Find Nearby Plumbers In Warren, Michigan

This contractor/plumber business demonstrates solid overall performance with a WW Score of 76.8, driven by consistently strong mentions across all four dimensions. Professionalism (127 mentions) shows reliable punctuality, communication, and courteous service, though some negative reviews cite rudeness and unprofessional behavior. Pricing (68 mentions) reveals a mixed picture: many customers praise fair and reasonable rates, but a significant subset reports surprise charges, upselling, and price increases mid-project. Project Completion (95 mentions) is generally strong with timely service and problem resolution, though some reviews document incomplete work, no-shows, and failure to honor callbacks. Experience (89 mentions) reflects strong technical knowledge and quality workmanship, with skilled diagnostics and efficient repairs. The business benefits from multiple technicians with varying reputations, creating inconsistency in customer experience.

• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Multiple technicians (Dan, Ernie, Timothy, Daniel, etc.) show vastly different customer satisfaction levels. Some are highly praised; others have serious complaints about dishonesty, upselling, and poor follow-through.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Recurring pattern of customers reporting unexpected charges, mid-project price increases, and quotes that escalate significantly. Examples include: $150→$385, $450→$732, $325→$420+$95 labor. This suggests either poor initial estimates or deliberate upselling.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Multiple reviews document failure to return calls, honor callbacks, provide refunds, or complete promised follow-up work. This is a material weakness in project completion.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Several reviews are suspiciously generic (e.g., 'Thank you, Donald!' with no detail, empty reviews with 5-star ratings, reviews with only '....' or 'Nothing'). Approximately 15-20 reviews contain minimal or no substantive information, which inflates apparent satisfaction artificially.
• NEGATIVE REVIEWS CLUSTER: A notable cluster of 1-star reviews from 2017-2021 alleges scamming, dishonesty, theft, and aggressive behavior. While some are isolated, the pattern suggests systemic issues during that period.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail. Older reviews (2017-2020) contain more detailed criticism. This may indicate either improved service or review manipulation.
• ROAD RAGE INCIDENT: One review documents aggressive driving behavior by a company vehicle, raising safety and professionalism concerns.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Multiple reviews cite poor responsiveness, ghosting, and refusal to return calls after payment or service disputes.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH confidence for overall service quality, but customers should be aware of significant inconsistency across technicians, documented pricing disputes, and follow-up failures. The score reflects a business with strong technical capability and many satisfied customers, but material weaknesses in pricing transparency, project completion accountability, and customer service consistency. Prospective customers should request detailed written estimates, clarify all pricing upfront, and verify technician assignment before booking.

All City Plumbing receives broadly positive feedback across all four dimensions, with professionalism and project completion being the most frequently cited strengths. The majority of reviewers praise courteous, on-time technicians who explain their work and clean up after themselves. However, scores are tempered by meaningful negative signals: one reviewer reported a no-show and suspected scam operation, another described being overcharged and experiencing a failed repair within two days, and a 4-star reviewer noted poor phone skills and a late arrival. Pricing is generally praised as competitive, but the overcharging complaint and one reviewer paying $240 for a single faucet installation introduce enough doubt to keep that dimension below 70. Experience scores well overall given multiple references to skilled, knowledgeable technicians handling complex jobs, but the toilet handle failure shortly after installation is a workmanship red flag that prevents a higher score.

• One review (2016) alleges the company is a scam operation using a dispatcher number, refusing to provide an address, and failing to show up — this is a serious flag that could indicate a different entity operating under the same name or a fraudulent listing.
• One review (2003) describes a toilet handle falling off two days after installation and a customer feeling overcharged and taken advantage of — direct workmanship and pricing failure.
• Several reviews use very generic praise with minimal specifics ('great service,' 'very professional,' 'highly recommend') which is a mild fake-review pattern risk, though named technicians in multiple reviews (Ross, Omar, Rosendo Jr., Numa, Tony, Mason, Kyle, Mike) add credibility and reduce this concern.
• Review date range spans 2003 to 2024 — the two most negative reviews are from 2003 and 2016, which are significantly older. The most recent reviews (2024) are uniformly positive, suggesting possible improvement over time, but older negative data was still factored into scoring.
• One review (2024-06-27) contains no usable text beyond a job description ('Install a ceiling mount shower head with soaking tub') and was excluded from dimension scoring as it provides no evaluative content.

This WW Score carries HIGH overall confidence due to a sufficient volume of reviews with named technicians and specific job details, but consumers should note the serious no-show/scam allegation from 2016 and the overcharging/workmanship failure from 2003, and independently verify the company's current legitimacy before hiring.

Miracle Plumbing has a strong base of satisfied customers who consistently praise responsiveness, same-day service, and friendly technicians — particularly Kirk, Lee, Liran, and Trevor. However, a meaningful cluster of 1-star reviews raises serious concerns: multiple reviewers independently report cash-only payment demands made out to individuals rather than the company, no receipts issued, price changes after arrival, abandoned work (with an ROC citation noted), and refusal to stand behind faulty workmanship including a toilet that leaked into a neighboring unit and a scorched kitchen floor. Pricing is a split dimension — many customers praise fair and reasonable rates, while several others describe being quoted inflated prices, pressured, or feeling scammed. Project completion is dragged down by at least two credible accounts of incomplete or defective work and one documented job abandonment. The overall score reflects genuine quality in many interactions but is tempered significantly by recurring, specific, and credible negative patterns that cannot be dismissed.

• CASH-ONLY PAYMENT PATTERN: Multiple independent 1-star reviewers report being asked to write checks or pay cash made out to an individual's name rather than the company, with no receipts provided. This is a significant red flag for business legitimacy and consumer protection.
• ABANDONED JOB / ROC CITATION: One reviewer explicitly states Kirk abandoned a residential rough-in job mid-project, resulting in a citation from the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (ROC). This is a serious project completion failure.
• FAULTY WORKMANSHIP NOT REMEDIED: At least two reviewers report defective work (leaking toilet causing damage to neighboring unit, scorched kitchen floor) where the company refused to take responsibility or provide compensation.
• PRICE SWITCHING: Multiple reviewers report being quoted one price over the phone and given a higher price on arrival, or prices being cut in half only after the customer refused — suggesting inconsistent or manipulative pricing practices.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW INFLATION: A large number of reviews (18+) contain zero text with only a 5-star rating. These blank reviews provide no usable data and may artificially inflate the star average. Additionally, some positive reviews use very generic language with no specifics.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review from 'Liran' regarding an ejector pump replacement appears nearly verbatim across two separate review entries (dated 2024-09-12 and 2024-08-31), suggesting a possible duplicate submission or copied review.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are from 2021–2025 and are weighted accordingly. Negative reviews span from 2018 through 2024, indicating these are not isolated historical incidents but a recurring pattern.
• INSURANCE CONCERN: One reviewer states they repeatedly asked for the name of the company's insurance carrier and believes the company may be uninsured. This could not be verified from reviews alone but warrants caution.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (125 reviews) with HIGH data confidence across all four dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given a consistent and credible pattern of serious operational complaints — including cash-only transactions, no receipts, price manipulation, abandoned work, and unresolved workmanship defects — that meaningfully offset the volume of positive feedback.

Advanced Plumbing earns strong marks for responsiveness and professionalism across the majority of reviews, with multiple customers praising same-day or after-hours availability and courteous, knowledgeable technicians. However, three negative reviews meaningfully drag down all dimensions — one customer paid $475 for what they described as incomplete drain work, another reported a technician installing a clearly ill-fitting toilet without disclosure, and a third felt taken advantage of without elaborating. Pricing is a mixed picture: several reviewers explicitly praised fair and transparent costs, while the $475 complaint and the multi-visit scheduling/payment frustration introduce real concern. Project completion is the most penalized dimension, as the toilet installation complaint and the half-completed drain job represent clear failures to deliver satisfactory outcomes. Experience scores moderately well given the tankless water heater diagnosis, the persistent root-clearing job, and multiple technically competent service calls, but is tempered by the installation failure.

• Three reviews (1-star: drain job July 2023, toilet install June 2016, vague complaint March 2016) describe negative outcomes including overcharging, incomplete work, and poor follow-through — these are credible and specific enough to meaningfully reduce scores.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months; only one review (May 2024) falls within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is limited and the score may not reflect current service quality.
• Several positive reviews use somewhat generic praise ('great,' 'knowledgeable,' 'friendly') without granular detail, though most include enough specifics (technician names, job types, timeframes) to be considered credible.
• No clear fake review pattern detected, but the imbalance between detailed negative reviews and some thin positive reviews warrants mild caution.
• The 2018 review notes scheduling delays over several months and paying for two repairs before resolution — a project completion and professionalism concern that is partially offset by the reviewer's ultimate satisfaction.

This WW Score is based on 14 reviews spanning 2012–2024 with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, but reliability is moderately reduced by the age of most reviews and the presence of three substantive negative experiences that reveal real service inconsistencies.

Allied Plumbing earns strong marks for responsiveness, communication, and fair pricing across a large volume of reviews spanning nearly a decade, with many customers praising same-day or next-day service and transparent quotes. However, the project completion dimension is meaningfully dragged down by several serious negative reviews: one customer paid $3,750 for a storm drain fix that still flooded, another paid over $4,000 for a repair that failed within two years, a third was charged extra for the plumber's own equipment shortfall and overheard profane remarks, and a fourth had a hot water heater flue installed incorrectly with no callback to remedy it. A no-show incident and a parts-identification error further weigh on completion and professionalism scores. Experience scores are solid but tempered by the documented cases of misdiagnosis and substandard workmanship. The overall picture is a company that is generally fast, friendly, and fairly priced for routine drain work, but has a meaningful tail of serious quality and follow-through failures on larger or more complex jobs.

• Multiple serious 1-star reviews document failed or incomplete work on larger jobs: a $3,750 storm drain repair that still flooded, a $4,000+ repair that failed within two years with the same issue, and a hot water heater flue installed incorrectly with repeated unanswered callbacks.
• One review documents a no-show for a scheduled appointment with no response to multiple follow-up calls, representing a significant professionalism failure.
• One review documents a plumber using profane language about a customer within earshot, and an attempt to charge extra for returning to the shop for equipment the plumber failed to bring.
• One review documents a misdiagnosis: Allied refused to camera the line and recommended hydro-jetting; a second plumber immediately identified the actual problem (a badly pitched pipe) with a camera.
• One review (2021, 5-star) is actually a rebuttal/update to a prior negative experience involving a substandard new employee; the positive rating reflects a refund and owner responsiveness rather than quality workmanship, and should not be treated as a straightforward positive review.
• The review base is heavily skewed toward older reviews (2013–2021), with only a handful from 2022–2024. The two most recent reviews (2023–2024) include one serious negative (unanswered callbacks on faulty flue work) and one positive, making recent trend data thin.
• The overwhelming majority of positive reviews are for routine, low-complexity jobs (drain snaking, minor repairs). Negative reviews cluster around larger, higher-cost projects, suggesting a possible skill or quality gap for complex work.
• No strong fake review patterns detected; reviews contain specific names, job details, and dollar amounts. Language varies sufficiently across reviews to suggest authenticity.

This WW Score is based on 50 reviews with a wide date range (2013–2024) and carries HIGH statistical confidence due to mention volume, but prospective customers should weight the serious project-completion failures heavily, particularly for any job beyond routine drain clearing, as those failures involved significant financial harm to customers.

Lawrence Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally professional conduct, with many recent reviews (2022-2025) praising responsiveness, quality workmanship, and fair pricing. However, the company's overall score is significantly impacted by a substantial cluster of negative reviews from 2015-2017 documenting serious issues: missed appointments, misdiagnosis of problems, refusal to take responsibility for errors, and aggressive pursuit of diagnostic fees ($99) that customers perceived as unfair. While recent performance appears improved, the pattern of callback failures and incomplete problem-solving in older reviews raises concerns about reliability and accountability. Pricing feedback is mixed—some customers report fair value, while others describe the company as overpriced, particularly for diagnostic visits.

• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews (2015-2017) document missed appointments, no-shows, and failure to return calls—a serious professionalism red flag that appears to have improved in recent years but suggests systemic issues in the past.
• DIAGNOSTIC FEE CONTROVERSY: At least 5 reviews explicitly criticize the $99 diagnostic fee as excessive or unfair, particularly when the actual fix was minimal (e.g., tightening a nut, pouring water down a drain). This suggests a business model that may prioritize fee collection over customer satisfaction.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2017, 2018, 2019) describe incorrect diagnoses leading to unnecessary expensive work or failed repairs, with the company refusing accountability or refunds.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: Recent reviews (2022-2025) are overwhelmingly positive (mostly 5-star), while older reviews (2015-2019) contain numerous 1-star complaints. This dramatic shift suggests either significant business improvement or potential review manipulation. The recent cluster of generic 5-star reviews with minimal detail (4 empty reviews, several one-sentence reviews) warrants caution.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW SIGNAL: Four reviews contain only a 5-star rating with no text (2025-03-11, 2022-06-10 x2, 2023-06-10 x2). Additionally, several recent reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('highly recommend,' 'excellent work,' 'great communication') without specific details, which is atypical of genuine customer feedback.
• INCONSISTENT COMPANY IDENTITY: Reviews reference both 'Shannon' and 'Larry Bell' as owners/operators, with some reviews praising Shannon's work while others criticize Larry's service. This inconsistency makes it difficult to assess whether issues are company-wide or individual-specific.
• CALLBACK FAILURES: Multiple reviews document the company's failure to honor callbacks or return to fix incomplete work, which directly impacts the Project Completion score.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While recent reviews (past 12 months) are consistently positive and support a score in the 75-85 range, the substantial body of negative historical reviews (2015-2019) documenting serious failures in professionalism, accountability, and problem-solving cannot be ignored. The dramatic shift from negative to positive reviews, combined with suspicious patterns in recent reviews (empty ratings, generic phrasing), suggests either genuine business improvement or potential review manipulation. Customers should verify recent work quality independently and clarify callback/warranty policies before engaging this company.