Shower Repair In Columbus

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.

Thomas Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with particular strengths in project completion and professionalism. The company excels at responsiveness, same-day/next-day service, and technical competency across multiple technicians (David, Dean, Cody, Patrick, Jerry, etc.). However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness, with multiple complaints about bait-and-switch tactics, inflated labor charges, and quotes that don't match final bills. While most recent reviews (2024-2025) are highly positive, older reviews reveal recurring issues with pricing transparency and occasional quality control problems. The company shows good recovery practices when issues are escalated to ownership.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple explicit complaints about dishonest pricing practices including bait-and-switch quotes (2023, 2020), inflated labor hour billing (2020), and quote discrepancies. This pattern appears across different time periods and suggests systemic pricing issues rather than isolated incidents.
• QUALITY CONTROL INCONSISTENCY: Several reviews document poor workmanship requiring callbacks or rework (loose faucet installation 2020, failed toilet installation 2019, incomplete reverse osmosis work 2014). Quality appears highly dependent on which technician is assigned.
• RECENCY BIAS: Reviews from 2024-2025 are overwhelmingly 5-star with minimal detail, while older reviews (2010-2020) show more balanced feedback with specific complaints. Recent reviews lack the specificity and critical detail of older reviews, suggesting possible review selection bias.
• OWNER BEHAVIOR CONCERNS: Multiple reviews document defensive or dismissive responses from ownership when quality issues are raised (2020 faucet installation, 2019 toilet installation, 2011 jetted tub). Owner initially denied workmanship issues before eventually conceding.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE DELIVERY: No-show appointment (2018), multiple callback requirements (2020), and technician knowledge gaps (2014) indicate operational inconsistencies despite strong recent performance.
• GENERIC RECENT REVIEWS: Several 2024-2025 reviews contain minimal detail or are entirely blank, reducing confidence in their authenticity.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with moderate caution. While recent reviews (past 12 months) are uniformly positive and support a higher score, the company's documented history of pricing disputes, quality control issues, and defensive ownership responses suggests customers should verify pricing in writing before work begins and carefully inspect completed work. The score reflects strong technical capability and responsiveness but is tempered by legitimate concerns about transparency and consistency.

Eagle Plumbing demonstrates solid overall performance with a WW Score of 76.8, reflecting a company with genuine strengths but also notable inconsistencies. Professionalism scores 78.5 based on 89 mentions, with many customers praising punctuality, courtesy, and communication—though a significant subset reports rude phone staff, no-shows, and late arrivals. Pricing scores 77.0 across 52 mentions; customers frequently cite fair and reasonable rates, though some object to parts markups and the $100 minimum service call fee. Project Completion scores 75.2 from 78 mentions, revealing a critical weakness: while many jobs are completed successfully, a substantial number of reviews document incomplete work, warranty disputes, poor craftsmanship, and failures requiring callbacks or outside contractors. Experience scores 80.5 from 68 mentions, with strong technical knowledge and problem-solving ability consistently praised, though some reviews cite incompetence or misdiagnosis. The company shows a pattern of excellent work from certain technicians (Jeff, Tim, Victor, Kevin, Bob) alongside poor experiences with others and persistent phone-based customer service issues.

• CRITICAL: Two major negative reviews (Sept 2024, 0.5 and 1.0 stars) document severe project failures on a 4-plex replumbing job—trenched and cracked sewer line covered up without repair, dozens of installation errors, extended timeline (5+ weeks vs. 1.5 weeks promised), sloppy workmanship, and incomplete follow-through. These are detailed, specific, and credible complaints suggesting systemic quality control issues on larger projects.
• PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2013–2021) report no-shows, missed appointment windows, and lack of communication despite scheduled service times. This pattern suggests operational/dispatch issues that persist across years.
• PATTERN: Recurring complaints about rude, dismissive, or sarcastic phone staff (multiple reviews mention 'Steve' and unnamed female receptionist with poor attitude). This is a consistent weak point in customer experience.
• PATTERN: Several reviews document warranty disputes, refusals to honor work guarantees, and demands that customers prove fault before service is provided at no charge.
• CONCERN: Reviews from 2024 show the company still operating, but the Sept 2024 4-plex disaster and earlier major failures suggest quality control remains inconsistent, particularly on complex/large jobs.
• RECENCY: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail, which may indicate selection bias or review platform changes. However, the Sept 2024 negative reviews are detailed and credible.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: LOW-MODERATE. Several reviews are blank (5-star with no text) or extremely generic ('Great job,' 'Wonderful,' 'unknown'). However, the majority of reviews contain specific details, named technicians, and varied experiences, suggesting authentic feedback overall. The pattern of detailed negative reviews alongside detailed positive ones supports authenticity.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: the company demonstrates genuine competence and customer satisfaction in routine jobs and with specific technicians, but exhibits serious inconsistencies in project completion quality, phone-based customer service, and performance on complex/large projects. Customers should expect variable service quality depending on technician assignment and job complexity, and should be prepared for potential communication friction and warranty disputes. The Sept 2024 4-plex failure is particularly concerning and suggests the company may struggle with scope management and quality oversight on larger engagements.

Professionalism is the strongest dimension, with the overwhelming majority of reviews praising technicians as courteous, prompt, and communicative — including frequent emergency and after-hours responsiveness. Experience scores well overall, with many reviewers noting technicians diagnosed and resolved issues quickly and knowledgeably, though a handful of negative reviews describe operator error, misdiagnosis, and work that had to be redone. Project completion is solid but meaningfully dragged down by several serious complaints: a drain snake left stuck in a pipe at the customer's expense, a $2,200 excavation job that failed to fix the problem, a frozen pipe repair left incomplete, and a toilet that began leaking again within seven months with only a 30-day warranty honored. Pricing is the weakest dimension by a significant margin, with multiple independent reviewers across different time periods explicitly describing quotes as grossly inflated, markups described as 4x fair market value, and one reviewer documenting a $3,200 water heater quote; these are partially offset by reviewers who found pricing fair or reasonable, but the volume and specificity of overcharging complaints is notable.

• FAKE REVIEW RISK — HIGH: A large cluster of reviews dated 2025-05-10 and 2025-06-05 through 2025-06-09 show highly repetitive patterns: extremely short text (e.g., 'Joe was great!', 'Sam was here he did great!', 'Ben L', 'Cullen great work', 'He's a legend.'), near-identical phrasing across multiple reviews, and many with zero specifics about the work performed. Several pairs of reviews appear to reference the same technician on the same date with suspiciously similar wording. These reviews inflate the review count significantly and should be treated with low confidence.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review praising Ryan for honesty and integrity ('PLUMBERS with HONESTY & INTEGRITY...') appears twice with identical text, dated 2022-08-04, submitted under what appear to be two separate entries.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SERIOUS AND RECURRING: At least 8 distinct reviews across multiple years (2018–2024) independently describe being quoted prices 2x–4x above market rate, being charged for unnecessary work, or feeling pressured into expensive services. This is not isolated and represents a systemic pattern.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES DOCUMENTED: At least 4 reviews describe work that was not completed correctly — a drain snake left stuck in a customer's pipe requiring jackhammering at customer expense, a $2,200 excavation that did not fix the problem, a frozen pipe repair left incomplete with dispatch hanging up on the customer, and a toilet repair that failed within 7 months covered by only a 30-day warranty.
• COMMISSION DECEPTION COMPLAINT: One reviewer explicitly states they were told technicians do not work on commission, then discovered job postings showing commission-based pay, and requested a refund for the $99 visit fee. This raises a trust and transparency concern.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2025 (within the past 12 months), which is positive for recency weighting. However, the high concentration of very short, generic 5-star reviews in this recent period raises the fake review concern noted above. Older reviews (2018–2022) tend to be more detailed and carry higher individual credibility.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Two reviews contained no text (one rated 4.0, one rated 5.0) and were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence of fake or incentivized short-form reviews inflating the count, a recurring and independently corroborated pattern of pricing complaints, and multiple documented workmanship failures — the true score for an unbiased customer pool may be meaningfully lower than 76.4.