Sewer Repair In Columbus

CPR Drain Cleaning has a large and long-running review history with a strong majority of positive experiences, particularly around responsiveness, fair pricing, and friendly technicians. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple decades — reveals recurring issues: jobs left incomplete and still charged for, dispatcher miscommunications leading to wrong crews or missed callbacks, at least one serious allegation of employee misconduct and intimidation, and a pattern of failing to follow through on estimates or return calls. Professionalism scores are pulled down by multiple credible accounts of rude office staff, hostile technicians, and poor communication under pressure. Project completion is similarly penalized by several explicit accounts of work not finished, charges levied for incomplete jobs, and warranty disputes. Pricing scores are moderately positive overall, with many reviewers noting CPR was significantly cheaper than competitors, though a few reviews describe being charged more than quoted or charged for no work done.

• Several reviews appear to be blank (no text, only a rating) — these were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• Two reviews are near-identical duplicates (the 'basement flooded' review appearing in both 2023-06-10 and 2023-02-04 with nearly identical text) — only one was counted per dimension to avoid double-weighting.
• Two reviews with text 'I went well. CPR is a reliable company.' posted on consecutive dates (2016-11-21 and 2016-11-22) appear to be duplicate or suspicious entries — treated as one mention.
• Multiple 'unknown' reviews with 5-star ratings and no text were excluded from scoring — these may represent padding of the review count.
• A significant portion of reviews are more than 5 years old (many dating back to 2000–2017). While included for pattern analysis, recent reviews (2024–2025) were weighted more heavily and show a mixed-to-negative trend with several 1-star complaints.
• The 2016 review alleging theft of controlled medication and a hostile employee is a serious flag. The 2013 review alleging physical assault by a technician and intimidating return visit is also a serious flag. These are unverified but credible in detail and were factored into professionalism and project completion scores.
• Recency concern: Of the most recent 10 reviews (2024–2025), 4 are 1-star and 1 is 2-star — a notably higher negative rate than the historical average, suggesting possible service quality decline in recent years.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews spanning over two decades and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its dimensions, but users should weight the recent negative trend (2024–2025) heavily, as it suggests current service quality may be meaningfully lower than the historical average reflected in this score.

The Service People demonstrates strong technical expertise and workmanship, with multiple reviews praising skill level and problem-solving ability. However, professionalism is inconsistent—while many reviews highlight punctuality and responsiveness, several older reviews cite poor phone communication, unresponsiveness to follow-ups, and unprofessional office staff. Pricing concerns appear in multiple reviews, with complaints about inflated permit fees and high charges for minor repairs, though some customers report competitive quotes. Project completion is generally solid, though one significant 2018 review documents a month-long parts delay with poor communication and contradictory explanations. Recent reviews (2019–2023) are notably more positive than older ones (2015–2018), suggesting possible management or operational improvements.

• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews are from 2015–2018; most positive reviews are from 2019–2023. This suggests significant operational or management changes over time. Older reviews may not reflect current service quality.
• INCONSISTENT PROFESSIONALISM: Multiple reviews mention poor phone communication and unresponsiveness, particularly in older reviews. One 2016 review explicitly criticizes office staff as unprofessional and dismissive.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Three separate reviews flag pricing issues—inflated permit fees (2017), high charge for minor repair (2015), and competitive quotes mentioned positively (2018). Pricing transparency appears inconsistent.
• PARTS/SUPPLY CHAIN ISSUES: Two reviews (2018, 2021) document significant delays in parts availability and poor communication during wait periods. One customer abandoned the company after a month with no follow-up.
• INDIVIDUAL TECHNICIAN VARIATION: Reviews frequently praise specific technicians by name (Matt, Tony, Mark, Stephanie) but criticize office/management. This suggests service quality is highly dependent on which technician is assigned.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews show genuine variation in experience, specific details, and mixed ratings. Language is natural and not repetitive across reviews.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While the dataset is adequate in size (12 reviews), the company shows a clear temporal split between older negative reviews (2015–2018) and newer positive ones (2019–2023), making it difficult to assess current performance. The score reflects an average across this period, but customers should prioritize recent reviews and specifically request experienced technicians like Matt or Tony. Verify pricing and permit fees in writing before work begins.

Carter's My Plumber earns strong marks for professionalism and experience across a large volume of reviews, with many customers praising punctuality, courteous technicians, clear communication, and skilled workmanship. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs finished as promised, though a handful of notable failures — including an unresolved emergency callback, a rushed job with no post-work check, a misdiagnosed water heater replacement, and an honored-quote dispute — prevent a higher score. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many customers describe fair or reasonable pricing, a significant and recurring thread of complaints about high costs, unexpected charges, parts-run fees, and upselling drags the score down considerably. The overall WW Score of 76.4 reflects a company with genuine strengths in service delivery but meaningful and consistent concerns around pricing transparency and occasional lapses in quality control.

• 25 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several reviews use single generic phrases ('Good company.', 'We were happy with their service.', 'It went very well.', 'unknown') with no specifics. These were treated as low-signal and not counted toward dimension mentions.
• One review (2016-10-03) appears to describe an automotive service ('changed out spare tire', 'checked brakes') and is almost certainly a misplaced review for a different business. It was excluded from scoring.
• Pricing complaints are recurring and specific across multiple independent reviews spanning 2013–2025, including: $411 to reseal a toilet, $200 charge to pick up parts, $3,900 quote for a sump pump backup, $2,600 water heater later found to be $800 overpriced, and a refused honor of a signed written quote. This pattern is credible and materially impacts the pricing score.
• A 2023 review describes a misdiagnosed water heater replacement costing $2,324 when the actual issue was an HVAC condensate pump — a serious workmanship and diagnostic failure that impacts both experience and project completion scores.
• A 2024 review describes a rushed job, poor communication, no post-work verification by the technician, and a dismissive attitude — directly contradicting the majority of positive professionalism reviews.
• The majority of reviews (roughly 60%+) are older than 12 months, with a large cluster dating back to 2013–2019. Recent 2025 reviews are predominantly positive but many lack substantive text. Recency weighting was applied conservatively.
• No strong fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, detail, tone, and rating. Negative reviews are specific and credible. Positive reviews reference named technicians and specific job details, which increases authenticity confidence.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over a decade, with sufficient negative and positive evidence across all four dimensions to produce a moderately reliable assessment; however, the high proportion of blank or content-free reviews and the age of much of the data mean the score should be treated as a general indicator rather than a precise measure of current performance.

Custom Care Group shows a mixed but cautiously positive profile across a very small review set. Professionalism scores moderately well — two reviews praise communication, courtesy, and responsiveness, but the negative review documents a failure to clean up sewage and paper towels left behind, which is a meaningful professionalism concern. Project completion is the most penalized dimension: the 1-star review describes a drain blockage that was not resolved on the first visit, a second charge for what should have been a warranty callback, and damage caused to an adjacent drain during the work — serious execution failures. Pricing received a single positive mention (best value of four quotes), but with only one data point this carries very limited weight. Experience is mixed: the gas leak job was completed efficiently and the contractor is described as knowledgeable, but the drain job required two visits and caused collateral damage, suggesting inconsistency in technical execution.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is statistically unreliable and should be treated as preliminary only.
• The negative review (2022) is older than 12 months relative to the two positive reviews (2024); recency weighting favors the positive reviews, but the severity of the 1-star complaint warrants full consideration.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details, varied language, and include a critical negative review, which supports authenticity.
• The 1-star review raises a potential warranty/guarantee concern: contractor reportedly does not guarantee work, meaning repeat issues result in additional charges to the customer.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be considered highly preliminary — at least 8–10 reviews would be needed to establish a reliable baseline for this contractor.

C Lacey Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all dimensions. Professionalism is significantly undermined by multiple explicit no-show, no-call complaints spanning different years, which directly contradict the positive reviews praising punctuality and courteous behavior. Project completion is similarly split — while several reviewers report successful, thorough work, one detailed 1-star review describes a recurring sewage problem that was never resolved despite two paid visits, with the owner explicitly refusing to warranty the work. Pricing feedback is mostly positive among satisfied customers, but the $370 double-charge complaint for incomplete work is a serious red flag that pulls the score down. Experience scores are hurt by the account of a plumber failing to diagnose a sewer disconnect that the customer ultimately resolved themselves with a rented tool in 20 minutes.

• Multiple explicit no-show/no-call complaints (2019 and 2013 reviews) indicate a recurring reliability problem, not an isolated incident.
• One detailed review describes being double-charged $370 for work that failed twice within 24 hours each time, and the owner refused to warranty the work — this is a serious project completion and ethics concern.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months; only one review (January 2024) falls within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is limited and the score may not reflect current performance.
• The single most recent review (2024) is positive, but one data point is insufficient to confirm a trend of improvement.
• No strong fake review patterns detected, but several positive reviews are generic in nature (e.g., 'great company,' 'can not go wrong') with limited specifics, which slightly reduces confidence in those reviews.

This WW Score is based on 9 reviews spanning over a decade, with only one review from the past 12 months, which significantly limits the reliability of this score as a reflection of current contractor performance — treat with caution.

Muetzel Plumbing & Heating earns strong marks for project completion and technical experience, with numerous reviewers praising skilled diagnostics, thorough workmanship, and technicians who resolved problems that other companies could not. Professionalism scores are solid overall — punctuality, shoe covers, communication, and courteous technicians are frequently cited — but are meaningfully dragged down by a recurring pattern of rude or dismissive office/scheduling staff, no-shows, and missed appointments documented across multiple reviews spanning several years. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while some reviewers describe costs as reasonable or fair, a substantial minority explicitly complain about unexplained charges, bait-and-switch pricing, per-task billing not disclosed upfront, travel charges, and rates described as significantly higher than competitors. The combination of strong field technicians but inconsistent office operations and opaque pricing creates a mixed but generally trustworthy service profile.

• 11 reviews contained no text (rating only) and were excluded from dimensional scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• One review (1-star, 2024-10-12) appears to be unrelated to service quality — it complains about a driver's speed on the road and likely does not reflect a customer service experience; it was noted but given minimal weight.
• Pricing complaints are substantial and recurring across many years (2013–2024), suggesting a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents: undisclosed per-task billing, travel charges, and estimates significantly exceeding competitors are documented in at least 10 separate reviews.
• Office/scheduling staff rudeness and no-show/missed appointment complaints appear in at least 6 separate reviews across multiple years, indicating a persistent operational weakness distinct from field technician quality.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, specificity, tone, and rating. Named technicians (Steve, David, John, Nick, Josh, Sean, Shawn, Kevin, Alden, etc.) appear across many reviews, adding authenticity.
• Review corpus spans 2010–2025. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) were given reduced weight in scoring. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) remain largely positive for field work but continue to reflect pricing sensitivity.

This WW Score is based on a large, diverse, and multi-year review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, making it a reliable representation of Muetzel's service profile — strong field technicians and project follow-through, offset by meaningful and recurring concerns about pricing transparency and office-level customer service.