Find Nearby Plumbers In Detroit, Michigan

Fort Street Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with consistent praise for knowledgeable staff, punctuality, and courteous service. However, the score is significantly impacted by serious project completion failures: multiple reviews document no-shows, incomplete work, poor follow-up communication, and pricing disputes (including allegations of bait-and-switch tactics and overcharging elderly customers). While recent reviews (2024-2025) are predominantly positive, older reviews (2019-2023) reveal critical service failures that suggest systemic issues with reliability and accountability. The company excels at parts sourcing and customer interaction but struggles with job execution and honoring commitments.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2023) document severe project completion failures including no-shows ('Never showed up', 'Didn't show up!!'), non-responsive follow-up ('never return calls'), and incomplete work with poor remediation.
• PRICING CONCERN: Three separate reviews allege pricing deception—quoted $250 then charged $350 after work; $4,200 job with poor cement work and demand for additional payment; $125 diagnostic fee for misdiagnosis (thermal couple issue, not tank replacement).
• QUALITY CONTROL: One detailed review (2023) describes catastrophic basement drain replacement with two failed attempts, poor cement work, and unresponsive management ('Cara' dismissed complaint as 'word against word').
• PROFESSIONALISM VARIANCE: Stark contrast between recent reviews (professional, punctual, friendly) and older reviews (rude staff, unprofessional conduct, lack of focus on actual work).
• RECENCY BIAS RISK: All 5 negative reviews are from 2019-2023; all recent reviews (2024-2025) are 5-star. This temporal clustering suggests either significant business improvement or potential review manipulation. Recommend caution.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 6 reviews contain only ratings with no text, reducing data quality.
• SAMPLE COMPOSITION: 39 of 51 reviews are 5-star; 7 are 1-star; 5 are empty. The bimodal distribution (no 2-4 star reviews) is atypical and suggests polarized customer experiences rather than normal distribution.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while recent performance appears strong, documented failures in project completion, communication, and pricing integrity from 2019-2023 are severe and unresolved. The absence of recent negative reviews does not confirm improvement—it may reflect review timing or selection bias. Customers should independently verify current service quality and request written contracts with explicit pricing and scope before engaging this company.

Pete the Plumber and associated operators (The Plumbing God, Bill, Mark, and others) earn strong marks for professionalism, with the vast majority of reviewers praising punctuality, friendliness, communication, and respectful conduct in the home. However, pricing is a recurring concern across multiple independent reviews spanning several years, with customers citing high hourly rates, unexpected truck charges, and costs that felt disproportionate to the work performed — this meaningfully drags the pricing score down. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs described as finished correctly and promptly, but there are several credible negative reviews describing incomplete work, return visits needed, and at least two cases where jobs were left unresolved or made worse. Experience scores well overall given the volume of praise for technical knowledge and problem-solving, but is tempered by a handful of serious complaints about faulty installations and misdiagnoses that required correction by other plumbers.

• 25 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• Several reviews from the 2024–2025 period use the nickname 'The Plumbing God' (Bill) while others reference 'Pete the Plumber' as a separate entity or team. It is unclear whether these are the same business or co-listed entities. This may inflate review volume and conflate two distinct service providers.
• One review (2025-05-01, 1-star) appears to be about a parking lot dispute unrelated to plumbing services. It was excluded from dimension scoring but noted as a professionalism flag.
• Pricing complaints are consistent and span multiple years (2014–2024), suggesting a systemic pattern rather than isolated incidents. At least 7 independent reviewers explicitly flagged pricing as high or unfair.
• At least 5 negative reviews describe serious project completion failures: work not completed, leaks returning immediately after repair, a PRV installed incorrectly at 100 psi, a pressure tank left leaking and made worse on return visit, and a drain job that required a second company to redo.
• One negative review (2023-09-05) alleges the contractor became verbally abusive after a complaint. Another (2024-01-18) alleges the contractor threatened to send someone with COVID to the reviewer's home. These are serious conduct flags.
• One review (2023-12-15) alleges the contractor may not hold a valid Michigan plumbing license and stopped communicating when asked for a license number. This is an unverified but serious flag.
• Recency note: A significant portion of detailed reviews are from 2014–2018. While recent reviews (2024–2025) are present, many are text-free ratings. The most detailed and critical reviews span the full date range, suggesting long-standing mixed performance.
• No confirmed fake review pattern detected, though some short generic 5-star reviews (e.g., 'Great work', 'Did great work', 'Great company!') lack specifics. These were scored conservatively or excluded from dimension counts.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (163 total, 138 with usable data) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but consumers should weigh the recurring pricing complaints, multiple credible project completion failures, and serious conduct allegations before hiring.

Burton's Plumbing scores strongly on professionalism and experience, with dozens of reviewers explicitly praising punctuality, friendliness, technical knowledge, and thoroughness across a wide range of plumbing jobs spanning many years. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs described as finished correctly and in a timely manner, though there are notable exceptions including one instance of a no-show without callback, a botched toilet installation requiring multiple visits, and a drain job that failed to resolve the issue and then demanded full payment again for a redo. Pricing is the weakest dimension and the most consistently flagged concern: multiple negative reviews cite unexpectedly high bills, lack of upfront estimates, a trip charge that does not apply toward labor, and prices that reviewers confirmed were above market rate after comparison shopping — this meaningfully drags the overall score down. The large volume of reviews spanning over a decade provides high statistical confidence, though the recency skew toward 2025 reviews is positive and the older negative reviews may reflect past practices.

• 18 reviews contain no text whatsoever (only a star rating) and were excluded from dimension scoring — these blank reviews inflate the visible review count without providing usable data.
• Several reviews use generic praise with no specifics ('Did a good job', 'They were good', 'unknown') — these were treated as low-information and not scored against any dimension.
• PRICING CONCERN: At least 6 distinct reviewers explicitly complained about high or unexpected pricing, lack of upfront estimates, and a trip charge structure that does not apply toward labor. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERN: One reviewer reported a drain job that was not completed correctly, was charged $300, and was then quoted another $300+ to redo the same job. A separate reviewer reported a toilet installed incorrectly with the wrong model brought. A third reviewer reported a no-show with no callback. These are serious completion failures.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of substantive reviews are from 2025 and appear genuinely positive. Negative reviews are concentrated in 2012–2023. It is possible service quality has improved, but the pricing complaints persist into 2023.
• No strong fake review pattern detected — reviews vary in length, specificity, and sentiment, and name individual technicians (Jordan, Justin, Jesse, Jason, Cecil, Collin, James), which adds authenticity.

This WW Score is based on a large, diverse, and multi-year review set with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable — however, the pricing score in particular should be weighted heavily by prospective customers, as the complaints are specific, consistent, and span multiple years.

Northwest Drain Station scores well on professionalism and experience, with a large number of reviewers praising prompt responses, courteous technicians (especially Randy and Johnny), and knowledgeable diagnostics. However, the pricing dimension is a meaningful drag on the overall score — multiple reviewers across different years explicitly complained about high or opaque pricing, surprise charges, and feeling taken advantage of, including one reviewer charged $800 with no resolution and another quoted $548 for a job done elsewhere for $250. Project completion is generally positive but is tempered by several notable failures: at least three reviews describe work that did not solve the problem, one describes a job that backed up again within a week, and one details a major project with poor communication, broken utility lines, and unresolved follow-through on a promised reimbursement. The volume of reviews and the spread across multiple years gives this score reasonable reliability, though the negative reviews carry significant weight due to their specificity.

• 11 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several positive reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Amazing. Honest friendly service. Highly recommend.' and 'Great service and solved our problem.') with no specific details. While not conclusive, a cluster of these raises mild concern about authenticity.
• The review dated 2017 (Yelp dispute review) is unusually long and adversarial in tone, describing a pattern of dishonest behavior by the owner including failed 24-hour service claims and attempts to suppress the review. This is treated as credible given the level of specific detail provided.
• The 2016 review describing a bobcat vs. hand-digging discrepancy, a hit power line, broken sprinkler lines, and unresolved reimbursement is highly specific and credible — it significantly impacts project completion and professionalism scores.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews (approximately 45 of 79) are dated within the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025), which is a positive signal. However, several of the most detailed negative reviews are older (2015–2021), and it is unclear whether the business practices described have changed.
• Pricing complaints span from 2015 through 2024, suggesting this is a persistent pattern rather than an isolated incident. At least 6 reviews explicitly mention pricing concerns including hidden fees, surprise charges, or feeling overcharged.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews (79 total, 68 with usable data) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH overall confidence, though consumers should weigh the recurring pricing complaints and several credible project failure accounts carefully before hiring.

Putman and Sons earns strong marks for professionalism and experience across a large volume of reviews, with many customers praising named technicians like Tony, John, Jay, and Dwayne for being courteous, knowledgeable, punctual, and communicative. However, pricing is a consistent pain point — multiple reviewers across different years explicitly called out high service fees, opaque billing, significant parts markups, and charges for trips that yielded no work. Project completion is the most mixed dimension: the majority of jobs were completed well, but there are credible, detailed negative reviews describing abandoned work, failure to follow up with estimates, a job left in disarray, and a recurring problem that was not resolved on the first visit. The recency of reviews skews positive (2025 reviews are overwhelmingly 5-star), but the negative reviews — while older — are detailed and specific enough to meaningfully drag down completion and pricing scores.

• 12 reviews contained no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• The 2025 reviews are heavily skewed toward 5-star ratings with limited critical feedback, which may reflect genuine improvement or selection bias in who leaves reviews. No fake review pattern was definitively detected, but the volume of brief, generic positive reviews (e.g., 'Great work by Jay', 'Tony did great work on my plumbing') warrants mild caution.
• Pricing dimension is significantly dragged down by multiple credible, detailed negative reviews citing high service call fees ($150–$255 just to diagnose), large parts markups (one reviewer cited 293% markup over retail), and billing disputes. This is a recurring theme across 2015–2025.
• Project completion is negatively impacted by at least 4 credible reviews describing: a job left incomplete with no follow-up (2024), a toilet left disassembled (2020), a misdiagnosed slab leak resulting in unnecessary demolition with added charges to restore the laundry room (2020), and a recurring drain problem not resolved on first visit (2017).
• One review (2021) describes the phone receptionist as rude and unhelpful, contrasting with many reviews praising office staff. This is a minority signal but worth noting.
• One review (2021) alleges a technician caused damage and then charged to fix it — a serious claim that, if accurate, would reflect poorly on both experience and project completion. It is a single review with no corroboration.
• Most negative reviews are from 2017–2021, while 2022–2025 reviews are predominantly positive. This may indicate genuine service improvement over time, but older negative reviews were still weighted as they describe substantive failures.

This WW Score is based on 63 reviews with usable content spanning 2013–2025, with strong data across all four dimensions, making it a reasonably reliable assessment — though the pricing and project completion scores should be taken seriously as they reflect a consistent minority of detailed, credible complaints that cannot be dismissed.

Cregger Plumbing, Heating & Cooling earns strong marks for professionalism and technical experience, with the vast majority of reviewers praising courteous, knowledgeable technicians by name and noting prompt communication and clean workmanship. Project completion is generally solid, with multiple reviewers noting jobs finished on time and callbacks honored at no charge when issues arose — a meaningful positive signal. However, pricing is a persistent and significant concern: numerous independent reviewers across multiple years explicitly describe charges as excessive, with specific examples including $402 for a cartridge replacement, $1,130 for a sump pump, $595 for a garbage disposal, and $490 for a simple pump swap after a $250 quote was given over the phone — dragging the pricing dimension well below average. There are also isolated but credible complaints about upselling, a billing dispute involving a threatened lien, a failed sewer job, and at least one instance of work not completed as contracted, which moderately tempers the project completion score.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: A full block of reviews dated 2025-06-06 through 2025-06-09 appears to be near-exact duplicates of one another, with identical review text, ratings, and technician names repeated across multiple dates within days. This strongly suggests artificial review inflation or a platform ingestion error. These duplicates were identified and deduplicated for scoring purposes, but their presence is a significant integrity concern.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: Several reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Great service. Everything done well..', 'I liked them. They were professional.', 'Great job, would use services again.') with no specifics, all 5-star, which is consistent with padding patterns. Confidence in the overall positive skew is reduced accordingly.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE CONSISTENT AND SPECIFIC: At least 10-12 distinct reviewers across multiple years independently raised pricing concerns with specific dollar amounts, suggesting a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents. One reviewer noted prices have increased 2-3x under new ownership.
• UPSELLING COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviewers (at least 3-4) independently described feeling pressured to purchase more expensive services than needed, including power washing upgrades and unnecessary diagnostics.
• INCOMPLETE WORK / FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURES: At least 3 reviewers described jobs that were not completed or followed up on as promised, including one reviewer who had to hire another contractor to finish work Cregger abandoned.
• BILLING DISPUTE: One reviewer described being billed for work the technician explicitly said could not be performed, followed by a threat to place a lien on the property. This is a serious conduct flag.
• FAILED SEWER JOB: One reviewer described a sewer line that was not connected to the city main as contracted, with an expired permit and no city inspection — a significant workmanship and compliance failure.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of substantive reviews are from 2024-2025 and are within the past 12 months, giving the score reasonable recency validity. However, the duplicate block from June 2025 inflates recent review counts artificially.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of substantive reviews, but should be interpreted with caution given confirmed duplicate review patterns suggesting artificial inflation, consistent independent pricing complaints, and several credible accounts of incomplete work, upselling, and a billing dispute — the true score for an average customer experience is likely in the 68-76 range rather than the upper end.