Find Nearby Plumbers In Rochester Hills, Michigan

Jim's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, and responsiveness across 38 reviews. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and reasonable (18 mentions), though some customers note they are not the cheapest option. However, project completion shows concerning gaps: while many jobs are completed promptly, several reviews document incomplete work, unresolved callbacks, and follow-through failures (16 mentions). Experience and workmanship are rated highly (15 mentions), with customers praising technical knowledge and quality work. The WW Score of 78.2 reflects solid professionalism and pricing offset by meaningful project completion concerns.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2011, 2016, 2016) document serious project completion failures including incomplete pipe replacement work, unresponsive callbacks, and customer dissatisfaction requiring legal action or third-party remediation. These are not isolated complaints.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are from 2013-2015 (older than 8 years). Only 8 reviews are from 2016 or later, limiting confidence in current service quality. Recent reviews (2016-2022) show mixed results including one scam allegation and one non-responsive callback issue.
• INCONSISTENCY: Strong positive reviews (mostly 5-star) contrast sharply with detailed negative reviews describing fraud, incomplete work, and poor follow-up. This suggests either significant service variability or potential personnel differences (multiple technicians named: Jim, Dave, James, David).
• GENERIC REVIEWS: Several reviews contain only 'unknown' text or single-phrase ratings (e.g., '.', 'Great no issues'), reducing data quality for 4 reviews.
• PAYMENT METHOD LIMITATION: One review notes the company does not accept credit cards, which may affect customer convenience.
• EMERGENCY SERVICE FAILURE: One 2016 review documents refusal to provide emergency service despite advertising it, contradicting professionalism claims.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While professionalism scores are well-supported by 38 mentions, the project completion dimension is undermined by serious documented failures in older reviews and recent callback issues. The age of most reviews (pre-2016) and inconsistency between positive and negative experiences suggest the score may not reliably reflect current service quality. Prospective customers should request references for recent large projects and clarify callback/warranty policies before engaging.

Goyette Mechanical shows strong professionalism and technical expertise with consistent positive feedback on technician courtesy, punctuality, and knowledge. However, the company is significantly hampered by persistent project completion issues—multiple reviews document incomplete work, multiple callbacks required to finish jobs, and follow-through failures. Pricing is a notable weakness, with many customers citing high costs, unexpected charges, and service call fees that accumulate quickly. While the company demonstrates capability in HVAC and mechanical work, execution reliability and cost transparency remain serious concerns that prevent a higher overall score.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (at least 8) document serious project completion failures including incomplete installations, multiple required callbacks (5-6 visits for single jobs), work not done to code, and refusal to return for corrections without additional charges.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Consistent pattern of complaints about high costs, hidden/unexpected charges, service call fees ($67-$109), hourly rates charged for non-work time (phone calls, travel, waiting), and customers finding same work $1,200-$4,000 cheaper elsewhere.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reviews cite unreturned phone calls, unanswered voicemails (17+ calls in one case), no callback from managers, and poor responsiveness despite promises.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: Several reviews describe work not meeting code, improper installations (hot water tanks installed wrong, AC condensation pump missing pop tube, gas lines installed incorrectly), and damage caused during work (drywall destruction, countertop gouging, roof damage).
• CUSTOMER SERVICE RED FLAGS: Aggressive billing practices (charging for estimation before work begins, charging for time spent calling other customers, charging for travel time), refusal to show old parts, and dismissive attitude toward customer concerns.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Stark contrast between highly positive reviews (praising specific technicians like Tim, Kyle, Devin, Aaron) and highly negative reviews (same company, different experiences), suggesting significant quality variance by technician or location.
• EMPTY/GENERIC REVIEWS: 10+ reviews contain only 'unknown' or single-word text with 5-star ratings (2016-2015 period), suggesting possible review manipulation or placeholder entries.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most detailed negative reviews cluster in 2023-2024 (recent), while many generic 5-star reviews are from 2014-2016 (older), indicating potential service quality decline.
• SAFETY CONCERNS: One review explicitly mentions improper furnace installation creating fume hazards and code violations that endangered lives.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE confidence due to high variance in review quality and significant documented service failures, particularly in project completion. The score reflects a company with capable technicians but serious systemic issues in project management, pricing transparency, and follow-through. Recent negative reviews (2023-2025) are more detailed and credible than older generic praise, suggesting current performance may be worse than the score indicates. Customers should request detailed written estimates, clarify all charges upfront, and consider obtaining multiple quotes before engaging this company.

Service Giant shows mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism scores 75 based on 18 mentions, reflecting strong punctuality and communication in many reviews but significant failures in responsiveness and attitude in others. Project completion is the weakest dimension at 68, with multiple reports of incomplete work, abandoned jobs, and failure to follow through on callbacks. Pricing is solid at 78 across 9 mentions, with customers consistently noting fair value. Experience scores 82, indicating strong technical capability when work is completed. The company demonstrates capability but suffers from inconsistent execution and management issues that undermine reliability.

• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: 16 reviews with 5-star ratings contain no text or minimal generic praise (empty text fields or single sentences like 'Service giant is a giant'). These appear clustered around June 2023, June 2022, and June 2020, suggesting possible bulk posting or fake reviews. This inflates the overall rating artificially.
• CRITICAL INCONSISTENCY: Multiple detailed negative reviews (2025-05-10, 2022-06-10, 2021-03-29, 2020-06-10, 2019-11-05, 2019-08-07) describe serious failures in professionalism, responsiveness, and project completion. These contradict the generic 5-star reviews and suggest real operational problems.
• MANAGEMENT QUALITY ISSUE: Two reviews (2022-06-10, 2019-11-05) specifically criticize management/manager behavior, including poor communication, gender bias, and refusal to help customers. This suggests systemic leadership problems.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most detailed negative reviews are from 2019-2022. Recent reviews (2025, 2024) show one catastrophic failure (1-star, 2025-05-10) and several generic 5-star reviews. Insufficient recent data to assess current performance.
• HONESTY QUESTION: One review (2021-08-18) alleges dishonest warranty claim practices, claiming a pump was replaced but was actually 10 years old. This raises integrity concerns.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the calculated WW Score is 72.8, the presence of numerous empty/generic 5-star reviews clustered by date suggests artificial inflation. The detailed negative reviews describing missed appointments, incomplete work, poor callbacks, and management issues appear credible and consistent. The true performance is likely lower than 72.8. Recommend weighting the detailed critical reviews more heavily and treating generic 5-star reviews as unreliable. Recent activity (May 2025) shows continued serious problems.

Two of the three reviews contain usable detail; one review has no text and contributes nothing to scoring. Both substantive reviews praise Paul's promptness, courteous manner, and responsiveness, supporting a solid professionalism score. Project completion is supported by one reviewer noting a multi-item punch list was fully resolved and another describing successful work across a wide variety of plumbing tasks over nine years. Experience is inferred from the breadth of work described — kitchen remodel plumbing, gas lines, sprinkler systems, leak repairs — though only two reviews speak to it. Pricing is mentioned explicitly in only one review, where the charge was described as 'extremely fair,' yielding a conservative but positive score.

• One review (2014-12-18) contains no text whatsoever — only a 5-star rating. This review was excluded from all dimension scoring as it provides no usable evidence.
• All reviews are significantly outdated: the most recent is from 2013 and the oldest from 2007. No reviews exist from the past 12 months or even the past decade. Current performance cannot be assessed from this data.
• Only 2 reviews contain usable text, which is an extremely small sample. All dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence and should be interpreted cautiously.
• The total review count of 3 is at the minimum threshold for WW Score calculation. Results should be treated as directional only, not definitive.

This WW Score has very low reliability due to only 2 usable reviews, all of which are more than 10 years old — current performance, pricing, and quality cannot be meaningfully assessed from this data alone.

Dad's Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. On the positive side, many reviewers praise responsiveness, courteous technicians, and fair pricing — with multiple customers becoming repeat clients. However, a significant cluster of detailed negative reviews describes serious failures: abandoned jobs, failed inspections, unsupervised apprentices doing licensed work, unprepared technicians, no-shows, poor communication, and property damage left unresolved. The professionalism score is dragged down by repeated complaints about late arrivals without communication, rude callbacks, and staff showing up unprepared. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with multiple reviews describing incomplete work, callbacks not honored, and at least one case of a snake left in a drain causing ongoing damage. Pricing received mixed signals — several reviewers praised affordability while others felt overcharged with hidden or disputed fees. The experience dimension reflects genuine skill in some cases but serious technical failures in others, including multiple failed inspections and incorrect installations.

• Several 5-star reviews contain no text or only a rating — these were excluded from dimension scoring and inflate the raw star average without providing usable evidence.
• A small number of generic 5-star reviews use vague superlatives with no specific details (e.g., 'Amazing, quality, reputable, trustworthy'), which may indicate low-effort or potentially inauthentic reviews.
• One negative reviewer explicitly alleges that some 5-star reviews were left by paid employees of the company — this cannot be verified but warrants caution.
• Multiple serious negative reviews are highly detailed and specific (failed inspections, property damage, lien filing, abandoned jobs), lending them strong credibility and significant downward weight.
• Review dates span from 2014 to 2024. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) include both strong positives and at least one serious negative (snake left in drain, July 2024), suggesting quality inconsistency persists to the present day.
• The business appears to operate under multiple owner/technician names (Steve, Todd, Jacob, Keno, Anthony, Drake, Dave, Paul), which may indicate inconsistent service quality depending on which technician is dispatched.
• At least one review references the company going out of business, though other reviews post-date this claim — this may refer to a different entity or a temporary closure and should be investigated.

This WW Score is based on 68 reviews spanning 10 years with high mention counts across all dimensions, making it statistically reliable — however, the wide variance between glowing and severely negative reviews suggests highly inconsistent service quality, and prospective customers should weigh the detailed negative reviews heavily before hiring.

NuPipe presents a deeply polarized review profile spanning over a decade. Positive reviews — concentrated in the 2012–2016 era and a handful of recent ones — describe a skilled, courteous, and fairly priced crew that stands behind its work and offers honest assessments. However, a substantial and consistent body of negative reviews across multiple years documents serious failures in professionalism: repeated no-shows, unanswered phones, missed appointments, rude office staff, and complete communication breakdowns. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with multiple credible accounts of abandoned jobs, uninspected work, code violations, and work that was billed but not performed. Pricing scores moderately well among customers who actually received service, but the pattern of dishonest scoping and overbilling in negative reviews tempers that score. The volume and specificity of negative reviews — particularly those describing identical patterns of ghosting and incomplete work — prevent any dimension from scoring highly.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review describing three missed appointments with Dave (no-show, forgot, then no-show again with no callback) appears verbatim twice — once dated 2024-06-09 and once dated 2023-06-20. This is likely the same reviewer posting twice or a copy-paste artifact. Only counted once for scoring.
• PATTERN OF SYSTEMIC FAILURE: At least 8 independent reviewers describe the exact same pattern — scheduled appointment, no-show by Dave, no callback, unreachable office phone, rude or absent Amy. This is too consistent and specific to be fake; it represents a genuine operational pattern.
• SERIOUS WORKMANSHIP ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews (2018, 2019, 2022, 2023) allege that completed work was fraudulent or substandard — including inserting a 3-inch pipe into a 4-inch pipe instead of replacing it, skipping mandatory city inspections, abandoning jobs mid-project, and burying repair parts in the ground instead of installing them. These are severe allegations that significantly reduce the project completion and experience scores.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of glowing 5-star reviews are from 2012–2016. Recent reviews (2022–2025) are more mixed, with several serious negative accounts. The most recent review (May 2025) is positive, but the 2022–2024 window contains multiple credible complaints about ghosting and poor workmanship.
• BLANK AND CONTENT-FREE REVIEWS: At least 8 reviews contained no text (blank or single punctuation marks like '.' or 'unknown'). These were excluded from scoring as they provide no usable data.
• POSSIBLE FAKE OR COORDINATED POSITIVE REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews from 2020 and earlier are extremely brief and generic ('Great job, very professional', 'Awesome job.', 'Dave and his crew were great!') with no specifics. While not conclusive, these inflate the positive review count without adding evidentiary weight and were scored conservatively.
• OWNER CONDUCT CONCERNS: Multiple reviewers across different years specifically name the owner Dave and office manager Amy as sources of poor communication, rudeness, and dishonesty. One reviewer describes Amy threatening an unauthorized credit card charge. Another describes Dave personally supervising code-violating work while denying involvement.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (85 reviews) with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically reliable — however, the extreme polarization between detailed positive and detailed negative reviews means the score reflects genuine operational inconsistency rather than measurement uncertainty, and prospective customers should weigh the specific negative allegations about no-shows, abandoned work, and code violations very seriously.