Find Nearby Plumbers In Westland, Michigan

This contractor's review record is dominated by serious, recurring complaints across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is heavily damaged by repeated reports of no-shows, missed appointment windows without notice, rude technicians, hostile office staff, and even an employee behaving aggressively while driving a company vehicle. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with numerous explicit accounts of bait-and-switch tactics, prices doubling or tripling at the door versus what was quoted by phone, undisclosed credit card surcharges, and what multiple reviewers describe as price gouging of elderly customers. Project completion is critically undermined by multiple reviews describing work that was never finished, services charged for but not performed, failed callbacks, and at least two cases where the company cashed payment but did not return to complete the job. Experience scores marginally higher than the other dimensions only because a small number of positive reviews describe genuinely skilled and thorough technicians, but these are outweighed by accounts of incorrect installations, incomplete drain clearing, and technicians who could not diagnose problems they caused.

• PRICING MISCONDUCT PATTERN: At least 8 reviews independently describe prices being significantly higher at the door than what was quoted over the phone, consistent with a deliberate bait-and-switch sales practice rather than isolated miscommunication.
• ELDERLY CUSTOMER TARGETING: Three separate reviews explicitly call out what they perceive as price gouging of elderly or senior customers, which is a serious ethical and reputational concern.
• PAYMENT WITHOUT SERVICE: Multiple reviews describe the company cashing checks or charging deposits before work was completed or after work was abandoned, with no refund issued.
• CHRONIC NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: At least 6 reviews describe technicians who never arrived within the promised window, cancelled same-day, or rescheduled multiple times without resolution.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024) continue to reflect the same core complaints seen in reviews dating back to 2014, suggesting these are systemic and long-standing issues rather than isolated incidents.
• POSITIVE REVIEW QUALITY: The positive reviews, while genuine in tone and specific in detail (named technicians, specific jobs), represent a clear minority and are outnumbered approximately 3-to-1 by negative reviews. No fake review pattern detected, but the volume imbalance is notable.
• OLDER REVIEW VOLUME: A significant portion of reviews predate 2022, reducing their weight in the final score. However, the 2024 and 2023 reviews confirm the same patterns persist, so historical reviews are treated as corroborating rather than disqualifying.

This WW Score of 32.1 is based on 35 reviews with strong data across all four dimensions and should be considered highly reliable as a reflection of this contractor's overall service quality.

The overwhelming majority of reviews across all four dimensions are deeply negative, with recurring complaints about unprofessional conduct, deceptive or excessive pricing, incomplete or failed work, and poor technical competence. Professionalism issues include arguing with customers, failing to call ahead, showing up late, and dismissive communication. Pricing complaints are severe and consistent — customers describe being charged $99–$300 just for inconclusive diagnostics, upselling unnecessary services, and quotes far exceeding market rates. Project completion failures are significant, including abandoned jobs, unresolved problems after multiple visits, broken promises on refunds, and unfinished repairs left for months. Experience concerns center on technicians snaking the wrong drain, misdiagnosing problems, and performing work that a subsequent plumber easily corrected at a fraction of the cost. The handful of positive reviews (3 out of 13) provide some upward pull but are insufficient to offset the volume and severity of negative feedback.

• 10 out of 13 reviews are negative (1–2 stars), representing a strongly unfavorable signal across all dimensions.
• Several reviews describe what may constitute deceptive business practices: charging $99 service fees for no actionable diagnosis, selling pipe liners to customers who did not need them (acknowledged by the company's own project manager), and disputing warranty coverage on technicalities.
• One review (2018-06-20) describes a $2,750 payment taken with no work completed and no refund issued — a serious consumer protection concern.
• The three positive reviews (2012, 2014, 2018) are sparse in detail and spread across a wide date range; they do not show a pattern of consistent quality improvement.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months relative to a current analysis date; the most recent review (2023-03-04) is also a 1-star review, suggesting no improvement in service quality over time.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in length, detail, and writing style, and negative reviews contain specific, verifiable complaints.

This WW Score is based on 13 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions at HIGH confidence, and the score of approximately 28 should be treated as a reliable and conservative reflection of consistently poor customer experiences reported over multiple years.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. Both reviews are positive and mention rapid response and problem resolution, but the sample size is too small to calculate a reliable WW Score. Review 1 emphasizes quick response time (professionalism). Review 2 mentions responsiveness, customer education, and technical knowledge (professionalism and experience). Neither review addresses pricing or detailed project completion timelines. One review is from 2021 (over 2 years old), limiting recency.

• Insufficient reviews (n=2) — cannot calculate WW Score reliably per Step 4 guidance
• One review is from 2021 (over 2 years old); only one review from past 12 months
• No pricing information mentioned in any review
• Limited detail on project completion scope and follow-through
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with minimal specificity — pattern warrants caution

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (fewer than 3 reviews with usable data). Additional reviews are required before any scoring recommendation can be made.

Only two reviews exist, making any scoring highly unreliable. The 2019 review is deeply negative, describing multiple failed repairs (toilet, sink, sump pump), unresolved property damage, and a complete breakdown in communication and follow-through. The 2007 review is positive, praising workmanship and communication, but it is over 17 years old and carries very little weight given its age. The most recent and therefore most relevant data point paints a serious picture of poor professionalism, incomplete project follow-through, and unresponsiveness. Scores have been kept conservative to reflect the severity of the negative review and the extreme age gap between the two data points.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules.
• RECENCY WARNING: The positive review is dated 2007, making it over 17 years old. It has been heavily discounted in scoring. The only recent review (2019) is strongly negative.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERN: The 2019 review documents three separate failed or incomplete jobs — a leaking toilet, a leaking sink repair, and a failed sump pump float switch — none of which were fully resolved.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: The contractor failed to return calls, voicemails, and emails as documented in the 2019 review, directly contradicting the communication praise in the 2007 review.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE UNRESOLVED: Reviewer explicitly states the contractor caused damage to a finished basement ceiling and destroyed a smoke detector, then refused to return to remedy the damage despite multiple contact attempts.
• DATA INSUFFICIENT: With only 2 reviews spanning 12 years, no dimension score should be treated as representative of current contractor quality.

This score report has extremely low reliability — only 2 reviews were available, they are 12 years apart, and the sole recent review documents serious unresolved workmanship and communication failures; no meaningful conclusions about current contractor quality can be drawn.

With only two reviews — one strongly positive and one strongly negative — the data is too limited to draw reliable conclusions. The positive review highlights punctuality, polite demeanor, mask and shoe protection, clear communication, and pricing that matched the quoted amount. The negative review raises serious concerns about incomplete work, repeated return visits without resolution, and a lack of basic professional tools such as a drain camera. The direct contradiction between these two reviews creates high uncertainty across all dimensions, and scores have been kept conservative to reflect that uncertainty.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rule (fewer than 3 reviews).
• The two reviews are in direct conflict: one is a 5-star review praising professionalism and value, the other is a 1-star review citing incomplete work and lack of basic tools. No consensus can be established.
• Both reviews are dated 2020, making them over 4 years old. Recency rule applies — these scores should be treated as stale and may not reflect current service quality.
• The positive review, while detailed, is a single data point and cannot offset the serious project completion and experience concerns raised in the negative review.

This score report should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — only 2 reviews were available, both are over 4 years old, and they directly contradict each other across every key dimension.

Only a single review from 2013 is available, making any scoring highly unreliable. The review does indicate the job passed inspection and was described as excellent, suggesting adequate project completion and workmanship. Pricing was noted as affordable, which is a positive signal. However, no information was provided about professionalism, communication, punctuality, or attitude, so that dimension cannot be scored. All scores are conservative given the extremely limited data.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from July 2013 — over 10 years old. This data is significantly outdated and should not be used to assess current contractor quality.
• Review is generic with minimal detail. Phrases like 'excellent job' and 'very affordable' lack specifics, reducing confidence in the scores.
• Single review with no corroborating reviews — all dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence only.

This score report is not reliable for decision-making purposes, as it is based on a single, decade-old review with minimal detail and no data on professionalism.