Find Nearby Plumbers In Warren, Michigan

This contractor demonstrates strong professionalism, responsiveness, and fair pricing across multiple reviews spanning 15+ years. However, a critical 1-star review from 2016 describing a water heater installation failure that caused property damage significantly impacts the project completion score. While most reviews praise timely work and skill, the serious service failure and apparent dispute over responsibility creates material concern about follow-through and damage mitigation. The age of most reviews (2009–2019) limits recency confidence, though recent positive reviews from 2019 suggest some recovery.

• CRITICAL: One 1-star review (2016) describes a water heater installation that failed to properly shut off water supply, resulting in continued water damage to the home. The review disputes the contractor's explanation and suggests inadequate problem-solving. This is a serious project completion failure.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 5+ years old (2009–2017). Only one review from 2019 provides recent data. Historical performance may not reflect current service quality.
• DISPUTE PATTERN: The 1-star review indicates a dispute between customer and contractor regarding responsibility and explanation accuracy, raising questions about accountability and communication during problem resolution.

This score should be treated with moderate caution. While the contractor shows strong historical professionalism and pricing, the documented service failure in 2016 that caused property damage is a material concern that cannot be overlooked. The small sample size (6 reviews) and age of most reviews further limit confidence. Recommend requesting references specific to recent water heater installations and clarifying warranty/liability policies before engaging.

Elite Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and generally fair pricing, with multiple reviews praising honest workmanship and problem-solving ability. However, professionalism scores are significantly dragged down by consistent complaints about office staff rudeness, poor phone etiquette, and communication failures (hanging up on customers, sarcasm, lack of courtesy calls). While field technicians (Glenn, Chuck, Nick) receive consistent praise for politeness and efficiency, office management issues create a notable gap. Project completion is solid with evidence of follow-through and emergency responsiveness. The company's age (30+ years) and referral network support experience ratings, but recent reviews (2012–2015) show persistent customer service problems that undermine overall trustworthiness.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 5–12 years old (2012–2019). Only 2 reviews from 2022 and 2020. Recent data is sparse and mixed, limiting confidence in current performance.
• OFFICE VS. FIELD DISCONNECT: Multiple reviews explicitly praise field technicians (Glenn, Chuck, Nick) but criticize office staff. This suggests inconsistent service quality depending on which team member handles the interaction.
• PATTERN OF PROFESSIONALISM COMPLAINTS: Three separate reviews (2015, 2018, 2020) mention rude office staff, phone rudeness, or poor communication. This is not isolated and suggests systemic office management issues.
• POTENTIAL SELECTION BIAS: Positive reviews often mention specific technician names (Glenn, Chuck, Nick), suggesting customers may be rating individuals rather than the company as a whole.

This score should be treated with caution due to age of data and inconsistent service quality between field and office staff; the MODERATE overall confidence reflects strong technical performance undermined by documented professionalism gaps and sparse recent reviews.

SAS Services demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with crews consistently praised for politeness, punctuality, and skilled workmanship. However, the company is significantly hampered by serious project completion issues, including incomplete work, failure to honor warranties, poor follow-up on callbacks, and documented instances of work not meeting specifications. Pricing is generally fair and transparent, though some customers report feeling misled about warranty coverage. The substantial number of negative reviews detailing unresolved issues, unresponsive management, and warranty disputes substantially reduces overall confidence in the company's reliability.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (at least 8) document serious project completion failures including: incomplete plywood replacement on roofs, improper sump pump installation, failed waterproofing systems, and structural defects discovered years later. These are not isolated complaints.
• CRITICAL: Warranty disputes appear in at least 5 reviews. Customers report SAS refusing to honor lifetime warranties or claiming warranty exclusions not clearly disclosed upfront. This suggests either deceptive sales practices or systematic warranty mismanagement.
• CRITICAL: Responsiveness and follow-up failures documented in at least 6 reviews. Customers report inability to reach the company, unreturned calls, missed appointments, and cancelled appointments without proper notice. Owner Steve Safie is named in multiple negative interactions.
• PATTERN: Roofing work shows disproportionately high failure rate. At least 4 detailed reviews describe roof defects (sagging, improper ventilation, shingles blowing off, flashing failures) discovered months or years after installation.
• PATTERN: Basement waterproofing work shows mixed results. While many customers report success, several report catastrophic failures with water damage occurring after warranty claims were denied.
• CONCERN: 3 reviews describe no-show or late appointments with inadequate communication, suggesting operational/scheduling issues.
• CONCERN: 3 reviews describe work quality issues (broken boards, incomplete cleanup, damaged customer property) that required callbacks or customer intervention to resolve.
• NOTE: 3 reviews are blank/empty text with ratings, reducing data quality slightly.
• RECENCY: Most negative reviews are older (2011-2018), but recent reviews (2024) include 2 serious complaints about roof defects and sump pump installation errors, indicating ongoing issues.
• ASSESSMENT: This is NOT a fake review pattern. Reviews show genuine variation in experience, specific details, and authentic customer frustration. The consistency of complaints across different service types and time periods suggests systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While professionalism and expertise scores are supported by substantial positive evidence, the project completion score is significantly dragged down by documented failures and warranty disputes. The company appears capable of good work but demonstrates serious gaps in project oversight, warranty management, and customer follow-up. Potential customers should request detailed written warranties, get everything in writing before work begins, and be prepared to pursue legal action if issues arise, as multiple reviews indicate the company is unresponsive to complaints.

Friendly Electric shows strong technical skill and competitive pricing, with multiple reviews praising their knowledge and fair costs. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by two severe negative reviews alleging dishonesty, price gouging, incomplete work, and rude behavior from ownership. Project completion is inconsistent, with one review reporting abandoned work and unsafe conditions. The positive reviews (4 of 7) highlight efficiency and customer satisfaction, but the pattern of serious complaints about billing practices and follow-through creates substantial reliability concerns that offset the technical competence demonstrated in other reviews.

• CRITICAL: Two 1-star reviews (2021-02-06 and 2020-12-29) allege serious misconduct including bait-and-switch pricing, incomplete work, unsafe electrical conditions, and unprofessional/bullying behavior from ownership. These are specific, detailed complaints from experienced customers (one claims to own 60 properties), not generic criticism.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Strong positive reviews cite 'fair pricing' and 'cost effective,' but negative reviews allege price increases after quotes and credit card surcharges. This suggests inconsistent or deceptive pricing practices.
• COMPLETION CONCERNS: One review explicitly states work was abandoned mid-project with dangerous exposed wiring left behind and owner failed to follow up as promised.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews are from 2018-2019 (3-5 years old). The two most recent negative reviews are from 2020-2021, suggesting potential deterioration in service quality or business practices.
• OWNERSHIP ACCOUNTABILITY: Multiple reviews reference 'Paul' or 'the owner' directly in negative contexts, suggesting leadership-level issues rather than isolated crew problems.

This score should be treated with caution. While technical skill appears genuine (HIGH confidence), the presence of two detailed, serious allegations of dishonesty, incomplete work, and unsafe practices from experienced customers significantly undermines overall trustworthiness. The recency of negative reviews and their specificity about billing and follow-through issues suggest these are not isolated incidents. Recommend requesting references and written quotes with explicit terms before engaging.

Colt Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with multiple reviews praising responsiveness, politeness, and skilled workmanship. Pricing is generally fair and transparent. However, project completion is a significant weakness—two recent reviews (2021–2022) report unresolved issues, missed callbacks, and one customer being ghosted after paying $1,600. The most recent negative review is from November 2022, suggesting ongoing reliability concerns. Older positive reviews (2017, 2021) contrast sharply with more recent failures, indicating possible service degradation or inconsistency.

• CRITICAL: Two severe project completion failures with no follow-through or callback (Nov 2021, Nov 2022). One customer explicitly reports being 'ghosted' after initial repair failed.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2017–2021. The two most recent reviews (2022, 2021) are both 1-star with serious complaints about incomplete work and broken promises.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between glowing older reviews and recent failures suggests either service quality decline or inconsistent performance across team members.
• One review (2021-11-30) includes a disclaimer ('no, I was not paid to write this'), which is a minor red flag for potential review manipulation, though content is specific and credible.

This score should be treated with caution. While professionalism and experience scores are solid, the pattern of recent project completion failures—particularly the unresolved issues and ghosting—significantly undermines overall trustworthiness. The WW Score of 72.3 reflects real strengths in communication and skill, but masks a serious reliability problem that warrants direct inquiry before hiring.

The majority of recent reviews (2024–2025) for Suburban Plumbing Services describe a professional, punctual, and skilled team, with Jim and Alex frequently praised by name for quality workmanship and fair pricing. However, the review set contains a mixed history: several older reviews (2018–2021) reference a 'Tom McCoy' or 'Complete Plumbing Repair' entity with serious complaints including a flooded basement, an unresolved warranty dispute, and a failure to return calls — suggesting this profile may aggregate reviews from multiple business identities or operators over time. The negative reviews are credible and detailed, describing specific failures in project completion and responsiveness, which meaningfully drag down the project completion and professionalism scores. Pricing is generally praised but one negative review documents a disputed price escalation from $125 to $400, reducing confidence in consistent fair pricing. Eight reviews contained no text and only a 5-star rating, which limits their analytical value.

• MIXED BUSINESS IDENTITY: Reviews reference at least three distinct operator names — 'Jim/Alex' (Suburban Plumbing Services), 'Tom McCoy' (Complete Plumbing Repair), and an unnamed technician. This strongly suggests the review profile aggregates reviews from different businesses or operators across time, which undermines score reliability.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENTS: At least three detailed 1-star reviews describe a flooded basement from improper pipe installation, an unresolved $500 refund dispute, an unanswered warranty claim after $850 water jetting, and a toilet installation that caused basement flooding with no callback. These are credible, specific, and serious.
• 8 REVIEWS WITH NO TEXT: Eight reviews consist only of a 5-star rating with no written content. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• RECENCY SPLIT: The most recent reviews (2024–2025) are overwhelmingly positive and reference the current Suburban Plumbing Services team. Older reviews (2013–2021) are more mixed and reference different operators. Recent performance appears stronger, but the historical record contains significant red flags.
• POSSIBLE FAKE OR GENERIC REVIEWS: Several reviews use near-identical phrasing such as 'only plumbers we will call,' 'only company we will use,' and 'will not use any other.' While not conclusive, the pattern of short, unspecific 5-star reviews with no job details warrants mild suspicion.
• OLDEST REVIEWS ARE OVER 10 YEARS OLD: Reviews dating to 2013–2015 are of very limited relevance to current service quality and were given reduced weight in scoring.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: recent reviews (2024–2025) are numerous and consistently positive, but the presence of credible, detailed negative reviews describing project failures and non-responsiveness, combined with apparent multi-entity review aggregation and 8 content-free ratings, introduces meaningful uncertainty that prevents a high-confidence assessment.