Find Nearby Plumbers In Grand Rapids, Michigan

K&S Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews, with strong technical competence and punctuality in some jobs offset by serious failures in communication, follow-through, and responsiveness in others. Professionalism is dragged down by documented instances of poor attitude, unresponsiveness to calls, and abandoned work (old water heaters left in basements, lack of follow-up on safety-critical issues). Pricing concerns are raised in at least one review alleging overcharging. Project completion is compromised by multiple reports of incomplete work and failure to honor callbacks. The company demonstrates solid workmanship when engaged, but reliability and accountability are major weaknesses.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are from 2017–2019; only 2 reviews from 2020 or later. Recent performance data is limited.
• POLARIZED RATINGS: Extreme split between 5-star and 1-star reviews with no middle ground suggests either highly variable service quality or inconsistent customer expectations.
• SERIOUS SAFETY ISSUE: One review (2017-07-27) documents failure to follow up on carbon monoxide detection—a critical safety matter. This is a major red flag for reliability.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2017-12-13, 2017-07-27) explicitly cite inability to reach the company, voicemail not returned, and lack of follow-up. This is a recurring theme.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Two separate reviews document failure to remove old equipment as promised, suggesting systemic follow-through problems.
• PRICING DISPUTE: One review alleges overcharging ($725 for 2.5 hours with $18 fittings), though this is a single data point.

This score should be treated with caution. While the WW Score of 68.2 reflects the data present, the extreme polarization of reviews, serious communication failures documented in older reviews, and limited recent data (only 2 reviews from 2020+) suggest the company's current performance is uncertain. The documented safety-related follow-up failure is particularly concerning and warrants independent verification of current practices before engaging this contractor.

Whitney Electric & Plumbing shows significant inconsistency in service delivery. While two recent positive reviews (2023-2024) praise professionalism, technical skill, and courteous behavior, four older reviews (2021-2022) document severe failures in project completion, responsiveness, and follow-through. The company struggles with scheduling reliability, callback responsiveness, and timely job completion—critical issues that directly impact customer trust. Pricing concerns emerge in two reviews citing excessive costs or unexpected charges. The stark contrast between recent and older reviews suggests possible operational changes, but the pattern of abandonment and non-responsiveness is deeply concerning.

• RECENCY BIAS DETECTED: Two positive 5-star reviews from 2023-2024 contrast sharply with four negative 1-star reviews from 2021-2022. Recent reviews may not reflect historical service patterns.
• CRITICAL PATTERN: Multiple reviews (3 of 6) explicitly mention failure to show up, non-responsiveness to calls/voicemails, and rescheduling without follow-through. This is a systemic issue.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Two reviews cite either excessive pricing or unexpected additional charges after initial diagnosis.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: One review documents a plumber diagnosing a problem (caulking needed) but failing to complete the work, then charging extra for the solution.
• AMERICAN HOME SHIELD INVOLVEMENT: Several reviews mention AHS warranty involvement, which may complicate accountability and service quality control.

This score should be treated with caution. While recent reviews are positive, the historical pattern of no-shows, non-responsiveness, and incomplete work is severe and documented across multiple independent accounts. The company's reliability for project completion and follow-through remains questionable despite recent improvements.

This contractor shows moderate strength in project completion, with three reviews explicitly mentioning reliability and follow-through on repairs. However, professionalism is supported by only one mention of easy communication, and pricing raises significant concerns—one detailed 2015 review documents overcharging by 50% compared to a competitor's quote, which substantially impacts the overall score. The dataset is small and heavily weighted toward generic 5-star praise with minimal specifics, limiting confidence in the assessment. No technical experience or workmanship quality is explicitly discussed in any review.

• Four reviews (dated 2023-06-19) use nearly identical generic language ('reliable,' 'easy to talk with,' 'always end up fixing things') with no specific details—potential fake or template reviews.
• Significant pricing concern: One detailed 2015 review documents overcharging by 50% on a commercial job after 10 years of patronage; this is a material red flag despite being older.
• Most reviews lack specificity and detail; majority are vague 5-star ratings without substantive information.
• Review dates span 2012–2023 with a 12-year gap; recency is mixed, with recent reviews being generic and older review containing the only concrete complaint.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited data volume (6 reviews), suspicious clustering of generic praise, and a documented pricing complaint that contradicts the positive ratings; the WW Score reflects moderate reliability at best and may not be representative of current service quality.

Moore Mechanical has a mixed track record across the reviews analyzed. On the positive side, the most recent review (2024) describes a smooth central AC installation with knowledgeable technicians who cleaned up after themselves, and a 2013 review praises fast, professional, and competent service. However, a significant negative incident from 2015 describes a technician arriving late and management then demanding overtime pay from the customer — a serious professionalism and pricing concern that dragged both dimensions down considerably. Pricing was flagged as slightly high in one review, and one reviewer noted they never received a response to an estimate request, indicating responsiveness issues. Three reviews contained no usable text ('unknown'), limiting the overall data quality.

• 3 out of 10 reviews contain only the word 'unknown' with no review text — these are not usable for scoring and may represent placeholder or incomplete submissions.
• The majority of reviews (9 out of 10) are older than 12 months, with 8 being more than 5 years old. Only 1 review is from the past 12 months (April 2024). Score reliability for current business practices is significantly reduced.
• The 2015 incident involving a late technician and a demand for overtime pay from the customer is a serious red flag for both professionalism and pricing transparency. Management's response ('pay overtime or reschedule') suggests a systemic policy issue, not an isolated mistake.
• One reviewer (2012) reported never receiving a response to an estimate request, indicating potential responsiveness issues that may or may not still be present.

This WW Score should be treated with LOW confidence due to the very small number of reviews with usable text, the overwhelming age of the data (most reviews are 5–13 years old), and the presence of three uninformative 'unknown' submissions — the single 2024 review is encouraging but insufficient on its own to establish a reliable current performance picture.

Orchard Hill receives genuinely positive feedback in some reviews — particularly for the 2024 basement bathroom project, which praised professionalism, cleanliness, and clear itemized pricing — but is significantly weighed down by two detailed negative reviews. The 2018 review describes a rude plumber, a vague and inflated quote with no labor/material breakdown, and pricing above local competitors, which materially damages both the pricing and professionalism scores. The 2016 review documents repeated inspection failures, a gas line left in a non-compliant position, and a project that dragged on for months beyond expectations, seriously impacting the project completion and experience scores. The older positive reviews (2013) are brief and lack specifics, limiting their evidentiary value. Overall, the contractor shows capability but has documented instances of poor communication, pricing transparency issues, and incomplete or deficient work.

• One review (Rating: 5.0, Date: 2014-12-18) contains only the word 'unknown' and provides no usable data — excluded from scoring.
• Two of the three oldest positive reviews (2013) are very brief and generic with minimal detail, reducing their evidentiary weight.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months; only one review (2024) falls within the past 12 months. The score may not reflect current performance.
• The 2016 and 2018 negative reviews are detailed and specific, lending them high credibility and significant downward pressure on scores.
• The 2018 negative review explicitly references a plumber stating his rate was '$100/hour' as his 'cheap rate,' suggesting pricing may not be competitive.
• Only 7 total reviews span a 10+ year period, indicating a very thin review base — scores should be treated with caution.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to the small number of reviews (7 over 10+ years), the exclusion of one uninformative review, the age of most data points, and the presence of two highly credible and detailed negative reviews that reveal meaningful concerns about pricing transparency, professionalism, and project execution.

This contractor has a deeply split review profile. Positive reviews — mostly from 2011 to 2023 — consistently praise Steve's technical knowledge, honesty, courteous demeanor, and quality workmanship across a range of plumbing tasks. However, two reviews (one from 2018 and one from 2024) describe a serious and repeated failure to respond to inquiries or return calls, which directly undermines professionalism and project completion scores. The responsiveness failures are not isolated incidents and represent a meaningful pattern that significantly drags down the professionalism and project completion dimensions. Pricing and experience scores are more favorable but are based on a small number of older reviews, limiting their reliability.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The two most recent reviews (2024 and 2018) are both 1-star complaints about non-responsiveness. The positive reviews are predominantly from 2011–2023, with the most glowing ones dating back over 10 years. Recent trend appears negative.
• RESPONSIVENESS PATTERN: Two separate reviewers (2018 and 2024) independently describe being ignored after initial contact — no callbacks, no replies to messages. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not a one-off complaint.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 6 reviews total. The WW Score should be treated with caution as it is based on limited data and cannot reliably represent current service quality.
• OLDER REVIEWS: Four of the six positive reviews are from 2011–2015, which is 9–13 years ago. Business quality and responsiveness may have changed significantly since then.

This WW Score has LOW overall reliability due to the small review sample, the age of most positive reviews, and a clear recent pattern of non-responsiveness that suggests current service quality may differ substantially from historical praise.