Find Nearby Plumbers In Billings, Montana

Two of three reviews describe positive experiences with Midland Mechanical, highlighting prompt arrival, friendly attitude, and successful job completion including a water heater replacement completed within roughly 90 minutes. However, the third review — a 1-star account — describes a serious pattern of repeated rescheduling followed by a no-show with no communication, which is a significant professionalism and project completion failure. Because this negative review is one of only three total reviews, it carries substantial weight and meaningfully drags down both the professionalism and project completion scores. Experience scores are modestly positive based on two reviews that reference quality workmanship, but confidence is limited given the small sample size.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and unreliable until more reviews are available.
• One review (2020-10-21) describes a no-show with no callback, which is a serious professionalism and reliability concern that cannot be dismissed.
• The two positive reviews (2024 and 2021) are separated by nearly 3 years, limiting the ability to assess consistency over time.
• Pricing was not mentioned in any review — that dimension cannot be scored.
• The most recent review (2024) is positive and within the past 12 months, which is a mild positive signal, but insufficient to override concerns given the tiny sample.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be considered highly preliminary — do not rely on it as a definitive assessment of this contractor's quality or consistency.

ProTech Mechanical presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. On the positive side, multiple reviewers praised specific technicians by name for being professional, courteous, knowledgeable, and thorough — particularly in plumbing and water heater work. However, serious negative reviews describe gas lines left loose, billing fraud (charged 2 hours for 30 minutes), failure to honor warranties, attempts to upsell elderly customers on unnecessary replacements, and chronic dispatch and communication failures. The business is now confirmed closed per multiple 2024 reviews, which voids all sold warranties and renders the contractor's track record largely moot for future customers. The score reflects a contractor that had genuine capable technicians but also systemic failures in accountability, pricing integrity, and follow-through.

• BUSINESS CONFIRMED CLOSED: Multiple 2024 reviews confirm the company is no longer in business per the BBB and the owner. All warranties sold by this contractor are now void.
• WARRANTY VOID RISK: At least one reviewer explicitly states that warranties sold by ProTech are now unenforceable due to closure.
• BILLING FRAUD CONCERN: One reviewer reports being billed for 2 hours when the technician was on-site for 30 minutes and failed to correctly diagnose the issue.
• SAFETY CONCERN: One reviewer reports gas lines were left loose after a water heater repair attempt — a serious safety hazard.
• PREDATORY PRICING ALLEGATION: One reviewer reports the company attempted to sell an elderly customer a new water heater for $1,800 when only a standard in-stock part was needed.
• WARRANTY/MANUFACTURER MISREPRESENTATION: One reviewer reports the company told them a 2-year-old Carrier unit was out of warranty and pushed a new unit sale; the manufacturer confirmed it was under warranty.
• DISPATCH AND COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reviews across different years describe technicians never calling back, dispatch being unresponsive, and appointments never being honored.
• 10 REVIEWS HAD NO TEXT: 10 reviews contained only a star rating with no written content and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent substantive reviews (2024) confirm business closure. Several positive reviews are from 2021-2022 and may not reflect the company's final operational state.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW LEVEL: Several very brief positive reviews ('Great service', 'Very helpful!', 'Professional and honest.') lack any specific detail. While not conclusive, these generic entries slightly inflate the positive signal and were weighted conservatively.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — while there are enough reviews to calculate a score, the business is confirmed closed, the review set spans many years with declining quality in later years, and several serious safety and ethics violations are documented that significantly undermine the positive reviews.

Pete's Plumbing presents a deeply divided picture across its review history. A cluster of older reviews (2012–2018) from a plumber named Paul Kelton describe highly skilled, thorough, and honest workmanship, which elevates the experience score somewhat. However, the more recent and numerous reviews (2018–2024) paint a troubling pattern of pricing opacity, inflated quotes, refusal to provide itemized breakdowns, and in several cases outright misdiagnosis of problems that other plumbers resolved cheaply and quickly. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by repeated failures to show up on time, poor communication from the office, and in one case a manager threatening to abandon a job mid-installation unless paid in full. The pricing dimension is the weakest area, with multiple reviewers independently documenting quotes two to four times higher than competitors, undisclosed add-on charges, and at least two credible allegations of fabricated repair needs.

• PRICING FRAUD PATTERN: At least 5 independent reviewers across different years describe being quoted prices significantly above market rate, with add-on charges for items already present or not needed (e.g., relief valves already installed, vents already up to code, non-existent 'squirrel cage motor'). This is a consistent and specific pattern, not isolated complaints.
• REFUSAL TO ITEMIZE: Two reviewers explicitly state that Pete's Plumbing refused to provide an itemized breakdown of charges, which is a significant transparency red flag.
• POSSIBLE DUAL-ENTITY ISSUE: Several highly positive reviews (2012–2014) reference a specific plumber named 'Paul Kelton' operating out of New Jersey (Metuchen to Leonia), which is geographically inconsistent with the majority of reviews referencing a New Orleans-area operation. These may represent a different business or individual operating under the same name, and their scores may not reflect the same company.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent reviews (2022–2024) are uniformly 1-star. All 5-star reviews are from 2019 or earlier, with the most detailed positive reviews from 2012–2016. The trend is strongly negative over time.
• ONE REVIEW FLAGGED AS NO DATA: The review dated 2015-08-27 contains only the word 'unknown' and was excluded from scoring as it provides no usable information.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW LEVEL: The 5-star reviews from 2016–2019 are somewhat generic in praise ('timely, courteous and professional') without strong specifics, though not identical in phrasing. No strong fake review pattern detected, but the contrast with detailed negative reviews warrants mild caution.
• ACCOUNTABILITY FAILURE: One reviewer reports the owner blamed the customer for the company losing their inspector's report and failing to follow up for three weeks, indicating a pattern of deflecting responsibility.

This WW Score is based on 21 usable reviews spanning 12 years and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its dimensions, but consumers should weight the more recent 2019–2024 reviews most heavily, as they consistently describe pricing misconduct and poor follow-through that the older positive reviews do not offset.

This contractor has a deeply mixed record across only 4 reviews spanning 2017 to 2023. Two of the four reviews describe serious failures: a technician arriving unprepared for a known main-line blockage and then attempting to charge a service call anyway, and a crew arriving without proper equipment, doing minimal work, and still charging over $400. These incidents significantly drag down professionalism, project completion, and pricing scores. The two positive reviews highlight individual technicians (Emit and Jerry) who showed thoroughness and dedication, but these are older reviews (2020 and 2017) and carry less recency weight. Overall, the negative experiences are more recent and more detailed, suggesting a decline in service quality over time.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score reliability is very low and should be treated as indicative only.
• The two positive reviews are from 2017 and 2020, making them 4–7 years old. The two negative reviews are from 2023, suggesting possible decline in service quality over time.
• Recency bias applied: the 2023 negative reviews were weighted more heavily than the older positive reviews.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details, named technicians, and varied language.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews with significant recency imbalance — the negative reviews are recent and the positive ones are years old — making this score LOW confidence and insufficient for a definitive assessment of current service quality.

Brown Plumbing's review record is dominated by serious negative experiences across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is heavily penalized by multiple accounts of rude workers, dismissive ownership, unresponsiveness, and a failure to return calls — with only a small number of older positive reviews providing any offset. Project completion is a major liability: reviews describe a collapsed basement ceiling from a loose valve, a faucet left hanging loose inside a wall, an unresolved leaking tub faucet after $522 charged, and a water heater repair that required multiple trips due to poor diagnosis. Pricing concerns are explicit, with one reviewer being charged for parts not needed and another charged for hours the plumber was not present. The few positive reviews are older (2013–2022) and lack the specificity and recency to meaningfully counterbalance the pattern of recent failures. The most recent reviews (2024) are uniformly negative, suggesting a deterioration in service quality over time.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The three most recent reviews (2024-09-10, 2024-07-02, 2024-06-19) are all 1–2 star ratings describing serious failures. Positive reviews are predominantly from 2013–2022, indicating a likely decline in service quality.
• ONE UNUSABLE REVIEW: The review dated 2014-07-28 contains only the word 'unknown' with a 5-star rating. This review was excluded from scoring as it contains no usable data.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW: The two very brief 5-star reviews from 2014 ('He showed up and explained...') and 2013 are sparse but not identical in phrasing. No strong fake review pattern detected, but their lack of detail limits their evidentiary value.
• OWNER ACCOUNTABILITY PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers (2024-09-10, 2020-05-10) explicitly describe the owner as dismissive and unwilling to accept responsibility for documented errors, which is a significant reputational and operational risk signal.
• BILLING INTEGRITY CONCERN: Two separate reviews (2024-06-19, 2016-05-10) describe being charged for time or parts that were not legitimately incurred, suggesting a possible systemic billing integrity issue.

This WW Score is based on 11 reviews with usable data spanning 2013–2024; confidence is MODERATE overall due to the meaningful volume of mentions across dimensions, but the score should be treated as a reliable warning signal given the concentration of detailed, specific negative reviews in the most recent period.

The reviews paint a predominantly negative picture of this contractor across nearly all dimensions. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is severely damaged by reports of no-follow-through on quotes, rescheduling customers without adequate notice, and dismissive customer service. Pricing is flagged as a serious concern in one detailed review, where a customer alleges being charged $1,250 for a 45-minute job after being quoted $145/hr, which if accurate represents a significant breach of trust. Project completion is also poor, with one review describing work left incomplete and causing water damage that took 39 days and multiple calls to resolve, and another describing a job that was never quoted or started after weeks of waiting. The sole positive review, from 2016, describes a timely furnace installation with friendly technicians, which provides a small amount of positive signal but is nearly 9 years old and heavily outweighed by the negative reviews.

• WARNING: The only positive review (5-star) is dated December 2016 — nearly 9 years old. It should be given significantly reduced weight relative to the more recent negative reviews.
• WARNING: All four negative reviews fall between 2020 and 2022, suggesting a consistent pattern of poor service in the more recent operational period.
• WARNING: The pricing complaint alleges a charge of $1,250 for approximately 45 minutes of work after being quoted $145/hr — this is a potential deceptive billing flag and warrants serious caution.
• WARNING: Only 5 reviews total. The WW Score is based on a very small sample and should be treated as directional only, not definitive.
• NOTE: No fake review patterns detected. Reviews are specific, varied in detail, and describe distinct incidents.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning 2016–2022, with 4 of 5 being strongly negative and the sole positive review being nearly 9 years old — the score directionally reflects poor recent performance but should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size.