Find Nearby Plumbers In Lincoln, Nebraska

S&D Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and workmanship quality, with multiple reviews praising skilled diagnostics and efficient problem-solving. However, the company is significantly hampered by serious professionalism and project completion issues, including multiple instances of no-shows, broken follow-up promises, ghosting customers, and failure to honor commitments. Pricing practices are inconsistent and frequently disputed, with customers reporting unexpected charges, unclear fee structures, and perceived overcharging. Recent reviews (2024, 2019-2020) reveal severe accountability failures including property damage non-resolution and aggressive collection tactics, suggesting systemic problems that outweigh technical competence.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2024, 2020, 2014) document severe accountability failures including ghosting customers for months, property damage non-resolution, forged signatures, and aggressive legal threats. These are not isolated incidents.
• PATTERN: At least 8 reviews explicitly mention broken promises, no-shows, failure to follow up, or cancellations without notice. This is a systemic professionalism issue.
• PRICING CONCERNS: 6+ reviews report unexpected charges, hidden fees, inconsistent pricing, or perceived overcharging. Customers report being quoted one price and charged another, or being told services are free then charged.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Most recent reviews (2024, 2019-2020) are highly negative and describe serious misconduct. Older reviews (2007-2013) are predominantly positive. This suggests significant deterioration in service quality over time.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: 6 reviews contain only 'unknown' or minimal text ('......', '.....', 'it went fine', 'Perfect') with 5-star ratings. These appear to be placeholder or fake reviews and reduce overall data reliability.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between glowing reviews praising Melvin and crew (2007-2013) and damning reviews about broken commitments and property damage (2014-2024). Suggests either significant staff turnover or deterioration in management/accountability systems.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While technical competence appears genuine (HIGH confidence on experience), the company exhibits severe and documented failures in professionalism, follow-through, and customer accountability—particularly in recent years. The presence of fake/placeholder reviews further reduces confidence. The score reflects a company with strong technical skills but critically weak operational integrity and customer service practices. Customers should be aware of significant risk regarding follow-up, property damage resolution, and billing transparency.

Taylor's shows strong technical capability and responsiveness, with multiple reviews praising knowledgeable staff, quick response times, and quality workmanship. However, the company is significantly undermined by serious professionalism failures: a no-show appointment without communication and inconsistent pricing practices where customers were charged 35% above quoted estimates without explanation. Recent reviews (2022-2024) reveal both excellent service and critical failures, suggesting inconsistency in execution. Pricing concerns appear in multiple reviews, indicating this is a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.

• CRITICAL: No-show appointment (April 2024) with no communication—severe professionalism failure
• PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews cite significant overcharges and unexplained quote discrepancies (35% markup, $85 diagnostic fee, high emergency quotes). This suggests pricing opacity or bait-and-switch practices.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2017-2019 (5-7 years old). Recent reviews (2023-2024) are predominantly negative, indicating possible service quality decline.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews and 1-star reviews suggests highly variable service delivery or staff-dependent performance.
• DIAGNOSTIC BILLING: One review reports being charged $85 for a diagnosis that led to referral elsewhere—questionable business practice.

This score should be treated with caution due to high inconsistency in service delivery, recency bias toward negative reviews, and documented pricing concerns that appear across multiple independent reviews. The WW Score reflects a company with strong technical skills but serious operational and transparency issues that undermine customer trust.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning a 12-year period. Professionalism is the primary concern, with recent reviews (2024, 2021) documenting unprofessional behavior including miscommunication, no-shows, harassment, and defensive responses to criticism, while older reviews (2012-2014) praise responsiveness and courtesy. Project completion is mixed—some jobs are completed well, but no-shows and incomplete follow-through are documented. Experience and pricing are stronger dimensions, with evidence of quality workmanship and fair pricing. The stark contrast between recent negative reviews and older positive reviews suggests either significant deterioration in service quality or a change in business practices.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 10+ years old (2012-2014). The two most recent reviews (2024, 2021) are strongly negative, suggesting significant service degradation over time.
• PATTERN OF UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT: Multiple reviews document owner (Matt) behavior issues including no-shows without communication, harassment about payment, defensive responses to criticism, and disagreement with customers. This is a red flag for reliability.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between glowing older reviews and damaging recent reviews suggests either fake older reviews or genuine service decline. Older reviews contain generic praise; recent reviews are specific and detailed about problems.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least one documented no-show with no communication (2021 review), indicating project completion reliability issues.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEWS: Reviews from 2012-2014 are suspiciously generic and uniformly 5-star with minimal specificity. One review is just a period (.). These may not be reliable indicators of current service quality.

This score should be treated with caution due to extreme recency bias in the data—recent reviews paint a very different picture than older ones, and the contractor's current reliability appears significantly compromised based on 2024 and 2021 feedback documenting unprofessional conduct and service failures.

The three reviews present a mixed picture of this contractor. On the positive side, Mike demonstrated strong responsiveness in an emergency situation and was described as prompt and professional by one reviewer. However, a detailed negative review describes a clear failure to follow through on a promised task — removing an old water heater — with repeated broken promises, ignored callbacks, and ultimately leaving the customer to pay out of pocket for something included in the job. This follow-through failure significantly drags down both professionalism and project completion scores. Experience scores modestly positive based on two reviews noting competence, but the sample is too small to draw firm conclusions.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as highly provisional and unreliable for decision-making.
• The two positive reviews are relatively brief and generic, lacking specific detail about the work performed. This warrants mild caution, though no definitive fake review pattern is confirmed.
• No pricing information was mentioned in any review — the pricing dimension cannot be scored.
• The negative review (2-star, dated 2022) is the most detailed and specific review in the set, describing a concrete and verifiable failure in follow-through. This carries significant weight despite being one of three reviews.
• Review dates span 2022–2023, with no reviews from the past 12 months relative to a typical 2024 analysis window. Recency of data is a concern.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be considered highly unreliable — far more reviews are needed before this score can be used with any meaningful confidence.

PJ's Plumbing presents a deeply divided picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most contested dimension: while many reviewers praise responsiveness, friendliness, and prompt arrival — often citing specific technicians like Scott, Pete, Cole, and Erik — a substantial number of negative reviews describe the owner Paul as rude, condescending, and dismissive when disputes arise, dragging the score down significantly. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple detailed, credible complaints about unexplained 'project billing,' charges for work not performed, rates far exceeding quoted amounts, and refusals to provide cost breakdowns — including reports filed with Wisconsin DATCP and Consumer Protection Services. Project completion is mixed: many jobs are described as completed quickly and correctly, but several reviews document incomplete work, warranty refusals, incorrect installations not remedied, no-shows after scheduling, and jobs left in worse condition than before. Experience scores moderately; individual technicians frequently receive praise for skill and knowledge, but there are credible accounts of incorrect installations, undertrained staff, and failure to diagnose problems correctly, preventing a higher score.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: Several reviews (notably the April 2025 and August 2024 cluster) are extremely brief, generic, and lack any specific detail ('Perfect services and perfect work done!', 'Best In town', 'Had one of the best plumbing service experiences till date', 'Very co operative plumber'). These appear to be low-effort, possibly inauthentic reviews and were given reduced weight in scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review beginning 'The guys at P.J.'s Plumbing are top-notch...' appears verbatim twice — once dated 2025-05-10 and once dated 2024-10-12. This was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE CONTENT DETECTED: The review about a gas dryer valve leak ('Noticed a small gas leak during maintenance on a dryer...') appears to be a near-duplicate of the first review in the 2025-05-10 entry ('PJ's plumbing had someone out within 4 hours to replace the valve'). Treated as one mention.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SERIOUS AND SPECIFIC: Multiple reviewers filed formal complaints with Wisconsin DATCP and Consumer Protection Services regarding overcharging. One reviewer documented being charged $627.90 after being quoted $160/hr. Another was billed $3,045 for a water heater with no cost breakdown provided. Another was charged $896.70 for under 1.5 hours of work. These are not vague complaints — they include dollar amounts, dates, and regulatory filings.
• WARRANTY AND CALLBACK FAILURES: At least 5 reviews describe PJ's refusing to honor their own warranty or correct their own installation errors without additional charges. This is a significant pattern affecting both professionalism and project completion scores.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most negative and detailed reviews span 2021–2024, meaning they are recent and highly relevant. Positive reviews are spread across all years but the recent positive reviews (2024–2025) include several suspected low-quality or fake entries, reducing their reliability.
• OWNER CONDUCT PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers describe the owner Paul specifically as rude, dismissive, threatening liens, hanging up on customers, and refusing to negotiate on disputed bills. This is a consistent behavioral pattern across many years and multiple reviewers, not isolated incidents.
• ONE REVIEW (dated 2024-06-09, 1-star, about driving behavior and a restaurant) appears to be a dispute unrelated to plumbing services and was excluded from dimension scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews (63 total) spanning over a decade, with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically reliable — however, the presence of suspected fake positive reviews and a strong pattern of serious, specific, and formally-reported negative experiences means the true service quality is likely at or below the calculated score, and prospective customers should exercise significant caution.

Norman Plumbing presents a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is severely undermined by a persistent and well-documented pattern of missed appointments, no-shows, and poor responsiveness spanning multiple years and dozens of reviews, though a subset of customers praised the team as courteous and personable. Project completion is similarly split: several customers report abandoned work, failed inspections, unresolved leaks causing thousands in damage, and a refusal to honor callbacks, while others report jobs completed satisfactorily within the agreed scope. Pricing drew complaints about mid-project cost increases, opaque billing, and unexpected add-on charges, though a few reviewers noted fair or even generous pricing. Experience scores moderately higher, as some reviewers praised Bobby Norman's technical problem-solving and honest assessments, but serious failures — including a water heater that never worked, a leak causing over $9,000 in damage, and a failed plumbing inspection — substantially drag this dimension down.

• RECENCY WARNING: The vast majority of reviews are from 2012–2016, with only one review from 2018. This score reflects contractor performance that is 6–12+ years old and may not reflect current quality.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: Multiple reviews contain only 'unknown' or single punctuation marks (e.g., '.', 'th', 'SEE ABOVE') with 5-star or 1-star ratings and no usable content. These were excluded from scoring. One negative reviewer explicitly alleges the contractor solicited fake positive reviews from friends.
• SERIOUS COMPLAINT PATTERN: At least 4 independent reviewers describe the contractor failing to show up for multiple scheduled appointments — in one case across 5 attempts, in another across 3 attempts. This is a systemic reliability failure, not isolated incidents.
• FINANCIAL HARM REPORTED: At least two reviewers report significant financial damages directly attributed to the contractor's work — one citing $9,000+ in water damage, another citing $2,400 in repair costs after a failed plumbing inspection. The contractor allegedly refused to honor a written contractual payment agreement in the latter case.
• CONTRACT DISPUTE: One reviewer alleges the contractor raised prices mid-project, failed a plumbing inspection, damaged a roof, and then refused to pay the agreed $1,000 settlement for over a year while ignoring all communications.
• UNRESOLVED REFUND DISPUTE: One reviewer reports paying upfront for a water heater that never functioned, the contractor lost the receipt and refused to replace or refund it, and then sent a confused email apparently mixing up customers.
• 6 reviews contained no usable text ('unknown', '.', 'th', 'SEE ABOVE') and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.

This WW Score is based on a high volume of detailed reviews and carries HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution given the age of the data (most reviews are from 2012–2016), credible allegations of fake positive reviews, and multiple serious documented complaints involving financial harm, abandoned work, and contractual disputes.