Find Nearby Plumbers In Troy, Michigan

Sandison Plumbing exhibits severe and consistent deficiencies across professionalism, pricing, and project completion. While technical skill is occasionally acknowledged, the company is plagued by poor communication, missed appointments, unresponsive follow-up, aggressive collection tactics, and questionable billing practices including alleged upselling and undisclosed fees. Multiple reviews document contractor liens placed on properties, harassment of customers, and failure to honor commitments. The few positive reviews (3 out of 13) are substantially outweighed by detailed accounts of systemic operational failures and unprofessional conduct spanning from 2014 to 2022.

• PATTERN OF SERIOUS COMPLAINTS: 10 of 13 reviews are 1-2 stars with detailed, specific grievances. This is not random dissatisfaction but a consistent pattern of documented failures.
• LEGAL/FINANCIAL ABUSE ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews document contractor liens placed on properties as retaliation or collection pressure, including one case requiring attorney intervention. This is a severe red flag.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: 8 reviews explicitly mention failure to return calls, texts, or emails; missed appointment notifications; and broken promises to contact customers by specified times.
• AGGRESSIVE COLLECTION PRACTICES: Reviews document threats to place liens while customer was attempting to pay, harassment via multiple rapid phone calls, and undisclosed fees.
• UPSELLING/PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews allege unnecessary upselling of expensive solutions, hidden fees not disclosed at estimate, and pricing significantly higher than competitors for identical work.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews are from 2018-2019, but the pattern is consistent across the entire timeline. The 2022 positive review uses generic praise language ('amazing,' 'blessing,' '10/10') with minimal specific detail, contrasting sharply with the detailed negative reviews.
• PROFESSIONALISM VOLATILITY: Reviews indicate initial professionalism that deteriorates once customer is committed or follow-up work is needed, suggesting strategic behavior rather than genuine service orientation.

This WW Score of 42.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong warning indicator. The score is based on 13 reviews with consistent, detailed, and specific documentation of failures across all dimensions. The pattern of complaints is not isolated incidents but systemic operational and ethical issues spanning multiple years.

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.

The review set for Michigan PlumbMasters presents a deeply mixed picture. On the positive side, multiple reviewers praised Vince's responsiveness, fair pricing, and technical knowledge, including one detailed account of a Sunday emergency call handled promptly and affordably. However, two separate reviews — from different dates and with specific complaints — flag serious reliability and trustworthiness issues, including a no-show at the last minute and accusations of shady behavior. The professionalism score is significantly dragged down by these explicit reliability failures, which are among the most critical traits for a service contractor. Project completion is similarly penalized because at least one reviewer was strung along for a week with no work performed. Overall, the contractor shows genuine strengths but carries real, documented risk.

• Two separate 1-star reviews explicitly cite unreliability and shady behavior — these are specific, credible complaints that meaningfully reduce confidence in positive reviews.
• All reviews are older than 5 years (most recent: December 2018) — recency rule applies; this score may not reflect current performance.
• Small sample size of only 5 reviews limits statistical reliability across all dimensions.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in tone, detail level, and rating, suggesting authentic submissions.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the small review sample, the age of all reviews (none within the past 5+ years), and the presence of two credible negative reviews that directly contradict the positive ones on key dimensions like reliability and trustworthiness.

All three reviews describe severe failures across multiple dimensions. The contractor (Ken Cadette) failed to complete promised work, did not return for callbacks despite repeated promises over 6 days, charged upfront fees without delivering services, and performed poor-quality work on tasks completed. Two reviews explicitly mention financial fraud and non-refund of payments totaling $1,400. The oldest reviews (2016) suggest a pattern of behavior spanning years. No positive attributes are mentioned in any review.

• CRITICAL: All three reviews are uniformly negative (1-star ratings) with consistent allegations of fraud, non-completion, and non-refund of customer payments. This is not a fake review pattern but rather a genuine pattern of serious contractor misconduct.
• Two reviews are from 2016 (8+ years old); one is from 2024. The recency of the 2024 review suggests the pattern may be ongoing.
• Multiple explicit allegations of financial fraud and theft across reviews. Two customers report upfront cash payments ($500 and $900) that were not refunded.
• Legal action mentioned: one customer filed complaint with Licensing Board and small claims case; another customer provided phone number suggesting they are actively warning others.
• Insufficient review volume (only 3 reviews) to calculate a reliable WW Score, but the consistency and severity of allegations across all reviews is highly concerning.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (fewer than 3 usable reviews is the threshold, and while we have exactly 3, the extreme uniformity and severity of allegations warrant caution). However, the consistent pattern of non-completion, fraud allegations, and legal action across all available reviews suggests serious and potentially ongoing contractor misconduct. This contractor should be approached with extreme caution or avoided entirely.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a statistically meaningful WW Score. Both reviews are highly positive (5-star ratings) with explicit praise for professionalism, honesty, and responsiveness. However, the extremely limited sample size, combined with the age of reviews (both from 2019, over 4 years old), prevents confident generalization about current performance. Each dimension is supported by only 1–2 mentions, yielding LIMITED confidence across all categories.

• Insufficient review volume: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 required for reliable scoring.
• Review recency concern: Both reviews are from 2019 (4+ years old). No recent data available to assess current performance.
• Suspiciously uniform positivity: Both reviews are 5-star with no negative feedback or specific complaints. While not definitive evidence of fake reviews, the lack of any critical detail or balanced perspective is notable.
• Limited dimension coverage: Experience and Pricing each mentioned in only 1 review. Professionalism and Project Completion mentioned in 2 reviews. Insufficient data density for any dimension.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required). Any score calculated would be statistically meaningless. Additionally, the age of available reviews (2019) means current performance cannot be assessed. Do not rely on this report for decision-making; seek additional recent reviews or direct references.

Both reviews are positive and speak to multiple dimensions including polite and clean behavior, fast response, honest evaluation, and reasonable pricing. The second review is notably detailed and credible, describing two separate service calls including an emergency and a non-emergency evaluation where the plumber chose honesty over upselling. The first review is brief but corroborates the themes of quality work and politeness. However, with only two reviews, no dimension reaches even MODERATE confidence, and a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated. All scores are conservative given the very limited sample size.

• Only 2 reviews provided — insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score per scoring rules.
• Both reviews are dated 2020, making them over 4 years old. Recency weighting significantly reduces reliability of these scores as indicators of current performance.
• No negative feedback present, but this is likely due to the extremely small sample size rather than a fake review pattern. The second review contains specific, credible detail that reduces fake review concern.
• Review 1 is brief and generic with no specifics — treated with lower internal weight than Review 2 when assessing dimension scores.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both over 4 years old, and should be considered highly unreliable as a basis for hiring decisions without seeking additional, more recent reviews.