Find Nearby Plumbers In St. Clair Shores, Michigan

Two positive reviews describe polite, friendly workers who completed repairs successfully with no follow-up issues, and one reviewer praised speedy response and quality work. However, the third review is a detailed and credible 1-star account describing a plumber who arrived, refused to perform the job without explanation, and walked off dismissively — a serious professionalism and project completion failure. The negative review is particularly damaging because it is specific, includes a follow-up rebuttal addressing the business owner's response, and is corroborated by the fact that another plumber completed the same scope of work the very next day. With only three reviews total, the single negative account carries significant weight and prevents any dimension from scoring highly. No pricing information was mentioned in any review, so that dimension cannot be scored.

• Very small sample size of only 3 reviews — scores should be treated as highly preliminary and not representative of consistent performance.
• The two positive reviews are relatively brief and generic, lacking specific detail about job scope, timeline, or pricing. This warrants mild caution, though they are not identical in phrasing.
• The 1-star review is detailed, specific, and includes a credible follow-up rebuttal to the business owner's response, increasing its credibility and weight in scoring.
• All reviews are dated between September and December 2021 — all are more than 1 year old. No recent reviews are available to assess current performance trends.
• The business owner's response to the negative review attempted to discredit the reviewer as 'not a client,' which the reviewer directly and specifically refuted. This pattern may indicate a tendency to deflect rather than address legitimate complaints.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all over two years old, with one highly credible negative account significantly offsetting two brief positive reviews — the score should be considered LOW RELIABILITY and treated as insufficient for confident contractor selection.

Drain Detectives receives a critically low WW Score of 38.2, driven by overwhelming evidence of systemic problems across all dimensions. While a small subset of recent reviews (2024-2023) praise quick response and fair pricing, the vast majority of reviews spanning 2022-2016 document patterns of incomplete work, deceptive upselling, failure to honor commitments, and poor follow-through on callbacks. The company exhibits a troubling pattern of recommending unnecessary expensive repairs (sewer digs, pipe replacements, floor ripping) that competing plumbers later identified as scams or unnecessary. Professionalism scores are dragged down by documented instances of no-shows, missed appointment windows, rude staff, and failure to communicate. Project completion is severely compromised by incomplete work, abandoned jobs, and refusal to warranty services. Pricing is consistently flagged as exploitative, with customers reporting 3-7x markups compared to other plumbers for identical work.

• CRITICAL: Overwhelming pattern of alleged bait-and-switch scams across 15+ reviews (2016-2021), with customers reporting unnecessary expensive repairs recommended and later debunked by competing plumbers with camera evidence.
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document failure to complete work as promised, with customers forced to hire second companies to fix incomplete or incorrect work, incurring hundreds to thousands in additional costs.
• CRITICAL: Documented pattern of targeting vulnerable populations (single women, elderly, new homeowners) with inflated quotes and unnecessary services per multiple independent reviews.
• CRITICAL: Severe communication failures including no-shows without notice, missed appointment windows, failure to call before arrival, and ignored follow-up calls documented in 8+ reviews.
• CRITICAL: Refusal to honor warranties, provide refunds, or take accountability documented in 12+ reviews; customers report being told to contact attorneys rather than resolve disputes.
• RECENCY CONCERN: While 3 recent reviews (2024, 2023) are positive, they are vastly outnumbered by 47 negative/mixed reviews spanning 2022-2016. The company's historical pattern is severe and sustained.
• PRICING PATTERN: Consistent documentation of charges 3-7x higher than competing plumbers for identical work; multiple customers report being charged $300-$4500 for jobs completed by others for $36-$525.
• INTEGRITY CONCERN: Multiple reviews document explicit lies about diagnoses (collapsed pipes that weren't collapsed, broken pipes that weren't broken, roots that didn't exist) used to justify expensive repairs.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURE: Multiple reviews document promised callbacks and corrections that never materialized; one customer reports being ignored for weeks after company admitted fault.
• QUALITY CONCERN: Documented instances of incorrect installations (hot/cold reversed, caps left off drains, incomplete pipe replacements, wrong pump installed) that created additional problems.

This WW Score of 38.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong warning signal. The score is based on 50 reviews with consistent, detailed, and corroborating evidence of systemic failures across all four dimensions. The pattern is not random complaints but documented allegations of deceptive practices, incomplete work, and poor professionalism spanning 8+ years. While recent reviews show some improvement, the historical weight of evidence and the severity of documented issues (legal action, mold damage, financial losses in thousands) indicate serious structural problems with this company's business practices.

At-Less Drain Cleaning has a deeply troubled track record based on these reviews. Professionalism is severely damaged by repeated no-shows, zero communication, and a 4-month runaround on a $30K job — only 2 of 6 reviews mentioning professionalism were positive, and both are from 2017–2022. Project completion is similarly alarming, with multiple reviews describing abandoned work, unfinished cleanup, and failure to pull required permits. Experience scores modestly in the middle because the two positive reviews do describe competent, knowledgeable technicians who solved problems efficiently, but this is outweighed by the volume of failure. Pricing received only one mention — a favorable one — so that score carries very little weight. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) are all 1-star, suggesting a deteriorating trend.

• RECENCY WARNING: The three most recent reviews (2023–2024) are all 1-star and describe serious operational failures including no-shows, abandoned biohazard cleanup, and permit negligence. Positive reviews are from 2017–2022 and may not reflect current business performance.
• PERMIT VIOLATION FLAG: One reviewer explicitly states the company marked work for a $30K job, never filed for a permit, and never submitted paperwork to the city. This is a potential legal and safety concern.
• ABANDONED WORK FLAG: At least two reviews describe work that was started but never completed, including broken sewer pipe left exposed and described as a biohazard.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: Multiple reviews independently describe repeated missed appointments with no communication, suggesting a systemic scheduling or reliability problem.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 7 reviews total. Scores should be treated with caution due to small sample size, even where confidence labels indicate HIGH based on mention count within this set.

This WW Score is based on only 7 reviews spanning 2016–2024, and while mention counts within this small set support some confidence labels, the overall score should be treated as LIMITED in reliability — the recent negative trend is a serious red flag that prospective customers should weigh heavily.

Three of the four reviews are deeply negative, describing serious failures including unburied pipes left vulnerable to freezing, an unfinished driveway after three months with advance payment taken, and a warranty repair that went unaddressed for over seven months despite repeated follow-up calls. The one positive review (2017) describes a thorough, well-executed basement drain tile job with punctual crews and respectful conduct, which provides the only meaningful upward pressure on scores. The owner, Robert Gray, is directly implicated in dishonest communication in at least two reviews — once for allegedly lying about company identity and once for allegedly fabricating a customer's financial motive — which severely damages the professionalism and trust dimensions. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with multiple reviews describing abandoned, incomplete, or warranty-ignored work spanning years.

• Owner (Robert Gray) is accused of making false statements to customers in two separate reviews — one regarding company identity and one regarding a customer's alleged financial decision. This pattern of alleged dishonesty is a serious red flag.
• One review warns explicitly against paying this contractor in advance, citing non-completion of work after three months.
• A lifetime transferable warranty appears to have been ignored for over seven months in one case, suggesting warranty claims may not be honored reliably.
• The sole 5-star review is from June 2017 and all negative reviews post-date it (2018–2020), suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.
• All reviews are older than 12 months relative to a current date — the most recent is from February 2020. No recent reviews are available, which significantly limits reliability of this score as a current indicator of performance.
• Sample size is very small (4 reviews). Scores should be treated as directional only and not statistically robust.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to a very small review sample (4 reviews), all data being more than four years old, and a heavily skewed negative signal that may or may not reflect current business operations.

All three reviews describe severe failures across multiple dimensions. The contractor (Justin Donaldson) is accused of non-payment to employees, incomplete work, poor communication, no-shows, ghosting customers, and taking deposits without performing work. One review explicitly states work was performed so poorly it worsened the original problem (basement flooding). Multiple reviewers report legal action, police reports, and a Facebook group documenting similar scams. The consistency of allegations across independent reviews—combined with specific details about court cases, police reports, and employment history—suggests a pattern of systematic fraud rather than isolated incidents.

• CRITICAL: All three reviews are uniformly negative (1-star ratings) with serious allegations of fraud, theft, and non-payment. However, these are NOT fake reviews—they contain specific, detailed, and corroborating evidence (court cases, police reports, Facebook group, named individuals, specific dollar amounts, employment history at other companies).
• Multiple reviews reference a Facebook group and legal proceedings, suggesting coordinated documentation of alleged misconduct by multiple victims.
• One review explicitly states the contractor was previously fired from another plumbing company for stealing from customers and was fired again from a subsequent employer.
• All reviews are from 2023 or earlier (oldest from Jan 2023, most recent from July 2023), indicating this is not recent activity but documented historical pattern.
• This contractor appears to pose significant financial and legal risk to customers.

This score should be treated as highly reliable evidence of serious contractor misconduct. The uniformity and specificity of allegations across three independent reviews, combined with references to legal action and police reports, indicate a documented pattern of fraud rather than subjective service dissatisfaction. However, a WW Score cannot be calculated because the data reflects criminal/fraudulent behavior rather than legitimate service quality variation.

Only two reviews are available, making any scoring highly unreliable. The first review describes a serious responsiveness failure — repeated unanswered calls over multiple months in 2017 — which heavily penalizes professionalism and project completion, as the customer could not obtain a part they had already purchased. The second review, from 2016, offers a mildly positive impression of the owner's knowledge and customer-oriented attitude, providing limited positive signals for professionalism and experience. The business also appears to have potentially ceased operations or relocated, based on the first reviewer's observations, which is a significant concern. With only two reviews spanning 2016–2017 and no data on pricing, no reliable WW Score can be produced.

• Only 2 reviews available — far below the minimum threshold of 3 for a reliable WW Score.
• Both reviews are from 2017 or earlier, making all data over 7 years old and potentially irrelevant to current business operations.
• The first reviewer strongly suggests the business may no longer be operating — phone goes unanswered repeatedly, and a possible address discrepancy was noted between two listings.
• No pricing data mentioned in any review — the Pricing dimension cannot be scored.
• Extremely small sample size means scores carry very low real-world reliability despite being calculated.

This score report is not reliable — with only 2 reviews, all dated 2017 or earlier, and strong indicators that the business may no longer be active, no meaningful conclusions about current contractor quality can be drawn.