiring expensive corrections. Technical competence is questionable, with evidence of misdiagnosis, improper part installation, and lack of licensing verification. All negative reviews are detailed and specific, describing concrete damages and financial losses.

• CRITICAL: All 6 usable reviews are 1-star ratings with detailed, specific complaints. No positive reviews present.
• Multiple reviews explicitly mention unlicensed work and lack of proper credentials.
• Pattern of abandoned jobs and ignored callbacks across multiple customers.
• Evidence of property damage (tiles, granite, ceiling holes, wall damage) caused by contractor negligence.
• Customers report being overcharged or unable to obtain refunds despite poor work quality.
• Reviews span 2014-2022, indicating long-term pattern of problematic behavior, not isolated incidents.
• Two reviews (dates 2016-05-27 and 2016-04-18) contain minimal text ('unknown' and '.') and are unreliable; excluded from scoring.
• Senior citizens specifically targeted and exploited according to multiple reviews.

This WW Score of 18.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 6 detailed, specific reviews with consistent patterns of failure across all dimensions, spanning 8 years, with no contradicting positive feedback to suggest data anomalies.

Martin E Ramsey Jr receives a critically low WW Score of 18.2 based on overwhelming evidence of severe failures across all dimensions. Four of five reviews document serious unprofessionalism including non-responsiveness, incomplete work, false excuses, and failure to honor financial obligations. Multiple reviews explicitly state projects were abandoned mid-completion with ceilings, baseboards, doors, and walls left unfinished. Pricing concerns are severe, with customers reporting advance payments not refunded and additional charges requested mid-project. One isolated 5-star review from 2019 lacks specificity and appears inconsistent with the pattern of detailed complaints from 2021-2024, suggesting it may not reflect current business practices.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW: The single 5-star review (2019-03-28) uses generic praise ('very professional and courteous', 'outstanding work', 'recommended to family and friends') with zero specific details, in stark contrast to the detailed, specific complaints in other reviews. This review is also 5+ years old and predates the documented pattern of failures.
• PATTERN OF LEGAL ACTION: Multiple reviews reference court orders and legal disputes, indicating systemic business practice failures.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2021-2024 (recent), while the sole positive review is from 2019 (5+ years old), suggesting deterioration or that the positive review does not reflect current operations.
• FINANCIAL MISCONDUCT: Multiple reviews document unpaid balances, unreturned advance payments, and failure to honor refund obligations despite court orders.

This WW Score is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. The score is based on five reviews with consistent, detailed, and specific evidence of serious failures across all dimensions, supported by legal action documentation and corroborating accounts from multiple customers over a 3-year period.