Find Nearby Plumbers In Warren, Michigan

This contractor demonstrates severe and consistent deficiencies across professionalism and project completion. Five of six reviews explicitly cite unprofessionalism: missed ETAs, rudeness to customers, failure to communicate delays, and argumentative behavior with owners. Project completion is equally problematic, with evidence of incomplete work, abandoned callbacks, and faulty installations requiring emergency repairs. One positive 2019 review mentions good technical knowledge and punctuality, but this is heavily outweighed by five negative reviews spanning 2018–2024 documenting chronic reliability and communication failures. The single pricing complaint alleges dishonest diagnosis and inflated charges. Overall confidence is moderate due to the small sample size, but the consistency of negative patterns across multiple dimensions and years is striking.

• CRITICAL: Five of six reviews are 1-star with explicit complaints of unprofessionalism, missed appointments, and poor communication. This is not a pattern of isolated incidents but systemic operational failure.
• RECENCY: Most negative reviews are from 2018–2020, but the most recent review (June 2024) repeats the same pattern of dishonest diagnosis and incomplete work, suggesting problems persist.
• INTEGRITY CONCERN: June 2024 review alleges deliberate misdiagnosis (false metal cap claim) and unnecessary upsell (garbage disposal replacement), with property management company confirming the diagnosis was false. This suggests potential fraudulent practices.
• CALLBACK FAILURE: April 2019 review documents failure to honor promised reimbursement and avoidance of customer contact after faulty furnace installation caused gas leak.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Multiple reviews cite dispatch failures, no advance notice of delays, rude voicemails, and owner hanging up on customer. This indicates systemic customer service collapse.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews are diverse in language, specific in detail, and span multiple years with different complaint types. They appear authentic.

This WW Score of 32.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong warning signal. The consistency of negative evidence across professionalism, completion, and integrity across six years of reviews, combined with the specificity and diversity of complaints, indicates genuine and persistent operational problems. This contractor should be avoided.

Advanced Sewer Solvers has a deeply mixed and largely negative review profile across multiple dimensions. Professionalism is heavily damaged by multiple accounts of no-shows, ignored messages, and an owner avoiding legal contact regarding insurance — though one reviewer praised rapid emergency response. Project completion is a serious concern, with documented cases of wrong work being performed, unapproved additional charges, and unresolved follow-through issues, offset only slightly by one reviewer noting repairs were eventually made after 3 weeks. Pricing received one positive mention of fair prices but also one complaint about being charged again on top of a prior payment, yielding a low-confidence and middling score. Experience scores are pulled down by a case of incorrect plumbing rerouting and a home rendered uninhabitable, with only minimal positive counterweight.

• SERIOUS FLAG: One reviewer states their home is currently uninhabitable due to the contractor's work, and the owner is allegedly avoiding contact with their lawyer regarding insurance coverage — this is a significant liability and safety concern.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are older than 1 year, with most negative reviews concentrated between 2019–2024 and positive reviews largely from 2020–2021 or earlier. Only one review is from the past 12 months (July 2024), which is cautiously positive but notes a 3-week delay.
• PATTERN WARNING: The two most positive reviews (2020 and 2021) use enthusiastic, generic praise language with limited specifics, which warrants mild skepticism, though they are not identical in phrasing.
• NO-SHOW INCIDENT: One reviewer documents a clear pattern of broken commitments across Saturday, Sunday, and Monday with no call, no show, and no response — a direct professionalism failure.
• WRONG WORK PERFORMED: One reviewer explicitly states the contractor performed a different job than what was agreed upon (replaced plumbing in crawl instead of rerouting) and then became unresponsive.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to a small review pool of only 9 reviews spanning over a decade, with most data points being more than 1 year old, multiple serious unresolved complaints, and only a handful of positive reviews that lack sufficient specificity to fully counterbalance documented failures.

More Than Plumbing receives overwhelmingly negative reviews across all four scored dimensions, with 40 of 45 reviews awarding 1 star. Professionalism is severely damaged by pervasive reports of unanswered phones, unreturned calls and messages, no-shows, rude technicians and office staff, and dismissive attitudes toward customers in urgent need. Project completion is catastrophically low, with repeated accounts of jobs abandoned mid-service, false diagnoses submitted to warranty companies, work orders closed as complete when no work was performed, and customers left without hot water or functioning plumbing for weeks. Pricing concerns are extensive and serious, including allegations of blank invoices signed under false pretenses, charges for work never performed, inflated modification costs, and refusal to provide itemized receipts. The few positive reviews (5 out of 45, all 5-star) describe friendly and competent individual technicians, but these are vastly outweighed by the volume and specificity of negative accounts, and several positive reviews lack detail that raises authenticity concerns.

• SUSPECTED FAKE OR OUTLIER REVIEWS: 5 five-star reviews exist among 40 one-star reviews. Several positive reviews are vague and generic (e.g., 'Very nice company, worked with me on the prices'), lack specific detail, and cluster around the same time periods as negative reviews. Confidence in positive reviews is LOW.
• FRAUD PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviewers independently allege the company submitted false diagnoses to home warranty companies, closed work orders as complete without performing work, and collected payment for unrendered services. One reviewer reports disputing a $2,625 charge for zero work performed.
• NAME CHANGE FLAG: Multiple reviewers explicitly state this company previously operated as 'Beck Plumbing' and changed its name. This is a known pattern used to escape negative review history. Historical reviews under the Beck Plumbing name are not included here but are referenced as equally negative.
• BLANK INVOICE TACTIC: At least two reviewers describe being asked to sign blank or incomplete invoices, with costs filled in later by the office — a deceptive billing practice.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews span from 2019 through October 2024, indicating persistent and systemic problems over at least 5 years with no apparent improvement. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) remain 1-star, suggesting no remediation has occurred.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: Failure to answer phones or return calls is mentioned in at least 15 separate reviews, making it one of the most consistent and documented complaints across the entire review set.
• WARRANTY COMPANY EXPLOITATION PATTERN: A strong pattern exists of technicians making diagnoses or submitting paperwork specifically designed to deny warranty claims, then offering to perform the same work privately at inflated out-of-pocket prices.

This WW Score of 18.7 is based on 45 reviews with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions and should be considered highly reliable — the volume, specificity, consistency, and multi-year span of negative feedback paint a clear and credible picture of a contractor with serious, systemic failures in every evaluated area.

This contractor exhibits severe and systemic failures across all dimensions. The overwhelming majority of reviews (28 of 37) document chronic no-shows, missed appointments, and abandoned work. Professionalism is critically compromised by repeated tardiness, unresponsiveness, and dishonest communication. Pricing concerns are severe, with multiple reports of inflated quotes, unauthorized work, and non-refundable deposits obtained through fraudulent contracts. Project completion is the most damaging dimension, with extensive evidence of incomplete jobs, broken promises, and customers forced to hire other contractors to finish work. A small subset of positive reviews (5-6) praise specific crew members (Manuel, Mr. Castillo) and describe quality work, but these are vastly outweighed by fraud allegations, identity theft claims, and evidence of serial deception across multiple identities and business names.

• CRITICAL: Extensive evidence of fraudulent business practices including forged signatures, false identities (Jesse Alberio operating under multiple aliases: Alberto, Alverio, Mr. Fixit, ActNowPlumbing), and multiple addresses across multiple states
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document criminal behavior including theft of customer deposits, cashing checks for services not rendered, and alleged identity theft
• CRITICAL: Pattern of extreme project abandonment—customers report being left without functional plumbing for days/weeks after partial work and payment
• CRITICAL: Fake address documented (944 Rt 146 Clifton Park does not exist per Google Street View)
• CRITICAL: BBB dumped this company; multiple lawsuits filed by customers; arrest records mentioned in NC and NY
• SUSPICIOUS PATTERN: 5-6 highly positive reviews (all 5-star or 4-star, mostly generic praise like 'Great job', 'Amazing and cheap', 'They did a good job') clustered on 2019-06-11 and 2018-06-11 with minimal detail, contrasting sharply with detailed negative reviews. These appear potentially fabricated or posted by associates
• RECENCY: Most reviews are from 2018-2019 (5+ years old). Only 1 review from 2020 (positive, professional). This suggests either the business changed operations or reviews became less accessible
• INCONSISTENCY: Positive reviews mention different crew members (Manuel, Mr. Castillo) than negative reviews (Jesse, Tara, Shane), suggesting possible legitimate crew members working under a fraudulent operator's business name

This score cannot be reliably calculated and should NOT be used for decision-making. The data reveals a business engaged in systematic fraud, identity theft, and criminal conduct. The positive reviews appear potentially fabricated and are vastly outnumbered by detailed, corroborated accounts of theft, abandonment, and deception. DO NOT USE THIS CONTRACTOR under any circumstances.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 3 total reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 5 reviews needed to produce a statistically meaningful WW Score. While all three reviews are positive and mention professionalism, project completion, and pricing favorably, the sample size is too small to confidently assess overall contractor performance. Additional reviews are required before a reliable WW Score can be generated.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews analyzed. Minimum 5 reviews recommended for reliable scoring.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two of three reviews are older than 3 years (2019, 2020). Only one review from past 12 months (2022). Recent performance data is limited.
• POTENTIAL REVIEW PATTERN: All three reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language and no specific criticisms. While not conclusive evidence of fake reviews, the lack of any nuanced feedback or minor complaints is atypical for genuine review sets.
• LIMITED DIMENSION COVERAGE: Experience dimension mentioned in only 2 reviews; pricing in only 2 reviews. Professionalism and project completion have slightly better coverage but still below confidence thresholds.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (3 reviews, minimum 5 required). Any scoring would be speculative and should not be used for decision-making. Collect at least 5 additional recent reviews before relying on WW Score assessment.

Both reviews speak positively to professionalism, citing punctuality, politeness, communication, and follow-through. Project completion is supported by explicit mentions of issues being resolved quickly and thoroughly in both cases. Experience is inferred from effective problem-solving in both reviews, though neither goes into deep technical detail. Pricing is entirely absent from both reviews, so no score can be assigned to that dimension. With only 2 reviews total, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 2 reviews provided — this is below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score calculation.
• One review is from May 2022, which is over 12 months old relative to a mid-2023 reference point; recency weighting is limited.
• Both reviews are 5-star with positive sentiment only — while the reviews contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the sample size is too small to draw firm conclusions.
• Pricing dimension has zero data — this dimension cannot be evaluated at all.

This score report should be treated as highly preliminary and unreliable due to the critically small sample size of only 2 reviews; significantly more reviews are needed before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn about this contractor.