Find Nearby Plumbers In Sterling Heights, Michigan

D&D Plumbing demonstrates strong individual technician performance — Albert, Johnny, Kyle, Juan, Scott, and Jerry are repeatedly praised for professionalism, technical knowledge, and responsiveness — but the company is significantly dragged down by a persistent and well-documented pattern of failing to return calls and deliver estimates, which directly harms both professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing is a mixed picture: several reviewers praised fair or low pricing, while multiple others reported surprise charges (travel time billed as labor, undisclosed fees, and one egregious case where a $6,700 replacement was recommended for what turned out to be a $40 loose fuse fix). Project completion is hurt by at least three credible accounts of work failing shortly after completion with poor warranty follow-through, and multiple reviews citing abandoned estimates or no-call-no-shows. Experience scores are buoyed by genuinely impressive technical work on complex radiant/hydronic and solar systems, but undermined by at least two cases of misdiagnosis or incomplete investigation.

• 14 reviews contain no text at all (only a star rating) — these were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• 3 reviews contain only punctuation or single words ('unknown', '.', '............') and were treated as no usable data.
• Recurring pattern of no-callback complaints across multiple years (2013, 2016, 2017, 2021, 2023, 2024, 2025) — this is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• One review (2020-07-07) alleges D&D quoted $6,700 for a repair that an electrician fixed for $40 by tightening a loose fuse. D&D refused to itemize parts and labor. This is a serious credibility and pricing integrity concern.
• One review (2017-03-03) describes $1,500 in repairs that failed within two days, with D&D demanding additional after-hours charges to return and fix their own work — corroborated by a similar complaint in 2021.
• One review (2017-05-09) describes technician-caused damage to hardwood floors during a remodel, with D&D refusing to compensate and the VP dismissing the damage.
• Some older 5-star reviews (2016–2017) with no text may inflate perceived volume of positive sentiment — they carry no scoring weight here.
• The duplicate review (Scott fixing bathtub faucet, Friday 8pm) appears verbatim in both 2022 and 2023 — this is a likely copy-paste duplicate and was counted only once.
• No fake review pattern detected among text-bearing reviews — specific names, dates, and job details are present throughout, suggesting authentic reviews overall.
• A significant portion of reviews are older than 3 years. Recent reviews (2024–2025) show the no-callback issue persists, suggesting it has not been resolved.

This WW Score is based on a large review set with high mention counts across all dimensions, making it statistically reliable — however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given documented patterns of no-callbacks, warranty disputes, and at least one serious pricing integrity concern that suggest operational inconsistencies beyond what the aggregate score alone conveys.

A-Fordable Plumbing shows a genuinely mixed track record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension and reflects a split picture: many reviewers praised specific technicians like Mike D, Jason, and Delmar for punctuality, friendliness, and communication, but multiple reviewers reported serious failures including missed appointments, unreturned calls, and an estimator who argued with a customer and deflected blame. Pricing drew notable concern, with one reviewer alleging a $5,000 upsell attempt for water heaters that did not need replacing, and another finding the service pricier than expected, though several others praised fair or below-quote pricing. Project completion is dragged down significantly by one detailed review describing a multi-week miscommunication saga where the wrong materials were used, scope was misunderstood despite repeated customer requests for clarification, and the customer was pressured to sign off before the homeowner could inspect — alongside a missed appointment with blame shifted to the customer. Experience scores moderately well, with multiple reviewers citing knowledgeable technicians who diagnosed and resolved issues efficiently, though the upsell allegation and the scope mismanagement incident temper confidence in consistent technical judgment.

• Most reviews are dated between 2014 and 2019, with only one review from 2020. No reviews from the past 12 months relative to the most recent date provided. Score reliability for current business performance is reduced.
• The 2017 review alleging a $5,000 upsell for functional water heaters is a serious integrity concern and was weighted heavily in the pricing dimension.
• The 2018 detailed negative review describes systemic communication failures, scope mismanagement, use of wrong materials (PEX vs. copper), and an adversarial response from the estimator — this is a significant project completion and professionalism flag.
• No fake review patterns detected. Positive reviews reference specific technician names, specific jobs, and varied language. Negative reviews are detailed and specific. Review set appears authentic.
• The 2020 negative review about 24-hour emergency service not being honored may indicate a gap between advertised service and actual availability, though it is a single data point.

This WW Score carries HIGH confidence in terms of mention volume across all dimensions, but should be interpreted cautiously given that all reviews are more than four years old and the business's current practices cannot be verified from this dataset.

Accurate Backflow Testing receives consistently positive feedback across professionalism, responsiveness, and follow-through, with multiple reviewers over several years praising on-time arrivals, paperwork handling, and fast scheduling. Project completion scores are supported by specific mentions of jobs being finished promptly, paperwork submitted to the city, and same-day or next-day turnarounds. Experience is reinforced by a detailed 2015 review describing a technically skilled repair that other companies had misdiagnosed, as well as general praise for knowledgeability. However, one 1-star review from 2018 explicitly cites rudeness from both phone staff and the on-site technician, which moderates the professionalism score. Pricing data is limited to a small number of mentions but is positive, with one reviewer specifically calling the service affordable.

• 8 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• All text reviews are 5-star except one 1-star review. While this pattern could suggest selection bias, the reviews span multiple years (2015–2024) and contain enough specific detail to be considered largely authentic.
• Several reviews use generic praise phrases ('highly recommend', 'great service') without specifics, which slightly reduces confidence in those individual data points.
• The majority of detailed reviews are older than 12 months (pre-2024), with only two substantive reviews from 2024. Recency of detailed feedback is limited.
• Owner transition mentioned in one review (new owners Rick and Alex replacing Chuck and wife). Reviews reference both eras, so scores reflect a blended picture across ownership periods.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability for professionalism, project completion, and experience given sufficient mentions across multiple years, but is tempered by a high volume of blank reviews, limited recent detailed feedback, and one explicit negative professionalism incident.

Ted's plumbing service demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally reliable project completion, with most customers praising punctuality, knowledge, and workmanship quality. However, pricing concerns emerge as a significant weakness—multiple reviews cite higher-than-average costs, hidden charges, and billing disputes that undermine customer trust. A critical negative review from 2016 documents serious service failures including poor communication, sloppy workmanship follow-up, and confrontational customer service recovery. The majority of positive reviews are older than 5 years, raising recency concerns about current service standards.

• RECENCY ISSUE: 16 of 20 reviews are older than 5 years (pre-2017). Only 2 reviews from past 12 months. Current service quality cannot be reliably assessed.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Reviews dated 2016-03-03 contain only '.' as text with 5-star ratings. Reviews dated 2014-09-17 and 2013-11-25 contain only 'unknown' and 'well' respectively—these appear to be placeholder/incomplete entries and should be treated with skepticism.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: One review (2013-11-11) calls price 'competitive,' while another (2016-11-04) criticizes $69 assessment fee as excessive, and a third (2016-11-04) documents being charged double labor without agreement. This suggests pricing transparency and fairness issues.
• CRITICAL SERVICE FAILURE: The 2016-11-04 one-star review documents multiple serious failures: incomplete initial repair, poor follow-up on complaints, billing disputes, and confrontational customer service. This is not an isolated complaint but a pattern of breakdown.
• SAMPLE COMPOSITION: 3 reviews appear to be non-plumbing work (furnace/HVAC services), which may skew results if this is primarily a plumbing contractor.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While historical data shows strong technical performance, the majority of reviews predate 2017, making current service quality assessment unreliable. Pricing concerns and documented service recovery failures in recent years (2016) suggest the business may have experienced quality degradation. The presence of placeholder reviews further reduces confidence. A current assessment based on recent reviews would be more trustworthy.

J & H Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally reliable project completion, with most reviews praising workmanship quality and timely service delivery. However, the company's professionalism score is significantly dragged down by two recent, detailed negative reviews (2022) citing disrespectful office staff (Heather) and failure to honor warranty work or callbacks—issues that directly contradict the positive historical pattern. Pricing is consistently described as fair and reasonable across multiple reviews. The stark contrast between recent negative experiences and older positive reviews suggests a potential decline in service standards or management issues.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Two highly detailed negative reviews from 2022 (April and July) describe serious professionalism failures (rude office staff, warranty denial, no callback) that directly contradict the overwhelmingly positive historical record. These are recent and specific, not generic complaints.
• HISTORICAL BIAS: 28 of 36 reviews are from 2013-2015 (8+ years old). Only 2 reviews are from 2022, and both are negative. This creates a significant recency gap that may not reflect current operations.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Four reviews contain only 'unknown' as text with 5-star ratings (2016-08-28, 2015-02-25, 2014-06-30, 2014-05-14). These appear to be placeholder or incomplete entries and reduce confidence in the historical dataset.
• OFFICE STAFF ISSUE: Both recent negative reviews specifically name 'Heather' (office/wife of plumber) as the source of unprofessional behavior. This suggests a systemic management or customer service problem that may be ongoing.
• WARRANTY DISPUTE: The 2022 reviews indicate the company disputes warranty obligations and refuses callbacks for failed work, which is a serious red flag for project completion reliability.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the overall WW Score of 78.2 reflects strong historical performance, the two recent detailed negative reviews (2022) describing serious professionalism and warranty failures suggest the company may have experienced a significant decline in service standards. The dataset is heavily weighted toward reviews from 8+ years ago, and four reviews lack substantive text. A current customer should prioritize the 2022 feedback over the historical 5-star pattern and seek recent references before engaging this contractor.

Plumbing PhD demonstrates strong technical competence and fair pricing, with most customers praising workmanship quality and reasonable rates. However, professionalism scores are significantly dragged down by multiple documented instances of poor communication, scheduling inflexibility, rudeness, and unresponsiveness. While 8 of 13 reviews are 5-star with detailed positive feedback, 3 reviews (23%) report serious service failures including dismissive attitudes, lack of communication, and follow-up issues. The business shows inconsistent service delivery—excellent technical work paired with inconsistent customer interaction standards.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 10 of 13 reviews are from 2015–2018 (5+ years old). Only 3 reviews from 2022 or later. Current service quality cannot be reliably assessed.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2015, 2018) report poor communication, scheduling rigidity, and dismissive attitude from Jeff, contrasting sharply with positive reviews. This suggests either inconsistent service delivery or situational factors affecting performance.
• NEGATIVE REVIEWS DETAIL SPECIFIC FAILURES: The 1-star reviews contain specific, credible complaints (missed callbacks, rude behavior, poor installation leading to warranty issues, lack of communication during service). These are not generic complaints.
• POTENTIAL SELECTION BIAS: Positive reviews may come from customers who had straightforward jobs; negative reviews involve complex scheduling or follow-up situations, suggesting Jeff may struggle with communication-heavy interactions.

This score should be treated with caution due to age of data (most reviews 5+ years old) and documented inconsistency in service delivery. The MODERATE overall confidence reflects strong technical scores offset by legitimate professionalism concerns, but current reliability cannot be confirmed without recent reviews.