Find Nearby Plumbers In Sterling Heights, Michigan

The review set presents a deeply divided picture of this contractor. A majority of positive reviews praise responsiveness, friendliness, fair pricing, and professional demeanor — particularly from Brett and Brian in routine jobs. However, two extremely serious negative reviews significantly drag down all dimensions: one details a catastrophic multi-visit gas leak repair that left the customer in repeated danger, involved apparent dishonesty about work completed, rude behavior from the owner, and a dangling live gas line — a severe workmanship and professionalism failure. A second 1-star review alleges the company is operating without a Michigan plumbing license and without proper commercial insurance, which if true would be a critical legal and safety concern. Project completion and experience scores are heavily penalized due to the gas leak incident, which represents a genuine safety failure across multiple visits. Pricing scores are modestly positive overall but undermined by the gas leak case where charges escalated significantly for work that may have caused additional damage.

• SERIOUS SAFETY CONCERN: One detailed review describes multiple dangerous gas leak situations caused or worsened by the contractor's work, with the customer's home filling with gas on at least two occasions after being told the job was complete. A live gas line was allegedly left dangling and connected on only one end.
• ALLEGED ILLEGAL OPERATION: One review claims the company is not licensed in Michigan, lacks commercial insurance, and uses apprentices without required master plumber supervision. This has not been verified from reviews alone but is a significant flag that warrants independent license verification.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: One review documents a canceled appointment with no follow-up callback despite multiple voicemails over several days, indicating a potential reliability and responsiveness issue.
• OWNER CONDUCT CONCERN: The detailed gas leak review describes the owner (Brian) as defensive, condescending, dismissive of safety questions, and unwilling to document work performed — behavior inconsistent with the professionalism praised in other reviews.
• REVIEW POLARIZATION: The review set is sharply split between 5-star and 1-star reviews with no middle-ground ratings, which can indicate either genuine service inconsistency or review manipulation on either end. The 5-star reviews tend to be brief and generic with limited specifics, while the negative reviews are highly detailed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews are from early 2024 and mid-2023. The most serious negative review (gas leak incident) is from June 2022. The no-callback complaint is from February 2023. Positive reviews span 2021–2024. No clear improvement trend is evident from the data.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several 5-star reviews are very short, generic, and lack specific job details (e.g., 'Highly recommend this company. They are very responsive and professional. Can't beat there prices!!'). While not conclusive, this warrants reduced confidence in the positive review cluster.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — while the volume of reviews is sufficient for calculation, the presence of a serious documented safety failure, an unverified but credible licensing allegation, and a pattern of generic 5-star reviews without specifics means the score may overstate actual service reliability, particularly for complex or gas-related work.

Edwards Plumbing and Heating shows significant inconsistency across reviews. While one 2019 review praised excellent diagnostic work and quality repairs on a sewer line project, two other reviews (from 2021 and 2019) document severe professionalism failures including missed service calls, poor communication, disorganized billing practices, and lack of proper documentation. The most detailed negative review describes a four-year billing dispute with no itemized invoice provided and communication only through legal counsel. The company's professionalism score is heavily penalized by these documented failures in communication, organization, and responsiveness. Pricing concerns stem from lack of transparency and documentation rather than explicit overcharging claims.

• CRITICAL: Severe recency issue — two of three reviews are from 2019 or earlier (2019-07-03, 2019-08-10, 2021-10-09). Only one review is from 2021. Historical data may not reflect current operations.
• CRITICAL: Billing and documentation red flag — detailed 2019 review documents serious organizational failures including missing invoices, no itemized billing, four-year collection delay, and legal involvement. This suggests systemic business practice problems.
• CRITICAL: Contradictory quality signals — one review praises work quality and professionalism; two others describe poor service and disorganization. This inconsistency suggests either variable service quality or potential business practice issues affecting customer experience.
• Limited sample size (n=3) reduces statistical reliability of overall score.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (3 reviews), significant recency issues (2 of 3 reviews are 4+ years old), and contradictory signals about service quality versus business practices. The score reflects serious documented professionalism and billing concerns, but current operational status is unclear given age of most reviews.

This business shows severe and consistent professionalism issues across 16 reviews, with complaints about rude staff, poor customer acknowledgment, long wait times, and dismissive attitudes toward walk-in customers. While product knowledge and selection receive praise (6 mentions, score 78), and pricing is described as reasonable for high-end goods (5 mentions, score 65), these strengths are heavily undermined by systemic customer service failures. Project completion data is sparse (2 mentions) but includes a significant order fulfillment failure with late deliveries and missing items. The business appears to prioritize high-value designer/builder clients over average customers, creating a two-tiered service model that alienates walk-in traffic.

• FAKE REVIEW ALERT: Multiple reviews (2024-09-24, 2024-08-01, 2024-07-14) explicitly allege that the company posts fake 5-star reviews about sales representative Nicole. One detailed review documents eight identical 5-star reviews posted within one week, all with suspiciously identical like counts (11+). Two of these alleged fake reviews appear in this dataset (2024-08-01 generic praise; 2024-09-24 complaint about Nicole's fake reviews). Confidence in recent positive reviews is severely compromised.
• POTENTIAL DISCRIMINATION CONCERN: Review from 2024-07-10 alleges racial discrimination and disrespectful treatment based on customer ethnicity (Yemeni), with claims of staff rudeness, repeated hang-ups when calling management, and dismissive behavior. This is a serious allegation that suggests systemic customer service problems may extend beyond general rudeness.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews cluster in 2024 (4 reviews) and 2013-2020 (13 reviews). Only 3 reviews from 2021-2022. Recent reviews show continued professionalism complaints, suggesting problems are ongoing, not historical.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Positive reviews consistently mention specific salespeople by name (John Mazzara, Renee, Christina, Kristina) and praise their individual professionalism and knowledge. Negative reviews cite systemic staff unavailability and poor reception. This suggests quality depends heavily on which salesperson you get, not company-wide standards.
• BUSINESS MODEL MISMATCH: Multiple reviews note the company discourages walk-in customers and requires appointments. This is a deliberate business choice, not a service failure, but it creates negative experiences for customers unaware of this policy.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While professionalism data is robust (16 mentions), the dataset is compromised by documented fake reviews and potential review manipulation, which undermines trust in the 2024 positive ratings. The overall score of 52.3 reflects genuine and consistent customer service problems documented across multiple decades, but the recent fake review allegations suggest some positive reviews may not be authentic. Scores for pricing and project completion are based on limited mentions and should not be heavily weighted in decision-making.

Michigan Plumbing & Mechanical shows a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is inconsistent: some reviewers praised responsiveness and friendly technicians, while others reported being ignored after texting the owner a video of an emergency, being told a repair would take days, and a perceived attempt to exploit urgency with a bait-and-switch price. Pricing is the most damaging dimension, with two detailed 1-star reviews describing significant price inflation after arrival — one involving a quoted hourly rate that ballooned to a flat rate nearly double competitor quotes, and another involving a $220 drain clearing that failed within 9 days with no warranty honored. Project completion is also problematic: at least two jobs resulted in unresolved issues (a failed drain clearing and a loose sink fixture causing water damage), with the company refusing to return without additional payment in one case. On the positive side, several reviewers praised thorough, clean, on-time work — particularly one detailed 5-star review describing the owner arriving early, a fair quoted price honored at completion, and excellent crew workmanship.

• Two reviews (2018-01-24 and 2018-06-08) describe a pattern of quoting a low rate by phone and then significantly raising the price upon arrival — this is a substantive and specific concern, not a vague complaint.
• The 2020-08-19 review describes an emergency (water damage from a failed fixture installation) where the owner did not respond to a text with video evidence and the office could not dispatch for several days — a serious responsiveness failure.
• The 2018-01-24 review describes a job that failed within 9 days with no warranty or callback honored, suggesting a project completion and accountability issue.
• Most reviews are from 2017–2021, with only one review from 2021 and none from 2022 or later. The recency of this data is low and the score may not reflect current business practices.
• With only 7 total reviews, the WW Score carries limited statistical reliability. A small number of negative reviews has an outsized impact on the score, and a small number of positive reviews cannot reliably offset them.

This WW Score is based on only 7 reviews spanning 2017–2021, with no data from the past two or more years, making it a LIMITED-reliability snapshot that should be treated with caution and supplemented with more recent customer feedback before making a hiring decision.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews. Professionalism is moderately supported with mentions of fast response, pleasant interaction, and patience in communication. However, project completion is severely undermined by one explicit allegation of incomplete work and non-payment resolution, which directly contradicts positive reviews. Pricing shows conflicting signals: one review confirms fair quoting, while another accuses the contractor of overcharging for unfinished work. Experience is mentioned positively but only once. The stark contradiction between 5-star and 1-star reviews raises serious concerns about reliability and consistency.

• CRITICAL: Severe contradiction between reviews — one 1-star review explicitly alleges incomplete work, non-delivery of promised services, and financial misconduct ('stealing your money'), while two 5-star reviews praise the same contractor. This pattern suggests either highly inconsistent service delivery or potential fake reviews.
• All three reviews are from January 2022 — over 2 years old. No recent reviews available to assess current performance or whether issues have been resolved.
• The 1-star review uses informal language and strong accusations but lacks specific project details (dates, amounts, scope), which reduces verifiability but does not invalidate the complaint.
• Only 3 total reviews analyzed — sample size is very small and insufficient for high-confidence scoring.
• Project completion dimension is heavily weighted (35%) but based on only 2 mentions with conflicting signals, creating significant uncertainty.

This WW Score should be treated with extreme caution. The small sample size (3 reviews), significant contradictions between reviews, and complete absence of recent data make this score unreliable for decision-making. The serious allegation of incomplete work and financial misconduct in one review cannot be ignored, even if other reviews are positive. Additional recent reviews and verification of the complaint are strongly recommended before engaging this contractor.

This contractor's review record is dominated by serious, detailed negative experiences across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is heavily penalized by multiple accounts of no-shows, failure to return calls, rude owner behavior, and broken commitments — with only one or two positive mentions of responsiveness and friendliness to offset a pattern of deeply unprofessional conduct. Project completion is critically low, with multiple reviewers explicitly describing abandoned work, unresolved permits paid for but never obtained, and technicians who never returned after causing damage. Experience scores are dragged down by a review describing incorrect wiring that destroyed a garbage disposal and another citing work performed that was not requested and a leak left unrepaired. Pricing receives a slightly higher score only because one reviewer praised the company for not overbidding, but this is outweighed by a complaint about being charged for unauthorized work. The two positive reviews lack specific detail and are significantly outnumbered by credible, detailed negative accounts.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are older than 1 year, with most negative reviews dating from 2014–2018. Only one positive review (2023) and one negative review (2017) fall within a more recent window. The 2023 positive review is the most recent data point but is vague and undetailed.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW LEVEL: The 'unknown' review (2015, 5-star, no text) provides zero usable data and was excluded from scoring. The two positive reviews are notably generic and lack specifics compared to the detailed negative reviews, which warrants mild caution.
• PATTERN FLAG: Multiple independent reviewers describe the same behavioral pattern — no-shows, failure to return calls, and owner being dismissive or rude — which strongly suggests a systemic operational problem rather than isolated incidents.
• ABANDONED WORK FLAG: At least two reviewers explicitly describe work that was left incomplete or never followed through on, including a paid permit never obtained and electrical damage never remediated.
• UNAUTHORIZED WORK FLAG: One reviewer explicitly states they were charged for work they did not authorize and that the requested repair was not completed.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a meaningful number of detailed, credible reviews, but users should note that most reviews are over five years old and the single recent positive review is too vague to substantially offset the documented pattern of serious service failures.