Find Nearby Plumbers In Flint, Michigan

Two Mike's shows inconsistent performance across a very small sample. Professionalism is mixed: one review praises responsiveness and quick service, but two reviews cite serious communication failures (missed callbacks, unresponsiveness). Pricing is a concern, with one customer finding labor costs excessive ($600 for two faucet installations) and another reporting an inflated quote. Project completion appears adequate when work is undertaken, though the sample is limited. No technical skill or workmanship quality is explicitly discussed in any review. The company's reliability is undermined by the 2018–2019 reviews showing poor callback practices, though the 2023 review suggests possible improvement.

• Only 3 reviews total — sample size is very small and limits statistical reliability
• Reviews span 5 years (2018–2023) with significant time gaps; most reviews are older than 1 year
• Pricing complaints appear in 2 of 3 reviews, suggesting a pattern of customer dissatisfaction with cost
• Professionalism dimension heavily influenced by one negative 2018 review about repeated callback failures; unclear if this reflects current practices
• No reviews mention technical skill, workmanship quality, or problem-solving ability — experience dimension cannot be scored

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size (3 reviews) and age of most data. The score reflects mixed professionalism, pricing concerns, and incomplete information on technical capability. Additional recent reviews are needed to establish reliable confidence in this contractor's current performance.

This is a franchise brand with hundreds of locations, and the review pool reflects wildly inconsistent quality across different operators and technicians. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a large volume of reviews describing rude, condescending, or outright hostile technicians and office staff, though many positive reviews praise specific named technicians as courteous and professional. Pricing is the most damaging dimension: an enormous number of reviews describe a bait-and-switch pattern where a low advertised rate (often $49) is used to gain entry, followed by aggressive upselling to hydro-jetting, camera inspections, and pipe replacement at prices reviewers consistently describe as two to ten times market rate. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are completed satisfactorily and quickly, but a significant minority of reviews describe incomplete work, warranty refusals, no-shows, and jobs that required a second company to actually fix the problem. Experience scores reflect genuine skill from certain technicians but are undermined by repeated accounts of misdiagnosis, fabricated damage, and work that failed within days or weeks.

• STRONG BAIT-AND-SWITCH PATTERN DETECTED: Dozens of independent reviews across multiple years and locations describe an identical pattern — low advertised price ($49 drain special) used to gain entry, followed by claims the snake cannot work and escalating upsells to hydro-jetting ($500-$1200), camera inspection, and full pipe replacement ($3,000-$15,000+). This is a systemic business practice, not isolated incidents.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE SIDE: A notable cluster of short, generic 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'Good experience', 'Great service!', 'You guys great!', blank text with 5 stars) appear throughout the dataset, many dated in close proximity. These lack specificity and are consistent with review padding. Confidence in the positive score pool is reduced accordingly.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact duplicates submitted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., identical text for 'Many other contractors proposed to snake the sewer line', 'Very Pleased with results', 'Did a great job excellent work', 'Prompt, polite, professional', etc.). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate manipulation.
• MULTI-LOCATION FRANCHISE ISSUE: Reviews clearly reference dozens of different geographic locations (Sacramento, Orange County, Reno, Framingham MA, Spartanburg SC, Baton Rouge, etc.) and different named technicians. This is not a single contractor — it is a franchise brand. Scores reflect the aggregate brand, not any single operator. Individual location quality varies enormously.
• SERIOUS FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews allege criminal-level conduct including: charging for work not performed, fabricating damage on camera footage, partnering with restoration companies (Bolmer Restoration named repeatedly) to generate fraudulent insurance claims, opening credit cards in customers' names, placing mechanics liens on homes, and targeting elderly and vulnerable customers. One review references a revoked NV business license and cancelled contractor license.
• WARRANTY REFUSAL PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe the company refusing to honor stated warranties when problems recurred within the warranty period, often citing new reasons to charge again.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURE PATTERN: A significant number of reviews describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and calls were not returned, sometimes leaving customers without water or sewage service for days.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review dataset spans from approximately 2010 to June 2025. Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show a continued mix of strong positives for specific named technicians and serious negatives for pricing and scam-like upselling, suggesting the pattern has not materially changed. More recent reviews were weighted slightly higher in scoring.

This WW Score of 58.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-LOW trust as a hiring signal: while it accurately reflects the deeply polarized nature of this franchise brand, the score is based on a mixed pool that includes suspected fake positive reviews, duplicate submissions, and reviews from dozens of geographically distinct franchise locations — meaning the score does not reliably predict the quality of any single local operator, and the systemic pricing and upselling complaints documented across hundreds of independent reviews represent a material risk that any prospective customer should investigate carefully before engaging this company.

This contractor shows highly inconsistent performance across reviews. While some customers praise quick response times and fair pricing (5-star reviews from 2024 and 2023), two detailed 1-star reviews document serious failures: incomplete work, property damage (basement flooding), unresponsiveness from ownership, and warranty disputes. The most recent negative review (Jan 2024) describes a supervisor with 14 years of experience causing significant damage and failing to complete the job, with the owner ignoring follow-up communications. Project completion and professionalism scores are significantly dragged down by these documented failures, while pricing receives moderate marks due to mixed feedback on value.

• CRITICAL: Two detailed 1-star reviews document severe failures including property damage (basement flooding), incomplete work, and owner non-responsiveness. These are not generic complaints but specific incidents with consequences.
• Potential pattern of inconsistent quality: positive reviews lack detail (generic praise), while negative reviews are highly specific and documented. This suggests real problems masked by selective positive feedback.
• Warranty dispute documented in March 2023 review raises concerns about follow-through and customer service recovery.
• Most recent detailed review (Jan 2024) describes catastrophic failure by a claimed supervisor with 14 years experience, suggesting either false credentials or serious quality control issues.
• Small sample size (5 reviews) limits confidence, but the severity of documented failures cannot be ignored.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size, but the documented failures in recent reviews (property damage, incomplete work, owner non-responsiveness) are serious red flags that outweigh positive generic praise and suggest real operational problems.

The review set is small (4 reviews) and deeply mixed, making any score inherently uncertain. The most recent review (March 2024) is strongly positive, praising P&H for correcting another contractor's failed boiler work using proper copper pipe installation — a clear demonstration of technical competence. However, two negative reviews (2019 and 2020) describe serious concerns: overcharging on a warranty repair, dismissive owner communication, and a plumber who performed minimal work for a high fee. Professionalism scores moderately because two reviews praise friendly and thorough communication while two others describe dismissive or combative interactions. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with two explicit complaints about unfair or excessive charges and only one positive mention of reasonable pricing.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as highly provisional and not representative of consistent performance.
• Two of the four reviews are from 2019–2020, which are more than 4 years old. The most recent review (2024) and one from 2020 are the only data points within a reasonable recency window.
• The 2019 negative review mentions the company only offered a callback after reading a bad review, suggesting responsiveness may be reactive rather than proactive.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details, varied language, and include both positive and negative experiences, which supports authenticity.
• The 2020 warranty complaint describes a $92 charge for a 5-minute, $20-part repair on a 1.5-year-old water heater still under warranty — a significant pricing integrity concern that weighs heavily given the small review pool.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning 5 years and should be considered LOW reliability — do not use this score as a definitive assessment without gathering significantly more recent customer feedback.

Paul receives genuine praise from satisfied customers for being professional, kind, cost-effective, and knowledgeable, with multiple reviewers noting fair pricing and willingness to return for minor issues. However, one detailed and credible 1-star review from December 2023 — the most recent review — describes a serious failure: a repair that leaked again within two weeks, a promised callback that never materialized, and complete unresponsiveness to follow-up calls. This pattern of abandoning a callback is a significant red flag for project completion and professionalism. The positive reviews are somewhat generic in places, though they do include specific details (water heater install, faucet replacements, hose bib) that lend them credibility. With only 4 reviews total, confidence in all scores is limited, and the most recent data point is a serious complaint.

• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews total. Scores and WW Score should be treated as preliminary and low-reliability.
• SERIOUS CALLBACK FAILURE: The most recent review (December 2023) explicitly describes a failed repair, a broken promise to return, and complete non-responsiveness — this is a critical project completion and professionalism concern.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The only review from late 2023 is the negative one. The positive reviews are from earlier in 2023 and may not reflect current service quality.
• MILD GENERIC LANGUAGE: Two of the positive reviews use somewhat generic praise ('very professional, efficient, and cost effective') with limited specifics, though other positive reviews do include job-specific details that reduce fake review suspicion.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: With fewer than 5 reviews, all confidence factors are reduced and the WW Score carries significant uncertainty.

This WW Score is LOW RELIABILITY due to only 4 total reviews, a critical unresolved complaint in the most recent review, and insufficient data volume to confidently assess consistent performance across any dimension.

This contractor's review profile is overwhelmingly negative across all four scored dimensions. Pricing is the weakest area, with dozens of reviews explicitly describing price gouging, bait-and-switch advertising, hidden service charges, and charges far exceeding competitors for identical work. Project completion is severely undermined by a persistent pattern of no-shows, missed appointment windows, failed repairs that required callbacks or replacement by other companies, and unresolved warranty disputes. Professionalism scores marginally higher due to a handful of reviews praising individual technicians as courteous and prompt, but these are heavily outweighed by accounts of rude technicians, unanswered calls, ignored messages, and dispatchers who failed to communicate delays. Experience scores slightly better than the other dimensions, as some technicians demonstrated genuine skill, but multiple reviews describe technicians arriving without proper tools, misdiagnosing problems, and performing work that failed within days — sometimes the same day.

• Five reviews contain no usable text (blank, single punctuation mark, or 'unknown'/'Nothing') and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• Several reviews dated 2006 and 2007 are written in ALL CAPS, which is unusual formatting; content was still evaluated but these are among the oldest reviews in the dataset.
• The majority of reviews (approximately 80%) are older than 12 months relative to the most recent review date of 2022-02-11, and most cluster between 2006–2014, significantly reducing recency reliability.
• No fake review patterns detected; reviews contain specific details, named technicians, dollar amounts, and varied writing styles consistent with genuine customer experiences.
• A recurring pattern of bait-and-switch pricing (advertised specials not honored on arrival) is mentioned across at least 6 independent reviews, suggesting a systemic business practice rather than isolated incidents.
• Multiple reviews independently reference competitors fixing the same problem for a fraction of the price, corroborating the overpricing concerns.
• Warranty and callback failures are mentioned in at least 5 separate reviews, indicating a systemic issue with follow-through on service guarantees.
• One review references an 'F' rating with the BBB at the time of writing, which is an external corroborating signal of systemic issues.

This WW Score is based on 65 reviews with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically reliable in terms of volume; however, the heavy skew toward older reviews (most predating 2015) means current service quality may differ, and the score should be interpreted with that recency caveat in mind.