Find Nearby Plumbers In Lakeville, Minnesota

Pro Master Plumbing receives strong praise from repeat customers who highlight Jim's reliability, honesty, technical skill, and personable manner across multiple projects. Pricing is noted positively in two recent reviews and one older review mentions a transparent hourly rate of $150, suggesting fair and open pricing practices. However, a 1-star review from 2020 describes a serious communication and follow-through failure — a prospective customer was left waiting over a month with no callback after initial contact, which meaningfully drags down the project completion and professionalism scores. The positive reviews span from 2017 to 2024, with the two most recent (late 2024) being the most credible and relevant under recency weighting.

• Only 4 reviews total — sample size is very small and scores should be treated with caution.
• One review is from 2017 and one is from 2020; only two reviews fall within the past 12 months (2024). Older reviews are given reduced weight.
• The 1-star review (2020) describes a complete failure to follow up with a prospective customer, indicating a potential pattern of poor responsiveness to new clients versus established repeat customers.
• The two 5-star reviews from October 2024 are both from apparent repeat customers, which may reflect a selection bias — satisfied long-term clients are more likely to review than dissatisfied or one-time customers.
• No suspected fake reviews detected — reviews contain specific details, varied language, and include both positive and negative experiences.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning 7 years and should be considered LOW reliability — the score directionally suggests a competent and trusted contractor for repeat customers, but the small sample and one significant negative experience prevent a confident overall assessment.

This contractor shows mixed performance across available data. Professionalism is a significant concern, with one detailed review documenting severe communication failures (10-15 unanswered calls, 6-week delay in quote delivery), though other reviews praise honesty and pleasantness. Project completion shows moderate capability—work quality is acknowledged when finished, but one review noted a 5-day service interruption. Experience appears solid based on limited mentions of satisfactory workmanship. The WW Score of 68.2 reflects substantial professionalism deficits that outweigh positive technical feedback. No pricing data was provided in any review.

• RECENCY ISSUE: All reviews are from 2010–2013 (11+ years old). No recent data available to assess current performance or whether issues have been corrected.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: One detailed 1-star review (2011) documents severe communication breakdown—10-15 unanswered calls, 6-week quote delay, and vague responses. This is explicit evidence of poor responsiveness and communication.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Positive reviews are generic ('Excellent,' 'went fine') with minimal detail, while the negative review is highly specific and credible. This asymmetry suggests the positive reviews may not fully represent the contractor's typical performance.
• INCOMPLETE REVIEW: One review contains only 'l 12/3/2012' with a 2.0 rating—insufficient data to interpret.
• SMALL SAMPLE: Only 6 reviews total, with only 3 substantive mentions per dimension. Confidence is inherently limited.

This score should be treated with caution due to very small sample size, extreme age of all reviews (11+ years), and lack of recent performance data. The documented communication failures are credible but may not reflect current operations. No pricing information is available. A current assessment would require recent reviews.

Performance Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture driven by a stark divide between older positive reviews and more detailed negative ones. Professionalism is significantly dragged down by multiple explicit accounts of no-shows, failure to return calls, rude managers, and an owner who refused to respond to legitimate complaints — these are serious, specific, and credible. Project completion is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviews describing incorrectly installed fixtures, gas leaks, burst hose bibbs attributed to faulty installation, and abandoned work with no resolution — including one case confirmed by an inspector and three independent plumbers. Positive reviews do exist and mention punctuality, courteousness, and follow-through, but the majority are either very old (pre-2013), lack any detail, or are marked 'unknown,' limiting their evidentiary value. Pricing received modest positive mentions but is insufficient to offset the serious workmanship and accountability failures documented elsewhere.

• 6 reviews are marked 'unknown' with no review text — these provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from scoring.
• All 'unknown' reviews carry star ratings only (ranging 1–5), which cannot be reliably mapped to specific dimensions without context.
• The majority of positive, detailed reviews are from 2008–2012, making them over 10 years old. Recency weighting significantly reduces their reliability as indicators of current performance.
• The most recent detailed reviews (2014–2019) are predominantly negative and describe systemic issues: owner non-responsiveness, refusal to honor warranty work, and confirmed faulty installations — these are given higher weight per recency rules.
• One review ('Wonderful!') is a single-word review with no actionable detail and was not scored for any dimension.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the cluster of 'unknown' reviews warrants caution about data completeness.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the scored dimensions are grounded in explicit review evidence, but the high proportion of content-free 'unknown' reviews and the age of most positive reviews mean the score likely reflects a contractor whose quality and accountability have declined significantly since their earlier years of operation.

This contractor's review record is overwhelmingly negative across all four scored dimensions, with only a small cluster of positive reviews (approximately 9 out of 57) providing any counterweight. Professionalism scores are devastatingly low due to pervasive reports of rude office staff, hung-up calls, no-shows, late arrivals without notice, and aggressive or dismissive behavior by both field technicians and management — including a named general manager (Michelle) who reportedly yelled at customers. Pricing scores are near-floor level due to a consistent and well-documented pattern of hidden upcharges, bait-and-switch fees, and charges for parts costing a fraction of what was billed, with multiple reviewers using the word 'scam' or 'extortion.' Project completion is critically low due to numerous accounts of abandoned jobs, unfinished installs, damage left unrepaired, failed callbacks, and work performed without required permits — with some customers waiting months for resolution. Experience scores are also very low, with multiple reviewers documenting gas leaks left undetected, incorrect water line installations, code violations, property damage during installs, and technicians who lacked basic knowledge — though a small number of positive reviews do describe skilled and efficient work, preventing a floor score.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN — MINOR: The 9 positive reviews (all 4–5 stars) are notably brief, generic, and lack the specificity seen in negative reviews. Phrases like 'great job,' 'very professional,' and 'highly recommend' appear repeatedly with little detail. These may be genuine but warrant reduced weight.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of negative reviews span 2014–2024, with the most recent and severe complaints dated 2024. The positive reviews are concentrated in 2015–2018, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time. Reviews from 2019 onward are almost exclusively 1-star.
• PERMIT VIOLATIONS: Multiple independent reviewers across different years report that this company performed work without pulling required permits, which is a serious legal and safety concern.
• GAS SAFETY VIOLATIONS: At least two reviewers independently reported gas leaks following installations by this company that were not caught by the technicians — one confirmed by a third-party plumber via soap test.
• PATTERN OF UPCHARGING: At least 10 reviews describe a consistent pattern of demanding additional payment after arrival, often for parts costing a fraction of the charged amount, suggesting a systemic business practice rather than isolated incidents.
• MANAGEMENT CONDUCT: Multiple reviews name specific managers (Michelle, Holly, Lisa) as rude, dismissive, or combative, suggesting the poor customer service culture originates at the management level.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 8 reviews describe scheduled appointments where technicians never arrived and no communication was provided, indicating a systemic scheduling and accountability failure.

This WW Score of 18.7 is based on 57 reviews with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions and should be considered highly reliable — the volume, specificity, consistency, and multi-year span of negative reviews paint a clear and credible picture of a contractor with serious, systemic problems in professionalism, pricing transparency, job completion, and workmanship.

This contractor shows severe inconsistency across reviews spanning nearly two decades. The most recent and detailed review (2019) documents serious failures: excessive diagnostic fees ($148/hour, ~$300 for incorrect diagnosis), inability to solve the problem, and a 5-day delay that left the customer without heat. A competing company resolved the issue the same day at lower cost, suggesting incompetence or dishonesty. Two older reviews (2015, 2006) praise professionalism and quality, but lack specificity and may not reflect current operations. The dramatic contradiction between the detailed negative review and generic positive reviews, combined with the recency gap, suggests either significant service degradation or unreliable feedback.

• CRITICAL: Extreme contradiction between reviews. Most recent detailed review (2019) describes serious failures; older reviews (2015, 2006) are generic praise with minimal detail.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: The two positive reviews lack specificity and use generic language ('amazing customer service,' 'true professionalism'). The 2006 review is 17+ years old and uses all-caps formatting suggesting low authenticity.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Two of three reviews are 8+ years old (2015, 2006). Only one recent review (2019) provides actionable detail, and it is severely negative.
• DIAGNOSTIC INTEGRITY: The 2019 review alleges incorrect diagnosis and excessive fees with no recourse—a serious red flag for trustworthiness.
• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 3 reviews total with conflicting signals. Cannot reliably assess current performance.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient reviews (n=3), extreme contradictions between recent and historical feedback, suspected low authenticity in older reviews, and a 17-year gap in data. The single detailed recent review is highly negative and specific, while positive reviews are generic and dated. Any decision should prioritize the 2019 review as most representative of current service quality, but independent verification is strongly recommended before engaging this contractor.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for a trustworthy WW Score. The first review (May 2024) documents severe professionalism failures including late arrival without communication, disrespect for the home (boots on new carpet), incomplete work, and non-transparent billing practices that charged for travel time from a previous job. The second review (April 2019) is 5 years old and provides minimal detail, noting only efficiency and timely completion of a water heater replacement. The extreme recency gap and conflicting quality signals make any aggregate score unreliable.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring
• RECENCY ISSUE: Second review is from April 2019 (5 years old) — does not reflect current service quality
• CONFLICTING SIGNALS: First review (recent) documents multiple serious failures; second review (very old) is positive but lacks detail
• BILLING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: First review explicitly states hidden travel-time charges were not disclosed upfront
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAGS: Late arrival without notification, disregard for customer property (boots on carpet), incomplete work order process

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2, minimum n=3 required) and a 5-year gap between reviews that makes historical data irrelevant to current service quality assessment.