Find Nearby Plumbers In Lansing, Michigan

Stay Dry demonstrates significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 2014–2024. While recent positive reviews (2015–2024) consistently praise professionalism, workmanship, and fair pricing, older reviews (2014–2020) reveal serious systemic issues: no-shows, poor communication, warranty disputes, deceptive quoting practices, and aggressive owner behavior. The company appears to have improved operational execution in recent years, but historical patterns of customer service failures, alleged fraud, and warranty avoidance substantially lower overall confidence. Professionalism scores are dragged down by documented communication failures and unprofessional conduct; project completion is hampered by multiple no-show and delay incidents; pricing shows mixed signals with both fair-value and deceptive-quoting complaints.

• RECENCY BIAS DETECTED: 9 of 22 reviews are from 2014–2017 (7+ years old); only 6 reviews from past 12 months. Recent reviews are predominantly 5-star, while older reviews contain serious allegations.
• PATTERN OF SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews (2014, 2017, 2020) allege deceptive quoting, warranty non-compliance, no-shows without notification, and aggressive owner behavior including threats of litigation and demands to remove negative reviews.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Stark contrast between glowing recent reviews and damaging older reviews suggests either significant company reform or potential review manipulation. No middle-ground reviews in recent period.
• OWNER CONDUCT CONCERNS: Two detailed reviews document owner (Dave/Mark) engaging in hostile communication, alleged fraud, and threatening legal action against customers who post negative reviews. This raises red flags about company culture and integrity.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Multiple reviews document warranty claims being denied or heavily disputed, with company reinterpreting terms to avoid coverage.
• OPERATIONAL FAILURES: Documented pattern of missed appointments, no-shows without notification, poor communication, and extended delays (2+ months for quotes, weeks for appointments).
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Recent 5-star reviews (2023–2024) are notably generic in praise and lack specific technical detail compared to older detailed reviews. Three consecutive 5-star reviews mention 'Abby' with nearly identical phrasing ('professional,' 'friendly,' 'highly recommend'). This warrants caution.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While recent reviews suggest operational improvement, the company's documented history of deceptive practices, warranty disputes, and aggressive owner conduct (2014–2020) creates substantial trust concerns. The stark recency divide and potential review manipulation in the 2023–2024 period further reduce confidence. Prospective customers should heavily weight the detailed negative reviews and conduct independent verification before engaging this company. A score of 68.2 reflects genuine inconsistency rather than reliable mediocrity.

Grimes Plumbing shows mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism is moderately strong with consistent mentions of friendly, quick, and efficient service, though one reviewer criticized their business approach. Pricing is a significant weakness, with explicit complaints about overcharging ($200 for a $20 part and labor) and an unreasonably high quote ($2000 for a sump pump hole). Project completion is undermined by a critical failure where misdiagnosis led to persistent water leaks. Technical experience appears solid when work is completed correctly, but the misdiagnosis incident raises concerns about problem-solving ability.

• One review marked 'unknown' with 5-star rating and no substantive content (2016-01-10) — treated as unusable data
• Significant recency bias: 2 recent positive reviews (2024, 2018) vs. 2 older negative reviews (2017-2018) and 1 very old positive review (2015). Recent reviews are more favorable but sample size remains small
• Critical service failure: misdiagnosis of water leak source (blamed pressure relief valve when actual source was upstairs tub) suggests quality control or diagnostic issues
• Pricing complaints are explicit and specific, not vague — two separate incidents of perceived overcharging or unreasonable quotes
• Limited total review count (5 usable reviews) reduces statistical reliability

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (5 usable reviews) and significant recency bias favoring recent positive reviews over older negative ones; the pricing and project completion concerns are substantive and specific, but confidence is moderate rather than high.

Jenks Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning multiple decades. While older reviews (2006–2018) consistently praise professionalism, responsiveness, and technical skill, recent reviews (2016–2023) reveal serious project completion failures including unresolved follow-ups after water damage, prolonged quote delays, and poor cleanup practices. Pricing is fair when work is completed, but the company's inability to follow through on callbacks and commitments is a critical weakness. The stark contrast between positive historical reviews and negative recent ones suggests either operational decline or inconsistent service quality.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 6+ years old (2006–2018). Recent reviews (2016–2023) are predominantly negative, indicating potential service quality decline.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: Multiple recent reviews cite failure to follow up after initial work (water damage cleanup, quote finalization). This is a pattern, not isolated incidents.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: At least 3 reviews explicitly mention unanswered phone calls and emails after service issues arose.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE: Older reviews praise responsiveness and professionalism; recent reviews describe the opposite. This suggests either company decline or highly variable technician quality.
• QUOTE DELAYS: 2023 review documents 2-week delay in finalizing a quote, resulting in lost business opportunity for customer.

This score should be treated with caution. While the MODERATE confidence reflects adequate mention counts, the stark temporal divide between positive historical reviews and negative recent ones suggests the company's current performance may be significantly worse than the overall score indicates. Recent customers should weight 2016–2023 reviews more heavily than older testimonials.

Budget Rooter presents a deeply polarized review profile with a large volume of 1-star reviews describing serious, recurring failures across all dimensions. The most dominant pattern in negative reviews is a near-total breakdown in communication — customers across many years and many states report unanswered phones, full voicemail boxes, unreturned calls, and no-shows for scheduled appointments. Project completion is severely impacted, with dozens of reviews describing jobs that were never finished, parts never ordered or delivered, and customers left without hot water or functioning toilets for weeks or months. Professionalism scores are dragged down by multiple accounts of rude office staff (particularly a woman named Shelly), technicians who misdiagnosed problems, falsified reports to home warranty companies, and in some cases aggressive or threatening behavior. Pricing and experience scores receive partial credit from a meaningful minority of positive reviews praising specific technicians (Darek, Les, Mike, Austin, Carlos, Dustin) who were described as knowledgeable, efficient, and fairly priced — but these positives are substantially outweighed by accounts of egregious overcharging, fraudulent upselling, and incompetent diagnoses.

• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A cluster of 5-star reviews dated 2022-06-10, 2023-06-10, 2021-06-10, and 2020-06-10 contain no review text (blank body) with only a star rating. These are not usable for scoring and may represent artificially inflated ratings.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: Several very brief, generic 5-star reviews ('Great people', 'Very professional and courteous', 'Fast reliable service', 'Excellent work performed quickly') with no specifics, no technician names, and no job details appear clustered around the same dates and may not reflect genuine customer experiences.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with nearly identical text describing overcharging on a water heater installation (drip pan $250, earthquake straps $145, etc.) appear with different dates (2024-11-10 and 2024-10-11) and slightly different ratings. This may be a duplicate submission and was counted only once for scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review corpus spans from 2010 to 2025. Reviews from 2025 (past 12 months) are mixed but include both strong positives and strong negatives, suggesting the company's inconsistency has persisted into the present day. No clear improvement trend is visible in recent reviews.
• SYSTEMIC PATTERN — HIGH CONCERN: An overwhelming number of negative reviews (spanning 2019–2025) describe the exact same failure mode: no answer on phones, voicemail full, no callbacks, no-shows, and jobs abandoned mid-service. This is not isolated — it is a structural operational failure that has persisted for years.
• FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviewers allege that Budget Rooter submitted false diagnoses or false completion reports to home warranty companies (AHS, Fidelity) in order to deny claims or collect payment for work not performed. One reviewer alleges the company claimed to have completed a repair they never returned to do. These are serious allegations that materially affect trustworthiness.
• HOME WARRANTY DEPENDENCY: The vast majority of reviews — both positive and negative — involve customers assigned to Budget Rooter through American Home Shield (AHS) or Fidelity Home Warranty. This context is important: many negative experiences may be compounded by home warranty restrictions, but the communication and no-show failures are clearly attributable to Budget Rooter directly.
• OWNER CONDUCT CONCERN: One reviewer alleges the owner (Randy) personally showed up at their home after a negative review was posted, which if accurate represents a serious boundary violation and intimidation concern.

This WW Score of 52.1 is based on a large, high-volume dataset and carries HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted as a warning signal — the company demonstrates a well-documented, multi-year pattern of communication failures, abandoned jobs, and alleged fraudulent reporting that makes it a high-risk choice for any plumbing service.

This contractor has a deeply polarized review profile: a substantial cluster of positive reviews praising individual technicians as friendly, professional, and knowledgeable sits alongside an equally substantial and highly detailed body of negative reviews alleging price gouging, dishonest upselling, warranty non-compliance, and targeting of elderly customers. Pricing is the single most damaged dimension, with dozens of reviewers citing wildly inflated quotes, bait-and-switch pricing, and charges that were multiples of what competitors charged for identical work. Project completion is also significantly undermined by multiple accounts of abandoned or incomplete jobs, no-shows, and unresolved callbacks. Professionalism scores are dragged down by repeated reports of disrespectful technician behavior, ignored calls, full voicemail boxes, and failure to honor stated appointment windows. Experience scores are mixed — some technicians are praised as skilled and thorough, while others are described as incompetent or deliberately deceptive in their diagnoses.

• PRICING FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different time periods describe near-identical bait-and-switch tactics — low advertised price used to book appointment, then dramatically higher quote presented on-site. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• ELDERLY TARGETING: At least 6 reviews explicitly describe elderly customers (80-year-old parents, 92-year-old mother, single older woman) being given false diagnoses and quoted thousands of dollars for unnecessary work. This is a serious consumer protection concern.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: A large cluster of reviews dated 2025-05-10 are suspiciously uniform in date, very brief, and several contain no text at all (rating only). Nine reviews from that date have zero review text. This pattern is consistent with review padding and should be treated with skepticism.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED FROM SCORING: 9 reviews contained no text whatsoever and were not used to score any dimension, though they were counted in total reviews analyzed.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONFUSION: Reviews reference multiple business names including 'Roger the Plumber', '4ECO Services', 'Rainbow Plumbing', 'Bob Hamilton', and 'Hamilton Plumbing/HVAC'. This appears to be a merged or rebranded entity with inherited negative history. Scores reflect the aggregate reputation across all associated names.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) skew positive and are also the most suspicious for padding. The most detailed and credible negative reviews span 2018–2023. Older positive reviews (2013–2014) appear more organic and specific.
• WARRANTY NON-COMPLIANCE: At least 3 reviews explicitly state the company refused to honor written warranty contracts, which is a legal and ethical red flag beyond normal service quality concerns.
• DIAGNOSIS FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviewers obtained second opinions that contradicted this contractor's diagnoses entirely — in several cases, second-opinion technicians found nothing wrong or fixed the issue for under $100 after this company quoted thousands.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set (97 reviews) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence of review padding in the 2025 cluster and serious, repeated, independently corroborated allegations of deceptive pricing and fraudulent diagnostics that go beyond normal service variability.

Tri-County Plumbing shows highly inconsistent performance across reviews. While some customers report excellent professionalism, punctuality, and workmanship (Leonard, Keith, Damorus), multiple reviews document serious failures in project completion, including no-shows, incomplete repairs, and catastrophic errors (sewage backup into homes). Professionalism scores are dragged down by documented rudeness and poor communication from staff members Mark, John, and Bruce. Pricing appears fair when work is completed correctly, but several customers report paying for incomplete or failed work. The company demonstrates technical capability in some cases but critical lapses in problem-solving and quality control in others.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2020, 2016) document severe project failures resulting in property damage, health hazards, and customer financial loss. These are not minor complaints but substantive failures.
• PATTERN: Negative reviews consistently mention unprofessional communication, rudeness, and defensiveness when customers raise concerns. This suggests a systemic customer service issue.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between 5-star reviews praising specific technicians (Leonard, Keith, Damorus, Jennifer) and 1-star reviews citing other staff (Mark, John, Bruce). Quality appears highly dependent on which technician is assigned.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2016-2020 (older than 3 years), while positive reviews span 2015-2023. However, the 2023 positive review and 2022 negative review suggest problems may persist.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews show genuine variation in detail, emotion, and specificity. Negative reviews are detailed and credible; positive reviews include specific technician names and concrete examples.

This score should be treated with caution due to extreme variability in service quality and the presence of documented catastrophic failures causing property damage and health hazards. The company appears capable of good work but has demonstrated serious lapses in quality control, project completion, and professional conduct that pose genuine risk to customers.