Plumbing Inspection In Columbus

Northside Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism, with dozens of reviewers citing punctuality, responsiveness, same-day service, and courteous technicians — particularly Chad, Tyler, and Joseph. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and reasonable, though one reviewer flagged a $450 charge for 45 minutes of labor with no parts and an unsolicited upsell, and a separate reviewer was billed $995 for unresolved work. Project completion is the most penalized dimension: there are multiple serious negative reviews describing abandoned work, unresolved drain issues, a billing dispute for incomplete service, and a flooring damage incident that escalated to third-party arbitration — all of which meaningfully drag the score down. Experience scores moderately well, with many reviewers praising diagnostic skill and technical knowledge, but offset by cases where problems were misdiagnosed or left unresolved. The business has a long review history spanning over a decade, and recent reviews (2024–2025) are predominantly positive, suggesting improvement over time.

• 8 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• One review (2012-06-14, 1-star) appears to be for a different company entirely ('Able Plumbing on Giles Rd') and was excluded from scoring.
• One review (2012-06-16, 5-star) contains only 'SEE ABOVE' with no usable content and was excluded.
• The 1-star review dated 2024-09-07 alleges discriminatory behavior (refusing service based on sexual orientation). This is a serious conduct flag that falls outside standard scoring dimensions but reflects on professionalism and business ethics.
• A 2024-05-06 review describes a significant project completion failure: technicians spent 5+ hours without resolving a blocked drain, lost the customer record, and then billed $995.39 for unresolved work. This is a major negative signal for project completion.
• A 2013 review describes a flooring damage incident, billing overcharge, and owner hanging up on the customer — escalating to third-party arbitration. While older, it establishes a pattern of dispute-handling concerns.
• A 2019 review describes two running toilets that were not fixed after payment of $400+, requiring a return visit and additional charges. The owner's response was described as dismissive.
• A 2012 review describes a sewer line replacement with poor workmanship: cut cast iron pipe left in crawlspace, poor landscaping restoration, and eventual line collapse attributed to improper installation.
• Several older negative reviews (2012–2015) involve a 'Glen' who appears to be a prior owner or manager. Recent reviews (2018–2025) center on 'Chad.' This ownership/management transition may explain the improvement in recent reviews, but the historical record still affects the overall score.
• Recency note: The majority of reviews from 2024–2025 are overwhelmingly positive (5-star). Reviews from 2012–2015 contain the most serious complaints. Scores were weighted toward recent reviews but historical negatives were not ignored given their severity.
• Mild generic praise pattern detected in several short 5-star reviews (e.g., 'Great service,' 'Excellent and fast,' 'Good guys, good work'), but most are accompanied by specific details or named technicians, reducing fake review concern to LOW.

This WW Score is based on 55 reviews with usable content spanning 2006–2025, with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions due to strong mention counts; however, the score should be interpreted with caution given documented serious project completion failures, a discriminatory conduct allegation, and a pattern of dispute escalation in older reviews that temper an otherwise strong recent track record.

Mr. and Mrs. Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism and pricing being consistent highlights across dozens of reviews spanning several years. The majority of customers praise technicians — particularly Sebastian and Martin — for being courteous, communicative, and knowledgeable. However, several credible negative reviews meaningfully drag scores down: one detailed account describes a failed inspection, an abandoned job after full payment, and poor workmanship on a large rough-in project; another describes a missed appointment with full cancellation; a third describes a plumber missing three active gas leaks that were later confirmed by the gas company; and a fourth describes condescending behavior and damaged drywall with poor resolution. These are not minor complaints — they represent serious failures in professionalism, project completion, and technical competence that must be weighted against the otherwise positive majority. Pricing scores well overall, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting fair and competitive rates, though the contractor is not described as the cheapest option.

• 6 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several positive reviews use generic praise with limited specifics (e.g., 'amazing experience,' 'great company,' 'best plumber out there'), which slightly reduces confidence in the highest scores.
• One highly detailed 1-star review (2018) describes serious issues: job abandonment after full payment, failed inspection, repeated leaking connections, and threatening behavior. This is a significant red flag for project completion and professionalism.
• One 1-star review (2021) describes a plumber missing three confirmed gas leaks after a pressure test — a serious safety and competence concern that materially impacts the experience score.
• One 1-star review (2020) describes a repair failing within 48 hours and the company refusing to return without additional charges — a direct project completion failure.
• One 1-star review (2022) describes a no-show after a confirmed appointment and full cancellation of the job — a project completion and professionalism failure.
• One 1-star review (2024) describes a condescending technician attitude — a professionalism concern.
• One 1-star review (2023) describes damaged drywall, a poorly fitted installation, and an unresolved complaint — impacting both experience and project completion scores.
• Most negative reviews are older (2018–2022), while the majority of recent reviews (2024–2025) are positive. This recency pattern is favorable but does not eliminate the weight of serious historical complaints.
• No strong indicators of fake reviews detected, though the volume of generic 5-star reviews with no detail warrants mild caution.

This WW Score is based on 49 reviews with usable content across a multi-year period and carries HIGH overall confidence; however, the presence of multiple credible, detailed negative reviews — including safety failures, job abandonment, and workmanship defects — means consumers should read the full review record rather than relying solely on the aggregate score.

Zoom Drain demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 78.2, driven primarily by excellent professionalism (82.5) and solid project completion rates (81.0). Technicians are consistently praised for punctuality, friendliness, and technical knowledge. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness (68.0), with numerous customers citing costs as excessive or overpriced relative to work performed. Experience scores are solid (79.5), reflecting genuine expertise in drain and sewer work, though some customers report incomplete diagnostics or unnecessary upselling. The company shows strong responsiveness and same-day service availability, which customers value highly.

• PRICING CONCERNS: 156 mentions of pricing issues reveal a consistent pattern of customer dissatisfaction. Many reviews explicitly state prices are 2-3x higher than competitors for identical work. Examples include $500+ for simple drain snaking, $638 for a quote without service, and $1000+ for jobs completed elsewhere for $200-300. This is the most frequently cited complaint.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: At least 25 reviews document missed appointments, no-call/no-shows, or failure to meet promised time windows. Customers report waiting full appointment windows (4-6 hours) with no technician arrival and poor communication from dispatch.
• INCOMPLETE WORK AND FOLLOW-UP ISSUES: Multiple reviews (15+) describe situations where initial service failed to fully resolve problems, requiring expensive return visits or customers hiring competitors to finish the job. Some customers report being charged for 'attempts' that didn't work.
• POTENTIAL UPSELLING PATTERN: Approximately 20 reviews suggest technicians recommend expensive solutions (full pipe replacement, hydro-jetting, etc.) when simpler/cheaper fixes would suffice. Some customers report being pressured into higher-cost options.
• DAMAGE AND LIABILITY ISSUES: At least 8 reviews document property damage (sprinkler pipes, water mains, driveways, electrical lines) caused by Zoom technicians, with the company refusing to cover repair costs or claiming 'not responsible per contract.'
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Multiple reviews cite poor follow-up (missing estimates, unreturned calls, no response to complaints), particularly from management and administrative staff.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Wide variance in technician competence noted. Some reviews praise specific technicians (Johnny Rodriguez, Ian, Kyle, Maurice) while others describe inexperienced or unknowledgeable technicians sent to the same locations.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Approximately 80-100 reviews are extremely generic 5-star ratings with minimal detail (e.g., 'Great service!' 'Excellent!' 'Highly recommend!') and no substantive information. Many lack dates or contain identical phrasing. However, the volume of detailed negative reviews and specific complaints suggests these are not entirely fabricated—rather, the company may be actively soliciting reviews post-service (one review explicitly mentions aggressive review-hunting via text/call within 24 hours).
• RECENCY BIAS: Most reviews are from 2023-2025 (past 12 months), with a concentration in June 2023 and January-June 2025. Older reviews (2014-2020) tend to be more positive, suggesting potential service quality decline or increased customer expectations.
• GEOGRAPHIC VARIATION: Reviews span multiple states (PA, CA, NJ, NC, TX, UT, CO, etc.), suggesting this is a franchise or multi-location operation. Quality and pricing may vary significantly by location.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be interpreted with caution: while Zoom Drain demonstrates genuine expertise and professionalism in technical execution, the consistent and detailed complaints about pricing (appearing in 13% of reviews) and scheduling failures (2% of reviews) represent material service gaps. The company excels at the core plumbing work but struggles with business operations and pricing transparency. Customers should obtain multiple quotes before engaging and clarify pricing in writing beforehand. The score reflects strong technical capability undermined by significant operational and pricing concerns.

McDermott Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with consistently positive feedback on punctuality, communication, and workmanship quality. However, the company is significantly hampered by recurring communication failures—multiple customers report unanswered callbacks and missed appointments—which directly impacts project completion reliability. Pricing feedback is mixed, with many praising fair rates while others cite unexpectedly high charges and unclear fee structures. The WW Score of 78.2 reflects solid core competency undermined by operational inconsistencies in responsiveness and follow-through.

• CRITICAL: Communication/Responsiveness Pattern — At least 8 reviews explicitly mention failure to return calls, missed appointments, or lack of callback follow-up (dates: 2023-07-02, 2022-06-05, 2021-06-10, 2020-06-10, 2020-06-10, 2019-08-07, 2018-02-12, 2016-10-17, and others). This is a systemic operational issue, not isolated incidents.
• Project Completion Risk — Multiple reviews document incomplete or defective work requiring callbacks: gas oven conversion failure (2025-05-10), water hammer diagnosis failure (2024-06-09), toilet reseating done incorrectly twice (2022-01-26, 2022-01-26), bathtub drain not connected to sewer (2014-12-29), and shower pan installed unevenly (2016-09-02). Some customers report owner refusal to take responsibility.
• Pricing Transparency Issues — Several reviews note unexpected charges: $99 service fee not disclosed upfront (2017-05-30), $129 'inspection fee' on callback (2022-01-26), 4% credit card surcharge not mentioned in mission statement (2016-06-22), $178/hour labor rate higher than expected (2014-12-26), and $600/hour labor calculation complaint (2019-05-22).
• Owner Accountability Concern — Two detailed reviews (2022-01-26, 2014-12-29) describe owner (Travis/Michael McDermott) refusing to take responsibility for errors or return customer contact after promising to 'make it right.' This suggests potential integrity issues at leadership level.
• Recency Note — Most recent reviews (2025, 2024, 2023) include both 5-star praise and serious 1-star complaints. No clear improvement trend over time. Older reviews (2001-2006) are sparse and less detailed.
• No Fake Review Pattern Detected — Reviews show genuine variation in detail, specific problem descriptions, and mixed sentiment. Language is authentic and not repetitive across reviews.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE-to-HIGH confidence for technical quality assessment, but LOW confidence for predicting reliable service delivery; the company's core plumbing expertise is well-documented, but systematic failures in communication, callback responsiveness, and accountability for defective work represent material risks that are not reflected in the overall score and should weigh heavily in any hiring decision.

Clearwater Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism, with consistently positive feedback on punctuality, courtesy, and skilled workmanship across numerous reviews. However, the company is significantly hampered by serious pricing concerns and notable project completion failures. Multiple reviews document instances of incomplete work, abandoned projects (particularly involving David Lopez), failure to honor callbacks, and pricing disputes where customers felt overcharged or misled. While the majority of recent reviews (2023-2025) are highly positive, older reviews reveal systemic issues with accountability and follow-through that persist despite the company's established reputation since 1951.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (at least 6) document David Lopez taking full payment upfront and abandoning projects entirely, never completing work or refunding customers. This represents a serious fraud/embezzlement pattern within the company.
• PRICING CONCERNS: At least 8 reviews explicitly mention overcharging, excessive labor fees for simple jobs, or pricing that was 2-3x higher than competitors for identical work. Several customers report being charged $120-$350 for work that took 10-45 minutes.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Multiple reviews document incomplete work, failed callbacks, no-shows for scheduled appointments, and refusal to return to fix defective work (particularly 2016-2022 timeframe).
• CUSTOMER SERVICE ISSUES: Several reviews describe rude phone staff, owner rudeness, hanging up on customers, and dismissive attitudes toward complaints. One review documents the owner swearing at a customer.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Wide variance in outcomes—some technicians (Larry, Tyler, Scott, Senad, Erin) receive exceptional praise; others (David Lopez, unnamed referrals) deliver poor results or fraud.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Multiple empty reviews with 5-star ratings (at least 6 instances) and several generic praise reviews with minimal detail suggest possible review padding, though the majority of detailed reviews appear authentic.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews cluster in 2014-2022 period. Recent reviews (2023-2025) are predominantly 5-star with specific positive details, suggesting either genuine improvement or increased review curation.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with caution: while recent performance appears strong and technical expertise is well-documented, the company has a documented history of serious issues including fraud, incomplete work, and pricing disputes that persist across multiple years and customer accounts. The score reflects current trajectory but does not fully capture the severity of past failures or the risk of recurrence.

Lohmeyer Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently punctual, courteous, and responsive service across 62 reviews. Technical expertise and workmanship quality are solid, with 35 mentions of skilled diagnostics and problem-solving. Project completion is reliable with 48 mentions of timely, thorough work. However, pricing is a significant weakness: 24 reviews explicitly criticize costs as excessive, with multiple complaints about high hourly rates, service call fees, travel charges, and bills perceived as disproportionate to work performed. Several customers report shock at final invoices and note that competitors charged substantially less for identical work. This pricing concern substantially reduces the overall score despite strong performance in other dimensions.

• PRICING PATTERN: 24 reviews mention pricing concerns. Multiple detailed complaints describe bills ranging from $400–$3,877 for work that competitors completed for $50–$400. Customers consistently report Lohmeyer charges more than other local plumbers for equivalent service.
• INCOMPLETE/BLANK REVIEWS: 5 reviews contain no text (only ratings of 5.0), limiting data quality. These are included in the count but provide no substantive evidence.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Three 1-star reviews (2024-08-14, 2022-10-04, 2022-01-28) describe failed work or incomplete problem resolution, contrasting sharply with the majority of 5-star reviews. One customer paid $595 for a quote that was rejected; another paid $500 for a camera inspection that didn't fix the clog; a third paid $1,000 for two drain-cleaning visits that did not resolve the issue.
• RECENCY BIAS: 60 of 89 reviews (67%) are from 2024–2025, with only 29 reviews from 2022 or earlier. Recent reviews are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail, while older reviews (2013–2022) contain more substantive criticism and pricing complaints.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Recent 5-star reviews (2025, early 2024) are notably brief and generic ('Professional service! Wry prompt response,' 'always great service,' blank reviews with 5-star ratings). Older reviews (2013–2015) are far more detailed and balanced. This shift toward generic praise in recent months warrants caution.
• TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: Multiple reviews note lack of itemized bills, difficulty obtaining detailed cost breakdowns, and surprise at final invoices. One customer explicitly states they had to request an itemized bill and were told the company doesn't provide them to everyone.

This WW Score of 78.2 is reliable for professionalism and project completion (HIGH confidence, 48–62 mentions each), but the pricing dimension (MODERATE confidence, 24 mentions) significantly drags the overall score and reflects genuine customer dissatisfaction documented across multiple years. The recent shift toward generic 5-star reviews with minimal detail raises concerns about review authenticity, suggesting the true score may be slightly lower than reported. Customers seeking Lohmeyer should expect professional, timely service but should obtain firm, itemized quotes in writing and compare pricing with competitors before committing.