Find Nearby Plumbers In St. Clair Shores, Michigan

John's Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and professionalism from individual technicians, with many reviews praising punctuality, friendliness, and quality workmanship. However, the company is significantly undermined by persistent pricing concerns—numerous customers report excessive charges, inflated hourly rates, undisclosed fees, and billing for time not worked. Project completion issues include scheduling failures, no-shows, and incomplete work requiring callbacks. The company shows a stark divide between field technician quality and office/management accountability, with many negative reviews citing poor follow-up and unresponsive management when disputes arise.

• CRITICAL PRICING PATTERN: At least 25+ reviews explicitly cite overcharging, inflated rates ($185-$225/hour), billing for unworked time, and unauthorized parts charges. This is the single largest complaint category and suggests systemic pricing practices rather than isolated incidents.
• OWNERSHIP CHANGE NOTED: One detailed 5-star review (2023-02-06) explicitly references new ownership since May 2022 and asks readers to give the company a fair chance. However, negative pricing and scheduling reviews continue post-May 2022, indicating issues persist under new management.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: Multiple reviews (2020-07-31, 2020-06-29, 2019-10-23, 2017-03-24, 2016-10-17, 2015-01-22, 2014-11-01, 2013-09-16) document no-shows, broken promises, and failure to return calls. This pattern spans years and multiple ownership periods.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Several reviews report jobs left unfinished, leaks after repair, or work that failed shortly after completion (2023-05-25, 2024-09-27, 2016-10-17, 2012-09-19).
• OFFICE VS. FIELD DISCONNECT: Review from 2023-09-04 explicitly notes 'night and day' difference between excellent field technicians and poor office communication/management. This pattern appears in multiple reviews.
• DIAGNOSTIC OVERREACH: Multiple reviews (2023-07-16, 2024-02-21, 2013-05-25) report technicians recommending expensive solutions (whole-house repiping, $9,000 jobs) that other plumbers later identified as unnecessary or vastly overpriced.
• RECENT NEGATIVE REVIEWS: Negative reviews continue through 2024 (June, August, September, October), indicating problems are ongoing and not resolved by management changes.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - LOW: While many recent reviews are uniformly 5-star with generic praise, they contain specific technician names, detailed scenarios, and varied language patterns. The negative reviews are highly detailed and credible. No strong evidence of fake positive reviews, but the volume of recent 5-stars vs. older mixed reviews warrants noting.

This WW Score of 68.2 is reliable and conservative. The company excels in technical execution and individual technician professionalism (78.5 experience score) but is severely compromised by systematic pricing practices that customers perceive as exploitative and by recurring scheduling/follow-up failures. The HIGH confidence across all dimensions is based on 47-89 mentions per category, providing robust data. However, the score reflects a company with significant structural problems in billing transparency and management accountability that offset strong field-level performance. Customers should expect quality work but should obtain detailed written estimates, verify all charges, and be prepared to dispute bills.

Edwards Plumbing & Heating shows significant inconsistency in service quality. While many recent reviews (June 2025 and May 2025) praise individual technicians for professionalism, friendliness, and technical skill, a substantial body of older reviews (2023-2020) document serious failures in project completion, follow-through, and pricing transparency. The company exhibits strong individual technician performance but weak management accountability, with multiple complaints about missed appointments, no-shows, unresponsive managers, and hidden charges. Pricing concerns appear consistently across reviews, with customers reporting unexpected fees, overcharges, and inflated quotes. The WW Score of 62.8 reflects this polarized pattern: excellent frontline service undermined by systemic operational and financial issues.

• CRITICAL: Suspected fake review pattern detected. Multiple reviews show identical text repeated verbatim across different dates (e.g., Cameron review appears 2x on 2025-06-09, Scott review appears 3x on 2025-06-05, Roy review appears 2x on 2025-06-04, Jackie review appears 2x on 2025-06-03, Kamryn reviews appear 2x on 2025-06-02, Jose review appears 2x on 2025-05-10, Billy Burnett review appears 2x on 2025-05-10, Nathan reviews appear 2x on 2025-05-10, Scott responsive review appears 2x on 2025-05-10, David review appears 2x on 2025-05-10, Daniel review appears 2x on 2025-05-10, Jose Castro helpful review appears 2x on 2025-05-10, Billy Burnette prompt review appears 2x on 2025-05-10, Jose above and beyond appears 2x on 2025-05-10, thermostat review appears 2x on 2025-05-10). This duplication pattern suggests artificial inflation of positive reviews and significantly reduces confidence in recent 2025 data.
• SEVERE: Multiple credible allegations of unethical business practices including alleged theft (sump pump case, May 2025), fraudulent pricing (macerating pump scam, June 2024), property damage without accountability (basement backup, August 2023), faulty repairs creating safety hazards (gas leak repairs, August 2023), and non-completion of promised work (shut-off valve replacement, September 2024).
• PATTERN: Consistent complaints about unresponsive management, missed appointments, no-shows without notification, and failure to honor commitments across multiple years (2023-2024).
• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple reviews document hidden charges, unexpected fees, inflated quotes, and lack of transparency. Two separate customers reported being charged significantly more than quoted or discovering additional fees at billing time.
• RECENCY BIAS: Recent reviews (June-May 2025) are overwhelmingly positive with many duplicates, while reviews from 2023-2024 and earlier show serious systemic problems. The dramatic shift suggests either genuine recent improvement or review manipulation. Given the duplication pattern, manipulation is suspected.
• SAFETY ISSUE: One review documents a gas leak repair that created a dangerous condition (3 inches from previous repair, dumping gas into furnace) that could have caused explosion.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While the calculated score of 62.8 reflects genuine mixed performance, the recent review data (2025) shows strong evidence of duplication and potential manipulation, which artificially inflates the professionalism and experience dimensions. The older, non-duplicated reviews (2023-2024 and earlier) reveal serious systemic issues with project completion, management accountability, and pricing ethics. A more conservative assessment would weight the documented failures in project completion and pricing more heavily, suggesting the true operational score is likely 10-15 points lower than calculated. Customers should independently verify current operational practices and management responsiveness before engaging this company.

Positive Plumbing shows a genuinely mixed track record across its review history. On the positive side, multiple reviewers praised friendly, professional technicians, reasonable pricing, and quality workmanship on completed jobs. However, two serious negative reviews — one describing an abandoned job with a tech who never returned and caused additional damage, and another citing a lazy diagnosis that missed the actual problem — significantly drag down the scores for both project completion and experience. Responsiveness and communication are also inconsistent, with one reviewer explicitly warning that callbacks are unreliable and the answering service borders on rude. The overall picture is a contractor capable of good work but with a meaningful pattern of failures that cannot be ignored.

• Two reviews (2017-12-15 and 2012-07-24) describe serious failures in responsiveness and follow-through, including a tech who abandoned a job mid-repair and never returned, causing additional damage to the client's property.
• One review (2020-11-10) describes a paid diagnostic visit that produced an incorrect diagnosis, with the correct issue later found by a non-professional — raising a concern about technical thoroughness.
• Several positive reviews are older than 5 years (2017, 2018) and one dates to 2012. Only two reviews are from the past 12 months (2023, 2024). Recency weighting reduces confidence in the positive trend.
• No strong fake review patterns detected, but the positive reviews vary enough in detail and phrasing to appear genuine.

This WW Score is based on 9 reviews spanning over a decade, with only 2 from the past 12 months, which limits how well it reflects the contractor's current performance — treat this score as a moderate-confidence signal requiring further vetting.

Parker Brothers Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most heavily penalized dimension, with a large number of reviews explicitly describing no-call no-shows, rude communication, failure to return calls or texts, and unprofessional conduct on-site — these negative accounts substantially outweigh the positive ones. Project completion is similarly troubled, with multiple reviews describing abandoned jobs, unfinished work, wrong equipment brought to the site, and failure to return to complete promised work. Pricing drew consistent criticism for being high relative to competitors, with a few reviewers noting hidden or surprise charges, though a handful found pricing fair or reasonable. Experience scores moderately better, as several reviewers praised skilled and thorough technical work — particularly around drain clearing, pipe replacement, and problem-solving on complex issues — but this is offset by reviews citing misdiagnosis and incomplete repairs. The overall WW Score reflects a contractor with genuine capability but serious and recurring reliability and professionalism failures.

• Multiple reviews (at least 12) explicitly describe no-call no-show incidents across a span of years from 2011 through 2024, suggesting a persistent and systemic reliability problem rather than isolated incidents.
• Two blank reviews with 5-star ratings (2019, 2020) contain no text and provide no usable data — these were excluded from scoring.
• One review rated 5 stars contains only the word 'unknown' (2014) and was excluded from scoring as it provides no usable information.
• Several 5-star reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Great job at a fair price. I would use them again.') with minimal specifics, which slightly reduces confidence in the positive signals, though not enough to flag as clearly fake.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months (most predate 2023), with only 3 reviews from the past 12 months (2024). The most recent negative review (June 2024) describes a quote abandonment, suggesting reliability issues persist into the current period.
• A pattern of owner/employee responding defensively to negative reviews (visible in the 2018 exchange and the 2013 follow-up) suggests awareness of the issues but inconsistent resolution.
• One review (2018) describes a potential attempt to overcharge elderly customers, which is a serious conduct flag.

This WW Score is based on 44 reviews spanning 15 years with strong mention counts across all dimensions, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the persistent no-show and professionalism complaints that recur across multiple years including 2024.

Da Best Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Positive reviews highlight punctual arrivals, polite technicians, and fair pricing on straightforward jobs, but these are substantially offset by serious negative experiences including alleged deceptive upselling, a threatening voicemail from a supervisor, rude customer service on the phone, double-billing without resolution, and technicians who pushed unnecessary replacements rather than attempting repairs. Professionalism is the most heavily penalized dimension due to the documented supervisor threat, phone hang-up incident, and dismissive attitude reported by multiple reviewers. Pricing is also significantly dragged down by multiple credible accounts of inflated estimates and unnecessary work recommendations. Project completion scores moderately because several jobs were finished satisfactorily, but instances of incomplete diagnosis, abandoned problem-solving, and a $22,000 fraudulent estimate weigh heavily against it. Experience scores similarly mixed, with some reviewers praising technical competence while others describe technicians who refused to attempt repairs or provided demonstrably incorrect assessments.

• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAG: One reviewer (2022-05-21) credibly describes a supervisor leaving a threatening voicemail about police and bench warrants to coerce payment — this is a significant professionalism and ethical red flag.
• ALLEGED FRAUD FLAG: One detailed 1-star review (2023-10-27) describes a $22,000 estimate for a sewer line that a second plumber cleared in 30 minutes for a fraction of the cost, with the technician refusing to provide camera evidence. This is a credible account of deceptive practices.
• UPSELLING PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews (2020-04-09, 2015-09-25, 2023-05-18) describe technicians pushing unnecessary replacements or inflated scopes of work rather than attempting simpler repairs. This pattern across different years and reviewers is concerning.
• BILLING MISCONDUCT: One reviewer (2010-05-03) reports being double-charged and receiving no resolution despite multiple follow-ups, requiring bank intervention.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024 and 2023) include both a positive and a strongly negative experience. The negative 2023 review is highly detailed and specific, lending it credibility. The majority of clearly positive reviews are from 2022 or earlier.
• REVIEW SPREAD NOTE: Ratings are sharply polarized — reviews are either 5-star or 1-2 star with very little middle ground, which may indicate inconsistent service quality depending on the technician assigned or the complexity of the job.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Positive reviews contain specific names, job details, and varied language. No strong indicators of coordinated fake reviews were found, though the polarization warrants caution.

This WW Score is based on 15 reviews spanning 2010–2024 with usable data across all four dimensions and HIGH confidence on each; however, the score should be treated cautiously given the presence of multiple credible, detailed negative reviews describing serious ethical and professional misconduct that meaningfully suppresses what would otherwise be a higher score from the positive reviews.

This contractor shows significant weaknesses in project completion and follow-through, which heavily impacts the overall score. Multiple reviews document incomplete repairs, unresponsiveness to callbacks, and failure to honor commitments—critical failures in a service business. Professionalism is mixed: some reviews praise punctuality and attitude, while others cite poor communication and non-responsiveness. Pricing appears reasonable when mentioned, but experience/workmanship quality is inconsistent. The most recent negative review (2024) raises serious concerns about licensing and competency.

• CRITICAL: Review from 2024-05-23 alleges contractor operates without plumbing license—this is a legal/regulatory red flag requiring verification
• PATTERN OF NON-RESPONSIVENESS: Multiple reviews (2019, 2018) document failure to return calls and texts, suggesting systemic communication problems
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: Repairs failed immediately after completion (toilet leak next day, drain problems after proactive snaking), indicating inadequate workmanship or follow-up
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 3-6 years old; only one recent review (2024) which is highly negative
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW: Review from 2019-05-25 contains awkward phrasing ('I'm just not taking this day out just submit a review'), repetitive praise language, and generic superlatives without specific technical details—may be fabricated

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size and age of most reviews, but the pattern of project completion failures and communication breakdowns is consistent enough across multiple independent reviews to warrant serious concern about reliability.