Find Nearby Plumbers In St. Cloud, Minnesota

This contractor's review record is deeply mixed, with serious and recurring complaints that significantly drag down every dimension. Professionalism is the most damaged dimension: multiple reviews cite no-call no-shows, failure to return emergency calls, cancelled appointments without notice, and one explicit account of rude and dishonest behavior by the owner. Project completion is similarly troubled, with reviews describing abandoned emergency calls, incomplete service, and one instance of work so poor that a second contractor had to be hired to fix the damage. Pricing received a moderate score because while a few reviews praise fair and transparent quotes, two reviews describe significant pricing dishonesty — including an alleged attempt to sell an unnecessary furnace and a disputed labor and parts bill that ended in small claims court. Experience scores slightly higher because several positive reviews describe technically competent work, correct product selection, and smooth installations, but these are counterbalanced by at least one review describing near-destruction of a furnace. The positive reviews are largely older (2008–2011), while the negative reviews span a wider and more recent range, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews date from 2008–2011, while negative reviews are more evenly distributed across the full date range including as recently as 2023. This pattern suggests a possible deterioration in service quality over time. More recent reviews should be weighted more heavily.
• DISHONESTY FLAG: One review (2013) explicitly accuses the owner by name of recommending unnecessary repairs costing $2,300 when the actual fix cost under $50, and of refusing to refund a $140 service charge. A second review (2009) describes a disputed billing agreement that resulted in small claims court. These are serious integrity concerns.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURE: One review (2019) states the contractor 'almost destroyed' the customer's furnace and that a second HVAC technician had to be brought in to correct the damage. An alleged illegal construction lien was also placed on the property.
• EMERGENCY RESPONSE FAILURE: At least three separate reviews (2018, 2023, and one additional) describe the contractor failing to respond to emergency service calls despite assurances, forcing customers to seek help elsewhere.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Positive reviews contain specific details (product models, timelines, job descriptions) that suggest authenticity. No identical phrasing or suspicious clustering was identified.

This WW Score is based on 14 reviews spanning 15 years and carries HIGH confidence due to mention volume across all dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the strong recency bias toward negative experiences and multiple credible allegations of dishonesty and service failure.

This contractor shows severe inconsistency across reviews spanning 14 years. Two early positive reviews (2009, 2005) praise punctuality, fair pricing, and job completion, but three more recent reviews (2014, 2011, 2010) reveal critical failures: poor workmanship, missed deadlines, non-payment to suppliers resulting in a lien against the customer's home, and vague dissatisfaction. The 2011 incident is particularly damaging—the customer paid twice for materials due to the contractor's failure to pay his supplier. Project completion is the weakest dimension, with evidence of incomplete work and broken commitments. Professionalism and pricing show mixed signals, though the financial mismanagement incident suggests serious business practice problems.

• CRITICAL: 2011 review describes a lien placed on customer's home due to contractor's non-payment to suppliers. This indicates severe financial irresponsibility and potential legal/contractual violations.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are 10+ years old (2010–2011), but the 2014 review (3-star) suggests ongoing issues. Only one review from past 12 months—insufficient for current reliability assessment.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Stark contrast between glowing early reviews (5-star, 2005–2009) and poor later reviews (1–3 star, 2010–2014). This may indicate business decline, changed ownership, or deteriorating service quality over time.
• VAGUE REVIEW: The 2005 review (5-star) contains only a description of work performed with no quality assessment—provides minimal scoring value.
• LIMITED DATA: Only 5 reviews total; confidence in any dimension is constrained. Experience dimension has zero mentions.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited review volume (5 total), extreme age of most data (10–14 years old), and a critical incident involving financial mismanagement and property liens that raises serious concerns about trustworthiness regardless of numerical score.

The reviews paint a largely negative picture of this contractor's performance. Two of the three reviews describe recurring drain problems that were not resolved after multiple visits and multiple charges, suggesting a significant failure in both technical competence and job completion. The one positive review (from 2015) highlights responsive communication and a successful repair, but it is nearly a decade old and carries limited weight against more recent negative experiences. Pricing concerns are prominent, with one reviewer describing repeated charges for what appeared to be the same unresolved issue. The single positive note across the negative reviews was that one technician was described as polite and professional, preventing the professionalism score from bottoming out entirely.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as unreliable and directional only, not definitive.
• Two of the three reviews are from 2022 and 2016 respectively; the only positive review is from 2015 and is nearly 10 years old. Recency weighting strongly favors the negative reviews.
• A pattern of repeated service visits without resolution and repeated charges for the same issue is a significant red flag for both competence and billing practices.
• Review from 2022-10-25 describes technicians not listening to prior service history, not cleaning up after work, and disputing warranty coverage — multiple serious professionalism and completion failures in a single visit.
• Sample size is too small (3 reviews) to draw statistically reliable conclusions. Score should be used with caution.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning nearly a decade, with the sole positive review being approximately 9 years old, making the overall score LOW reliability and unsuitable for confident decision-making without additional recent review data.

This contractor's reviews paint a deeply concerning picture across all four scored dimensions. Project completion is a critical failure point: multiple reviewers describe work left in worse condition than before the visit, abandoned jobs, missed callbacks, and unresolved issues despite return visits. Professionalism is similarly poor, with reports of rescheduling four times, broken promises about weekend availability, dismissive responses to complaints, and a technician who left mid-job after creating a mess. Pricing drew sharp criticism, including a $6,100 upsell for a job that only required a cheap wax ring replacement, misleading 'free service call' advertising, and warranty terms that were effectively ignored. Experience scores are low as well, with technicians installing wrong-sized parts, failing to diagnose simple problems correctly, and leaving homes in worse functional condition. The sole positive review, which is also the oldest (2019), is the only data point pulling scores upward, but it is heavily outweighed by four detailed, credible negative reviews.

• Four of five reviews are 1-star with highly specific, detailed complaints — these appear credible and consistent, not fake.
• The single 5-star review (2019) is generic in praise and significantly older than the negative reviews; it carries minimal weight given recency rules.
• Most negative reviews are from 2020 and one from 2024, suggesting persistent and recurring problems over multiple years rather than isolated incidents.
• The 2024 review is the most recent and describes active, unresolved harm to a customer — this is given the highest recency weight.
• Advertised '24-hour' service was contradicted by the contractor's own staff during a critical callback situation, suggesting misleading advertising.

This WW Score is based on 5 reviews with strong usable data across all dimensions; while the sample size is small, the consistency and specificity of the negative reviews across multiple years gives the low score moderate-to-high reliability, and consumers should treat this score as a credible warning signal.

This single detailed review documents significant failures across all dimensions. The son demonstrated poor technical knowledge (incorrect HVAC duct placement, requiring customer and contractor intervention), unprofessional communication (defensive responses, lack of follow-up from father), and poor workmanship quality (improper caulking installation, failure to remove old silicone, inconsistent application). The company also charged an unjustified restocking fee contradicting supplier policy. The customer consulted three independent plumbers who validated all complaints, confirming substandard work quality.

• CRITICAL: Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score is unreliable and should not be used for decision-making
• Review is from 2010 (14+ years old) — does not reflect current business practices or personnel
• Customer took corrective action by consulting independent plumbers and planning to hire another contractor for rework — indicates unresolved quality issues
• Father (business owner/mayor) was defensive and refused to address legitimate quality concerns — suggests poor customer service culture

This score is based on a single review from 2010 and cannot be considered reliable for current business assessment. The detailed nature of complaints is credible, but a minimum of 3 recent reviews is required to produce a trustworthy WW Score.

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 3 reviews were analyzed, falling below the minimum threshold of 5 reviews needed for confidence. The reviews show extreme polarization: one 5-star praising responsiveness and quick service, and two 1-star reviews citing aggressive pricing practices and billing discrepancies. Pricing concerns appear in 2 of 3 reviews with serious allegations of double-billing and hidden travel charges. Project completion was mentioned positively in only one review. No substantive data on technical experience or skill level.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews analyzed. Minimum 5 reviews recommended for reliable scoring.
• EXTREME POLARIZATION: Reviews split between 5-star and 1-star with no middle ground, suggesting either highly inconsistent service or potential review authenticity issues.
• PRICING RED FLAGS: Two independent reviews allege billing problems—one claims double-billing against quote, another claims undisclosed travel charges. These are serious allegations requiring verification.
• RECENCY CONCERN: One review is from June 2021 (nearly 3 years old). Only 1 of 3 reviews is from the past 12 months (January 2024).
• LIMITED DIMENSION COVERAGE: Experience/skill level not mentioned in any review. Only pricing and professionalism have any data.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=3, minimum n=5 required) and extreme rating polarization. The serious pricing allegations in 2 reviews warrant investigation, but confidence in any overall assessment is critically low. Do not rely on this analysis for contractor selection.