Find Nearby Plumbers In Flint, Michigan

This contractor has a deeply polarized review profile. Two serious negative reviews allege a pattern of deliberately misdiagnosing furnace systems — one involving a false carbon monoxide reading and another involving a technician disassembling a furnace and abandoning the job — both resulting in high-pressure estimates for full furnace replacement. These are severe project completion and ethics failures that significantly drag down all dimensions. The three positive reviews praise professionalism, friendliness, and affordability, but are brief, lack specific detail, and two of the three are from 2021 or earlier. The negative reviews are more detailed and credible, and the recurring pattern of alleged upselling scams across two independent reviews is a serious red flag that cannot be dismissed.

• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT PATTERN: Two independent reviews (2018 and 2023) describe nearly identical alleged scam behavior — technician diagnoses a false or unverifiable problem, then leaves the customer with a large estimate for full furnace replacement. This recurring pattern significantly undermines trust in this contractor.
• ABANDONED WORK: One review explicitly states the technician disassembled the furnace and left without completing the repair, leaving a home with an infant without heat. This is a critical project completion failure.
• POSSIBLE FAKE OR THIN POSITIVE REVIEWS: The three 5-star reviews are brief, generic, and lack specific job details. Phrases like 'very professional, friendly, clean and affordable' and 'great company that works around the clock' are vague and could indicate low-authenticity reviews. Confidence in positive scores is reduced accordingly.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent review (October 2023) is the most detailed negative review. The positive reviews are from 2021 and 2018, making them less relevant to current performance.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 5 reviews total. Scores should be treated with caution due to small sample size.

This WW Score has LIMITED overall reliability due to the very small review sample (5 reviews), a stark positive/negative split, credible allegations of deliberate misconduct appearing in multiple reviews, and thin positive reviews that lack verifiable detail.

Steve's Plumbing demonstrates severe and consistent issues across pricing, professionalism, and project completion. Four of six reviews (67%) are 1-star ratings citing dramatic price discrepancies between quotes and final bills, lack of transparency, refusal to itemize charges, and failure to honor warranty work. Two positive 5-star reviews provide minimal detail and are dated 2015 and 2022, making them less reliable indicators of current service. The company exhibits patterns of charging significantly above quoted amounts, refusing to provide estimates for additional work, and dismissing customer concerns. While technical skill is mentioned positively in isolated cases, systemic failures in pricing honesty and follow-through severely undermine overall trustworthiness.

• CRITICAL: Pricing fraud pattern — multiple independent reviews document quote-to-bill increases of 50-200% ($125/hr quoted but $735 charged; $200-275 quoted but $350 charged plus $125 service fee demanded). Company refuses itemization.
• CRITICAL: Warranty/callback issues — customers charged service fees to fix incomplete or failed work from previous jobs, with company denying responsibility.
• No-show incident — 2015 review documents failure to appear for scheduled quote with no communication.
• Two positive reviews are dated 2015 and 2022 with generic praise and minimal specifics; insufficient detail to verify authenticity against pattern of negative reviews.
• Four of six reviews are 1-star with detailed, specific complaints; three reviews from 2022-2023 show ongoing issues, not historical.
• Customer communication failures — office personnel argue with customers about pricing; lack of transparency in electronic communications noted.

This WW Score of 32.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong warning indicator. The score is based on consistent, detailed, and specific complaints across multiple recent reviews (2022-2023) documenting systematic overcharging, lack of transparency, and failure to honor work quality. The two positive reviews lack sufficient detail and are older, making them insufficient to offset the pattern of documented harm.

Burton HVAC's reviews paint a deeply inconsistent picture dominated by two serious negative experiences. Professionalism is heavily penalized by two detailed accounts of repeated no-shows, broken promises, failure to communicate proactively, and in one case the owner hanging up on a customer — offset only slightly by one positive review praising responsiveness and friendliness. Project completion is similarly damaged: one job resulted in a building code violation (live wires capped and dropped in a wall) and a newly broken electrical outlet, while another customer was stood up entirely over multiple days. The one positive review describes a quick, satisfactory AC repair at a reasonable price, which provides the only meaningful positive signal across pricing and experience. The two negative reviews are detailed, specific, and credible, and they substantially outweigh the single positive account.

• The single 5-star review is brief and generic compared to the two highly detailed negative reviews. While not conclusively fake, it should be weighted cautiously given the stark contrast in specificity.
• The 2-star reviewer explicitly noted that Burton HVAC had zero Yelp reviews but five 5-star Google reviews, raising a concern about potentially curated or solicited positive reviews on other platforms.
• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated as highly provisional. Scores may shift dramatically with additional reviews.
• A confirmed building code violation (live electrical wires capped and dropped inside a wall without proper termination) was reported in one review, representing a serious workmanship and safety concern.
• The most recent review (January 2024) is the most severe negative account, suggesting issues may not be improving over time.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be considered highly unreliable — treat it as an early warning signal rather than a definitive assessment, as a few additional reviews could dramatically alter the score in either direction.

The reviews for this contractor are overwhelmingly negative, with two 1-star reviews describing serious failures in professionalism, workmanship, and follow-through. The most detailed negative review describes unreplaced pipes, incorrectly configured pipes that froze, a post-work ceiling leak, an unprofessional response when contacted for repairs, and retaliatory behavior toward the customer and their new plumber. The sole positive review is from 2012 and describes basic reliability and friendliness, but provides no detail on workmanship quality. The negative reviews substantially outweigh the positive, and the pattern of behavior described raises serious concerns about this contractor's reliability and character.

• All three reviews are older than 10 years (2012–2014); no recent data is available and current performance cannot be assessed.
• The single positive review (5-star, 2012) is vague and generic with no specific job details, while the two negative reviews contain specific, credible accounts of failures — this asymmetry reduces confidence in the positive review.
• Retaliatory behavior reported: contractor allegedly contacted a new plumber to falsely claim the customer did not pay bills, which is a serious professionalism red flag.
• Workmanship failures described include improperly configured pipes that froze and drainage pipes left unreplaced — indicating potential safety and quality concerns.
• With only 3 reviews and all data older than 10 years, this score should be treated as highly unreliable for assessing current contractor quality.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all more than 10 years old, with two containing serious and specific complaints — the score should be treated as very low confidence and not used as a reliable indicator of current contractor performance.

The only substantive review describes a contractor who failed to show up twice after confirmed appointments, never responded to follow-up communication, and left the customer waiting six days with no resolution — a severe failure of both professionalism and project completion. The two remaining 5-star reviews are identical in text, posted on the same date, and contain no specific details whatsoever, rendering them unreliable for scoring purposes. Pricing and experience dimensions could not be scored due to a complete absence of relevant data. Given the small review pool, the duplicate suspicious reviews, and the one detailed review being strongly negative, the WW Score is very low and should be treated with significant caution.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews share identical text ('They were the best company that I have ever work with.'), identical ratings (5.0), and identical timestamps (2019-07-06). These are highly likely to be fake or artificially inflated reviews and have been excluded from dimension scoring.
• EXTREMELY SMALL REVIEW POOL: Only 1 review contained usable, specific data. The WW Score cannot be considered reliable with this sample size.
• RECENCY WARNING: All reviews are from 2019–2020, meaning no data exists from the past several years. Current performance is entirely unknown.
• NO DATA on pricing or experience dimensions — two of the four scoring dimensions could not be evaluated at all.
• The sole credible review describes a no-show contractor with zero follow-through and no communication, which is a serious red flag for prospective customers.

This WW Score is based on only one credible review and should be considered highly unreliable — prospective customers are strongly advised to seek additional independent references before hiring this contractor.

All three reviews are severely negative with ratings of 1.0 stars. Professionalism failures are consistently cited: poor communication, lack of callbacks, condescending treatment, and unresponsiveness. Project completion is critically deficient—work was either abandoned or completed so poorly the customer had to redo it themselves. One review explicitly mentions overpricing ($2,000 more than competitors). Technical competence is questioned in multiple reviews. The sample size is extremely small (n=3), limiting statistical reliability, but the uniformity of severe criticism across all dimensions is striking.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 reviews analyzed — insufficient for reliable WW Score calculation per STEP 4 rules
• All three reviews are 1-star ratings with no positive reviews to balance assessment
• Second review uses heavy sarcasm throughout, which may exaggerate frustration but does document real failures (property damage, poor communication, unprofessional behavior)
• Oldest review is from 2015 (9+ years old) — recency is poor; only one review from past 12 months
• No fake review patterns detected; reviews appear authentic with specific, detailed complaints
• This contractor appears to have serious operational and interpersonal issues based on available evidence

This assessment cannot be considered reliable due to insufficient review volume (n=3 minimum threshold not met for WW Score calculation). However, the uniformly severe negative feedback across all three reviews suggests genuine and serious performance problems. Any decision should seek additional recent reviews or direct references before engagement.