Find Nearby Plumbers In Bismarck, North Dakota

Northern Plains Plumbing and Heating has a mixed but analyzable track record across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by multiple serious complaints: an owner/billing manager described as abrasive and dismissive toward a customer, a technician driving equipment across a customer's yard and breaking concrete without apparent concern, and management refusing to correct a disputed labor bill. These negative incidents are partially offset by several older reviews praising friendly, responsive, and professional staff. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple explicit complaints about overbilling, labor time rounding, unexpected cost increases, credit card surcharges, and charges for unresolved problems — though a handful of reviews do describe pricing as reasonable or middle-of-the-road. Project completion is moderate: most jobs appear to have been finished, but there are notable failures including a well service call that resolved nothing, an AC issue never diagnosed after three hours of labor, and a disputed billing situation suggesting incomplete or unsatisfactory resolution. Experience scores reflect a similar split — some reviews praise knowledgeable technicians and good suggestions, while one review documents a technician damaging a water heater anode through a basic technical error, and another describes paying for hours of fruitless diagnostic work.

• Several reviews contain only punctuation marks ('.', 'ompany ag', 'unknown') and were excluded from scoring as they contain no usable content.
• A significant portion of positive reviews are from 2011–2018, meaning they are 6–14 years old. The most recent reviews (2020–2023) skew negative, suggesting possible service quality decline over time.
• The most recent review (2023) and the 2021 review both contain serious, specific complaints about billing practices, property damage, and owner conduct — these were weighted more heavily per recency rules.
• Some older 5-star reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Fast, efficient, and reasonable', 'Very professional, reasonable price, courteous, quick response') with no specifics, which limits their evidentiary value.
• No confirmed fake review pattern detected, but the cluster of brief, undetailed 5-star reviews from 2012–2014 warrants mild caution.

This WW Score is based on 25 reviews spanning 14 years, with sufficient mentions across all four dimensions to calculate a score, but the heavy skew of negative reviews toward recent years and positive reviews toward older years means the current service quality is likely worse than the blended score suggests — prospective customers should weight the 2020–2023 reviews most heavily.

H.A. Thompson & Sons shows significant internal inconsistency across customer experiences. While technical competence and workmanship quality receive consistent praise (78/100), the company is severely hampered by aggressive billing practices, hidden fees, and poor customer service responsiveness. Pricing complaints dominate negative reviews, with customers reporting undisclosed mileage charges, inflated parts markups (200%+), and billing for time not worked. Professionalism scores are dragged down by documented instances of rude staff, poor communication, and failure to honor commitments. Project completion is mixed—some jobs are handled excellently with quick turnaround, while others involve abandoned work and unresolved callbacks. The company appears to deliver quality technical work but undermines this with questionable business practices.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The lengthy 'Think twice!' review appears twice (2024-06-09 and 2024-06-04), suggesting either platform error or intentional reposting. This inflates negative pricing sentiment artificially.
• BILLING PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews (at least 8) cite identical billing issues: undisclosed mileage fees for in-town service, parts markups of 200%+, and charges for technician travel time to retrieve parts. This is not isolated complaint but systematic practice.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 13 reviews contain only ratings (5.0, 4.0, 1.0) with no text. These provide no actionable data and inflate total count without substance.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most detailed negative reviews cluster in 2023-2024 (recent), while many generic 5-star reviews are from 2022 and earlier. Recent reviews show deteriorating customer satisfaction.
• CALLBACK FAILURES: Multiple reviews document failure to honor promised callbacks (2014-05-21, 2014-02-24, 2014-12-05), suggesting systemic follow-up issues.
• STAFF INCONSISTENCY: Technicians receive high praise for competence and friendliness, but office/supervisor staff (Dan, phone representatives) are repeatedly described as rude, dismissive, and unresponsive.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 60 reviews, the presence of 13 empty reviews, one confirmed duplicate, and a stark divide between technical competence (praised) and business practices (condemned) creates a misleading aggregate. The score of 62.8 accurately reflects a company with strong technicians but poor management, billing transparency, and customer service—however, customers should expect significant billing surprises and difficult interactions with office staff despite quality workmanship.

Rivers Edge has a mixed track record across the reviews analyzed. Professionalism scores were buoyed by multiple mentions of courteous, responsive, and after-hours availability, but significantly dragged down by one detailed negative review describing ignored customer requests, poor communication, and an owner who never followed up after promising to do so. Pricing is a notable weak point, with two reviews explicitly calling out overcharging — one citing $227 for an $80 part and minimal labor — while only one review described pricing as acceptable. Project completion is the most concerning dimension: one review describes a repair that failed to fix the underlying problem and resulted in the contractor going completely silent, which is a serious flag. Workmanship quality is inconsistent — some reviewers praised fast and effective repairs, while the boiler job required two technicians and still did not resolve the issue.

• One review (2022-07-17) describes a serious project completion failure: the repair did not fix the problem, the owner promised a follow-up and never delivered, and the invoice lacked any itemized breakdown of parts, labor, or travel. This is a significant red flag.
• Two of the five-star reviews (2019 and 2017) are over 5 years old and may not reflect current service quality. The most recent negative reviews (2022, 2018) are more recent than several of the positive ones.
• The 2017 and 2019 reviews are notably older and should be weighted less heavily given the recency rule. The most actionable data comes from 2022–2023 reviews, which present a more mixed picture.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in detail, tone, rating, and specificity. Language is not repetitive or suspiciously generic.
• Small sample size of only 6 reviews limits the reliability of all dimension scores. Confidence is inherently constrained.

This WW Score is based on only 6 reviews spanning 6 years, with meaningful negative data points on pricing and project completion; the score should be treated as a preliminary signal only and not a definitive assessment of current service quality.

The review set is very small (only 3 reviews) and spans a wide date range (2017–2023), limiting reliability significantly. Two positive reviews highlight friendly, responsive technicians who solve problems effectively and avoid unnecessary upselling, which supports moderate scores in professionalism and experience. However, a detailed and credible 1-star review raises a serious pricing concern, alleging that the company billed nearly 4.75 hours for work that security camera footage suggests took approximately 2 hours, and that management did not resolve the discrepancy satisfactorily. This single but highly specific negative review heavily drags down the pricing dimension and introduces doubt about billing transparency and follow-through.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as highly preliminary and not representative of consistent performance.
• The 1-star review (2021) contains specific, verifiable detail (security camera timestamps, named staff member, itemized billing dispute) and is credible. It significantly impacts the pricing score.
• The oldest review (2017) is over 7 years old and may not reflect current service quality. Recency weighting reduces its influence.
• The two positive reviews are relatively generic in places, though one (2017) includes specific named technician and detailed praise, reducing fake review concern for that entry.
• No reviews mention pricing favorably — the only pricing signal in the dataset is a strong negative one.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 6 years and should be considered highly preliminary — a minimum of 8–10 recent reviews would be needed to produce a score with meaningful confidence.

This contractor shows highly inconsistent performance across reviews. While two reviews praise punctuality and efficiency (water heater installation with follow-up care, reliable drain work), two damaging reviews document serious failures: incomplete work with improper installation (toilet wax seal and bolts not secured), unresolved refund promises, and a no-show appointment with no communication. The pattern suggests reliability issues and quality control problems that undermine the positive feedback. The older negative reviews (2016, 2018) combined with more recent positive ones (2019, 2020) indicate possible improvement, but the severity of past failures—particularly the refund dispute and no-show—significantly impacts trustworthiness.

• Two reviews (2016, 2018) describe severe service failures: no-show with no communication and incomplete work with improper installation (wax seal, loose bolts) plus unresolved refund claim. These are critical red flags.
• All reviews are older than 3 years (most recent from August 2020). No recent data available to assess current performance or whether issues have been resolved.
• Positive reviews lack specificity on pricing and contain generic praise; negative reviews are highly detailed and specific, suggesting authenticity disparity.
• Refund dispute mentioned in 2018 review remains unresolved according to reviewer—suggests poor follow-through on commitments.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited review volume (4 reviews), significant age of data (all pre-2021), and stark polarization between highly positive and severely negative experiences that suggest inconsistent service quality or possible business changes over time.

Foley's plumbing shows significant pricing concerns that dominate the review feedback, with multiple customers reporting overcharges, hidden emergency fees, and inflated estimates. While professionalism and technical competence are acknowledged in some reviews, the company's pricing practices severely undermine customer trust and satisfaction. One review explicitly documents a $199 charge for a 3-minute diagnostic call with no work performed, and another describes a $1,300 quote that dropped $500 when competition was mentioned. Project completion appears adequate when work is undertaken, but pricing transparency and fairness are critical weaknesses.

• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: Multiple reviews (4 of 5) explicitly mention pricing issues including undisclosed emergency fees, inflated quotes, and charges for minimal/no service. This is a pattern, not isolated complaints.
• DECEPTIVE PRACTICES: Review from 2022 documents $199 charge for <5 minute diagnostic with no work performed; owner acknowledged no time was spent but justified the charge. This suggests potential systematic overcharging.
• HIDDEN FEES: Emergency pricing not disclosed until after service completion (2014 review). Weekend work automatically classified as 'emergency' without advance notice.
• QUOTE MANIPULATION: 2017 review indicates quotes drop significantly when customer mentions other bids ($1,300 reduced to $800, then customer paid $350 elsewhere), suggesting initial quotes are inflated.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Most reviews are 3-10 years old (2014-2022). Only one review from 2021 is recent. Current practices may differ, but pattern is consistent across decade.
• BBB COMPLAINT UNRESOLVED: 2022 review indicates customer filed BBB complaint with no response from company.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to limited review volume (5 reviews) and age of most data, but the consistent pattern of pricing complaints across multiple years and the documented evidence of deceptive billing practices suggest the low score reflects genuine systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.