Find Nearby Plumbers In Lansing, Michigan

American Rooter has a strong base of positive reviews praising professionalism, friendliness, and technical competence, particularly around Marvin and a few named technicians. However, the pricing dimension is meaningfully dragged down by multiple credible negative reviews citing significant overcharging — including one detailed account of a $780 toilet install, a $1,300 charge for a 20-minute putty job, and a $14,000 upsell attempt for a simple drain clog — which cannot be ignored. Project completion scores are solid overall but are tempered by a few notable failures: one customer was cancelled on the day before their appointment and rescheduled 10 days out, another had a technician return three times for a cracked toilet bowl, and one reviewer reported a problem was never resolved. Professionalism scores well on average but is pulled down by a 1-star review citing unresponsiveness and a manager who never visited the property, plus a separate complaint about Marvin failing to return calls twice. The experience dimension is the strongest, with many reviewers specifically praising technical knowledge and problem-solving ability across a wide range of jobs.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 20 reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates submitted on the same date with the same text and rating. These were identified and counted only once per unique review to avoid score inflation. Affected pairs include: 'Good communication, timely work' (2022-12-22), 'Very professional' (2022-08-15), the sewer line replacement review (2022-06-05), 'Very efficient and professional' (2022-05-03), 'Very professional, personable, and competitive in pricing' (2021-10-13), 'Top notch business' (2021-06-03), 'Very polite, business-like demeanor' (2019-07-24), 'Very friendly. Always kept us on top of their schedule' (2019-06-18), 'do it when its warmer weather' (2018-02-28), 'what a great company' (2018-02-01), 'They are very thorough' (2017-11-20), 'I had a 5 year faucet' (2017-11-17), 'Excellent work. They communicated' (2017-11-15), 'This company was fantastic' (2017-08-14), 'Brad and team are awesome' (2016-06-16), 'The technician, Alex, was knowledgeable' (2018-07-10), 'The only negative aspect was the cost' (2018-05-08), 'Very friendly, respectful of your home' (2015-06-19), and the detailed Pros/Cons review (2018-11-29). This pattern of duplicate submissions is a significant data quality concern and may indicate platform aggregation artifacts or review manipulation.
• PRICING CONCERNS — SERIOUS: Multiple independent negative reviews cite significant overcharging. One reviewer documented a $1,300 charge for a 20-minute job that competitors quoted at $300. Another detailed $780 for a toilet install and $230 for a camera scope that competitors charge $125 for. A third reviewer was pitched $14,000 in concrete work for a slow drain. These are specific, credible, and consistent enough to materially lower the pricing score.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews reference multiple different named technicians (Marvin, Brad, Will, Dan, Alex, Lewis, Shawn, Carlos, Joe, Mike, Garrett, Keith, Bradyn, Jarred, Dylan, John) and appear to span multiple geographic markets (San Francisco CA, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Oregon). This may represent a review aggregation across multiple franchise locations or similarly named companies rather than a single contractor. Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may not reflect any single operator's performance.
• RECENCY NOTE: A significant portion of reviews predate 2022 and many are from 2013–2018. While recent reviews (2024–2025) are generally positive for Marvin specifically, the negative pricing and completion reviews from 2018–2023 are still weighted in the score. The most recent 1-star reviews (2024) cite unprofessional management behavior and upselling tactics, suggesting these issues may be ongoing.
• FOUR 'UNKNOWN' REVIEWS: Several reviews contain only the text 'unknown' with a 5-star rating and no usable content. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no evidence for any category.
• UPSELLING PATTERN: Multiple reviewers across different time periods mention aggressive upselling of monthly service plans, unnecessary concrete excavation, and high-cost replacements. This is a recurring pattern that negatively impacts both the pricing and professionalism scores.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy, but should be interpreted cautiously due to confirmed duplicate reviews, a likely multi-location or multi-entity aggregation issue, and a meaningful cluster of credible negative reviews on pricing and project completion that prevent a higher score.

C&K Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, repeat customers who consistently praise responsiveness, friendliness, and fair pricing across many years of reviews. However, several serious negative reviews meaningfully drag down all dimensions: a 1-star review describes a pin-hole leak one year after a $7k copper pipe replacement with no warranty support; another details incorrect plumbing installation requiring wall removal and untested work; and a detailed 1-star review alleges installation of a 17-year-old used sump pump in a new home, unresolved ceiling drywall damage for 3+ years, and non-functional $2,000 shower jets. A pricing dispute review (2-star) raises concerns about quote accuracy versus actual labor performed. These failures in project completion, workmanship quality, and post-job accountability prevent the score from reaching the high 80s despite the volume of positive feedback.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two reviews are near-identical word-for-word — one dated 2022-06-10 and one dated 2022-01-25 (the angry toilet/flash assist review), and two near-identical reviews about the 2017 new home build nightmare (both dated 2020-10-04). Additionally, the positive 'Claude and Nanci dynamic duo' review appears twice (2021-06-10 and 2021-01-08). These duplicates were counted only once each for scoring purposes.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 6 reviews contained no text at all (only a rating). These were excluded from dimensional scoring as they provide no usable evidence per Rule 1.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most serious negative reviews (sump pump/new home build, copper pipe leak with no warranty support, incorrect shower installation) span 2020–2023. The majority of positive reviews are from 2021 and earlier, with a cluster of strong positives in 2024–2025. The recent positive trend is encouraging but does not fully offset documented serious failures.
• ONE REVIEW (2016) is based on witnessing a roadside good deed, not actual plumbing service. This was excluded from all dimensional scoring.
• ONE REVIEW references 'Cliff at C&K Plumbing' in the Greater Seattle Area — this may be a different company entirely and was excluded from scoring as potentially misattributed.
• PATTERN NOTE: The volume of 5-star reviews with very specific detail (names of staff, specific jobs, specific prices) reduces fake review concern for most positives. However, the two sets of near-identical duplicate reviews are a credibility concern.

This WW Score is based on a substantial review set spanning over a decade and carries HIGH overall confidence, but should be interpreted with caution given documented serious project failures including unresolved post-installation defects, a disputed warranty refusal, and alleged use of substandard materials — issues that are not fully offset by the high volume of positive reviews.

Service Professor demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with technicians consistently praised for friendliness, knowledge, and work quality. However, the company is significantly undermined by widespread pricing concerns—numerous reviews document quotes 2-4x higher than competitors, aggressive upselling tactics, and hidden charges. Project completion is solid but marred by scheduling issues, missed appointments, and occasional follow-up problems. The stark contrast between positive field-level service and negative business practices (pricing, sales pressure, warranty disputes) creates a company that delivers good work but at premium costs that many customers view as exploitative.

• PRICING PATTERN: 67 reviews explicitly mention pricing concerns. Recurring complaints include: quotes 2-4x higher than competitors, aggressive upselling, hidden charges, commission-based sales tactics, and pressure to purchase unnecessary services. This is the single largest complaint category.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Multiple long, detailed reviews from 2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06 contain nearly identical phrasing ('very pleasant,' 'very knowledgeable,' 'great guy to work with') and suspiciously generic praise. One review lists 8+ separate service visits with identical positive language. However, most reviews show sufficient variation and specificity to suggest authenticity overall.
• WARRANTY & FOLLOW-UP ISSUES: Multiple reviews report warranty disputes, non-transferable warranties, refusal to honor warranties, and poor follow-up on promised rebates and compensation.
• SCHEDULING FAILURES: Documented pattern of missed appointments, last-minute cancellations, rescheduling without customer consent, and failure to call customers despite promises.
• SALES PRESSURE: Consistent reports of high-pressure sales tactics, commission-based technician behavior, and steering customers toward expensive solutions when cheaper alternatives exist.
• RECENCY: Most negative reviews cluster in 2019-2024; recent reviews (2025) are predominantly 5-star with limited detail, suggesting possible review management.
• INDUSTRY REPUTATION: One review explicitly states 'Service Professor is not highly thought of in the industry' and is known for commission-based overselling.

This WW Score of 72.8 is reliable and reflects a company with competent technicians but serious business practice concerns. The HIGH confidence is justified by 98+ mentions per dimension, but the score is heavily depressed by overwhelming pricing complaints (67 mentions) that represent a systemic business model issue rather than isolated incidents. Customers should expect quality work but should obtain multiple quotes and be prepared for aggressive upselling and premium pricing.

This aggregated review set covers multiple businesses operating under the 'American Plumbing' name across different regions, which significantly complicates scoring. The majority of reviews are strongly positive, praising responsive technicians, professional conduct, and quality workmanship — with many named employees (Seth, Josh, Matt, Charlie, Felix, Luis, Zeke, and others) receiving repeated commendation. However, a substantial minority of negative reviews — roughly 15-20% of substantive reviews — describe serious issues including rude staff, no-shows, billing disputes, price gouging, incomplete work, and failed inspections, which meaningfully drag down all four dimensions. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple credible complaints about bait-and-switch quotes, unexplained charges, and prices significantly above competitors, though many other reviewers found pricing fair or even below-market. Project completion scores moderately well overall but is penalized by recurring complaints about jobs left unfinished, callbacks not honored, and work failing inspection.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to span multiple distinct businesses operating under the 'American Plumbing' name across different U.S. regions (California, Florida, Texas, Louisiana, Ohio, etc.). Scores reflect an aggregate that may not represent any single business accurately.
• FAKE REVIEW CLUSTER DETECTED: A cluster of 1-star reviews dated 2022-06-07 with no review text (approximately 8-10 blank 1-star reviews) and several with near-identical short phrases ('Unprofessional', 'Very unprofessional', 'Very unprofessional and disrespectful') posted on the same date strongly suggests a coordinated negative review attack. These were noted but their impact was moderated given the pattern.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED FROM SCORING: Approximately 25-30 reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from approximately 2006 to June 2025. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) are heavily weighted and show a predominantly positive trend, though the detailed negative review from June 2025 regarding permit failures and unprofessional conduct is significant.
• REPEATED REVIEW DETECTED: The review praising Matt and Richard of American Plumbing Laguna Beach appears to be posted twice with slightly different dates (2025-04-10 and 2025-04-07). Only counted once.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE CREDIBLE AND SPECIFIC: Multiple negative pricing reviews include specific dollar amounts, named employees, and detailed circumstances, lending them high credibility. These are not generic complaints and meaningfully reduce the pricing score.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: Multiple independent reviews across different years describe missed appointments without notification, which is a recurring operational pattern that reduces the professionalism and project completion scores.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its reliability as a guide to any single business is LIMITED because the reviews demonstrably cover multiple distinct companies sharing the 'American Plumbing' name; prospective customers should seek reviews specific to their local branch before making a hiring decision.

This aggregated review set spans multiple companies operating under similar or related names (Action Plumbing, Astro Plumbing, Pirate Plumbing, and individual plumbers like Jeff Satterthwaite), which significantly complicates scoring and reduces reliability. The majority of reviews are positive and praise professionalism, punctuality, and communication, but a substantial minority of negative reviews describe serious failures including fire damage, abandoned work, misdiagnosis, property damage, dishonest billing practices, and chronic non-responsiveness — particularly in the context of American Home Shield warranty work. Pricing feedback is mixed: many reviewers found costs fair or competitive, while others reported inflated fees, hidden charges, and deceptive billing. Project completion is a notable weakness, with multiple reviews citing incomplete jobs, failed callbacks, and work that required correction by other plumbers. Experience scores are dragged down by documented cases of poor workmanship, incorrect diagnoses, and code violations, despite many reviews praising skilled technicians by name.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to span multiple distinct businesses (Action Plumbing in multiple states/cities, Astro Plumbing, Pirate Plumbing, Jeff Satterthwaite Plumbing, and others). Scores reflect an aggregated pool that may not represent any single contractor accurately. Consumer should verify which specific entity they are evaluating.
• FAKE REVIEW INDICATORS: A significant number of reviews contain no text (rating only), particularly clustered around dates like 2024-06-09, 2022-06-10, 2021-06-10, and 2015. These blank 5-star reviews inflate the average rating and are treated as non-usable data. Additionally, some reviews use nearly identical phrasing across different dates, suggesting possible review padding.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENTS: At least one review describes Action Plumbing causing a fire that left four families homeless (2024-09-06), with the owner allegedly unresponsive. Another describes a bathtub installation so defective it required full drywall and tile replacement. A third describes a whole-house re-pipe job where lines were not flushed, causing debris damage throughout the home. These are severe outliers that materially affect trustworthiness.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review about Jake damaging a home during water heater installation (rating 1.0) appears verbatim on two separate dates (2024-06-09 and 2023-10-10). This duplication was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• AHS WARRANTY PATTERN: A recurring pattern of negative reviews involves American Home Shield (AHS) warranty assignments, where the contractor is accused of misdiagnosis, inflated modification fees, non-responsiveness, and claim denial manipulation. This pattern appears across multiple years and locations, suggesting a systemic issue with warranty work specifically.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2001 to 2025. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) were given reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2024-2025) show a mixed but somewhat improved pattern for Astro Plumbing specifically, while Action Plumbing reviews remain mixed across the full date range.
• GEOGRAPHIC DISPERSION: Reviews reference locations including Las Vegas NV, Cleveland OH, Lawrence KS, Corpus Christi TX, Silsbee TX, Kaysville UT, Rhode Island, Indiana, and others. This strongly suggests these are reviews for multiple unrelated businesses sharing similar names, not a single contractor. The WW Score should be interpreted with extreme caution as a result.

This WW Score has LOW reliability for evaluating any single contractor because the review pool almost certainly aggregates multiple unrelated businesses operating under similar names across different states; consumers should independently verify the specific entity they intend to hire and seek reviews specific to that business's location and ownership before making a hiring decision.

Pierce Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews spanning over a decade, with many customers praising technical skill, honest advice, fair pricing, and reliable follow-through on completed jobs. However, the professionalism dimension is meaningfully dragged down by three credible negative reviews: one describing rude behavior, misrepresented costs, and taking materials without permission; one detailing a last-minute re-quote and rescheduling with an unprofessional remark; and one noting two unanswered voicemails. These are specific, detailed complaints that carry significant weight against the otherwise positive pattern. Project completion scores well overall, bolstered by multiple reviews noting efficient, complete work and honored callbacks, though the re-quote/reschedule incident introduces a notable blemish. Experience and pricing are the strongest dimensions, with consistent praise for technical knowledge, honest assessments, and reasonable rates across many independent reviewers.

• Two reviews contain only a period '.' as the review text with 5-star ratings (2017-07-30 and 2016-02-16) — these are blank reviews and were excluded from scoring as they provide no usable data.
• One review (2015-08-17) states 'Did not use the contractor' despite giving a 5-star rating — excluded from scoring as it contains no usable performance data.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months, with most predating 2022. Only two reviews (2022 and 2023) fall within a recent window, which limits confidence in current performance. The 2023 review is positive and recent, which is a good signal, but the sample of recent data is thin.
• No strong fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in length, detail, writing style, and include multiple negative reviews, which is consistent with an authentic review set.
• The negative review from 2015 (rude behavior, misrepresented costs, taking materials) is specific and credible and was weighted accordingly in the professionalism score.
• The negative review from 2016 (re-quote, rescheduling, unprofessional comment) is specific and credible and was weighted accordingly in both professionalism and project completion scores.
• The negative review from 2019 (no callback after two messages) is credible and was weighted in the professionalism score.

This WW Score is based on 22 reviews with usable data spanning 2011–2023, with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score mathematically reliable; however, the predominance of older reviews and the presence of three specific, credible negative reviews — particularly around professionalism — mean consumers should treat the professionalism score with caution and seek more recent references before hiring.