Find Nearby Plumbers In Fargo, North Dakota

Jeff's Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 2016–2023. Positive reviews (5 stars) consistently praise quick response times, technical knowledge, and fair pricing on major jobs. However, negative reviews (1–2 stars) reveal serious concerns: multiple complaints about rude phone staff, poor scheduling flexibility, overcharging for minor work, equipment breakage charged to customers, and lack of accountability. Professionalism scores are dragged down by documented customer service failures. Pricing is mixed—some customers report exceptional value on complex jobs, while others feel overcharged for simple repairs. Project completion is generally solid when work is performed, but communication and follow-through on scheduling are problematic.

• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews are from 2016–2018; most positive reviews are from 2017–2023. Recent reviews (2023) are uniformly positive, suggesting possible improvement or selection bias in recent feedback.
• PHONE STAFF COMPLAINTS: Multiple independent reviews (2018, 2016) cite rude, unhelpful phone staff and poor scheduling communication. This is a pattern, not isolated.
• EQUIPMENT DAMAGE CHARGES: At least 2 reviews mention being charged for technician errors (broken snake, equipment loss). This suggests a business practice issue.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Wide variance in customer perception—some report exceptional savings on major jobs, others feel overcharged for minor work. Suggests pricing may lack transparency or consistency.
• PERSONAL CONDUCT COMPLAINT: One review (2016) alleges inappropriate personal commentary by staff. Credibility unclear but noted.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While recent reviews are strongly positive, older reviews reveal systemic issues with phone staff professionalism and pricing transparency. The company may have improved, but the pattern of complaints about customer service and billing practices suggests risk. Recommend requesting detailed written quotes and confirming scheduling in writing before committing.

Home Heating and Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally completes projects well, with multiple reviews praising workmanship and timely service. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by two severe incidents involving aggressive, abusive behavior from management and sales staff toward customers—including yelling, character attacks, and threats of liens. Pricing appears fair and competitive based on available evidence. The company shows inconsistency: excellent service delivery in most cases contrasts sharply with unprofessional conduct in others, suggesting potential management or training issues.

• CRITICAL: Two 1-star reviews (2022-06-15, 2022-03-16) describe severe unprofessional conduct including verbal abuse, cursing, yelling, and threats from company representatives. These are recent and detailed, not generic complaints.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2014–2019 (5–10 years old). The two most recent reviews (2022) are highly negative, suggesting possible service quality decline or management change.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews praising professionalism and two 1-star reviews describing abusive behavior. This suggests either inconsistent service quality or different staff/management handling.
• One 2-star review (2019-05-03) indicates billing practices concern: customers charged full labor for technicians during a 2-hour parts run.

This score should be treated with caution due to high volatility in recent reviews and serious professionalism incidents that are recent and detailed. The WW Score reflects a company with strong technical capabilities but significant interpersonal and management issues that create substantial risk for customers.

Professionalism is the most discussed dimension and shows a clearly mixed record: several reviews praise responsiveness, punctuality, and courteous staff, but two reviews explicitly describe rude or unprofessional behavior from plumbers in the home, and one review flagged a hygiene issue involving a customer's towel. Project completion is similarly mixed — one review describes a failed first repair requiring a second visit, and another describes a complete failure to follow up with a promised estimate, while other reviews praise timely and thorough work. Pricing feedback is generally neutral to positive, with customers noting competitive but not exceptional rates and one instance of sticker shock. Experience scores moderately well, with multiple reviewers noting skilled, knowledgeable work and honest advice, though the failed first repair attempt tempers this. The majority of reviews are from 2011–2014, with only two from 2016 and 2018, meaning the score reflects a largely dated picture of this contractor's performance.

• Most reviews are older than 5 years; only 2 of 10 reviews are from 2016 or later. This score should be treated with caution as it may not reflect current service quality.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in tone, detail, and rating, suggesting authentic feedback.
• One review (2011) references a failure to ever receive a promised estimate after a 5-week wait — a significant follow-through failure that weighs against project completion.
• One review (2012) notes a first repair attempt failed and a second visit was required to complete the job correctly — a direct project completion failure.
• Two reviews (2016, 2018) describe unprofessional in-home behavior, including a rude plumber and improper use of a customer's personal towel — these are the most recent reviews and are concerning signals about recent professionalism.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the high volume of mentions across all dimensions, but is significantly undermined by the age of most reviews (2011–2014) and the fact that the two most recent reviews (2016, 2018) are both negative, suggesting possible service quality decline over time.

The reviews present a mixed picture of PlumbWise. Professionalism is the strongest dimension, with multiple reviewers praising punctuality, friendly communication, and on-time arrivals, though this is tempered by one severe negative experience involving abandoned or poorly completed work. Pricing is a notable concern — one reviewer explicitly criticized the labor-to-cost ratio as outlandish and felt a potential upsell was not properly demonstrated, while another praised upfront reasonable pricing, resulting in a below-average pricing score. Project completion is significantly dragged down by one 1-star review alleging the contractor left a project in a damaged state and charged for poor work, which is a serious flag. Experience scores moderately, with several reviewers noting competent and efficient work, but the severe negative review prevents a higher score.

• One review (owlover247, 2020-08-12) contains no actionable service information — it only compliments the company logo and offers generic praise. This review was excluded from scoring as it provides no usable data on any dimension.
• The 1-star review (2019-07-11) alleges serious project failure, financial harm exceeding $10,000, and abandoned work. This is a significant red flag that materially impacts project completion and experience scores.
• All reviews with usable data are dated between 2017 and 2020 — none are within the past 12 months relative to a 2024/2025 evaluation date. Recency is poor across the board; this score may not reflect current service quality.
• The review pool is very small (7 total, 6 usable), which severely limits statistical reliability. Scores should be treated with caution.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the owlover247 review is suspiciously generic and logo-focused with no service experience described.

This WW Score carries LOW reliability due to a very small review sample (6 usable reviews), all reviews being more than 4 years old, and the presence of one severe negative review that significantly skews multiple dimensions — prospective customers should seek more current references before hiring.

Professionalism scores moderately because while a large number of reviews praise individual technicians as friendly, courteous, punctual, and communicative, a significant and recurring minority describe rude office staff, dispatchers who hung up on customers, failure to notify customers of schedule changes, and at least one technician described as appearing impaired. Pricing is the most heavily penalized dimension: dozens of explicit complaints describe charges of $400–$1,800+ for jobs lasting under an hour, non-transparent fee structures, undisclosed dispatch fees, and quotes that ballooned after work began — with multiple reviewers stating they were charged more than quoted or charged for work that did not fix the problem. Project completion suffers from a meaningful pattern of abandoned or incomplete jobs, repeat visits for the same unresolved issue, parts never ordered, jobs left mid-way, and in several cases customers having to hire a second company to finish what Best Plumbing started. Experience scores in the moderate range because many individual technicians are praised for skill and problem-solving, but a notable subset of negative reviews describe misdiagnosis, wrong parts, broken equipment left behind, and work that made problems worse — suggesting uneven technical quality across the workforce.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two pairs of reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates (the long 'sewer backup on a Sunday' review appears twice on different dates; the 'Fast and prof Service' review appears twice; the 'Professional, Helpful, Communicative' Morgan Hoover review appears twice; the 'Best Plumbing Company is simply the BEST' Trent and Sheldon review appears twice). These duplicates were counted only once per unique text for scoring purposes but inflate the raw review count.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: A large cluster of reviews dated exactly 2024-06-06 with no review text (rating only, all 5-star) is highly suspicious and suggests possible review padding. These blank reviews were excluded from dimension scoring as they contain no usable data.
• PLATFORM DISCREPANCY NOTED: One reviewer explicitly states the company has a 1.5/5 rating on Consumer Checkbook and a 3.0 on Yelp versus a much higher Google rating, and questions whether positive Google reviews are authentic. This is consistent with the observed pattern of generic, brief 5-star reviews alongside detailed negative reviews.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive text span from 2006 to June 2025. Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) include both strong positives and several serious negatives including pricing complaints, incomplete work, and threatening collection behavior, suggesting the issues are ongoing and not historical.
• OWNER CONDUCT FLAG: One reviewer alleges the owner called months after a negative review to offer $100 to remove it, which if accurate represents a serious ethical concern about review integrity.
• BILLING PRACTICE FLAG: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe the same pattern — undisclosed dispatch/diagnostic fees, no upfront estimates, charges presented only after work is done, and refusal to itemize invoices. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: At least 8 distinct reviews describe jobs that were not completed, required multiple return visits for the same issue, or required a second company to finish — a significant project completion risk for prospective customers.
• THREATENING COLLECTIONS FLAG: At least two reviewers describe being threatened with police action or property liens when disputing bills, including in one case for work that did not fix the problem. This is a serious customer service and ethical flag.

This WW Score of 58.3 is based on a very large review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but prospective customers should weight it cautiously given strong evidence of systematic pricing opacity, a suspicious cluster of blank 5-star reviews that may artificially inflate the overall star average on other platforms, and a recurring pattern of incomplete work and aggressive billing practices documented across multiple years and geographies.

Robert Gibb and Sons presents a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension and is sharply divided: a number of reviewers praise punctuality, courtesy, and responsiveness, while a significant cluster of reviews — spanning multiple years — describe rude technicians, managers who refuse to return calls, and dismissive attitudes toward legitimate complaints. Pricing is a serious concern, with multiple reviewers explicitly describing bait-and-switch billing, charges that exceeded quoted amounts, and bills sent to collections for disputed work — dragging the price score down substantially despite a few reviews noting competitive or reasonable pricing. Project completion is the weakest area in terms of severity: several reviews describe work left unfinished, faulty installations never corrected, warranty obligations ignored, and promised callbacks that never materialized — including one multi-year saga of an incomplete AC installation. Experience scores modestly above the other dimensions, as some reviewers praised specific technicians by name for their skill and problem-solving, but this is offset by documented cases of technicians admitting they did not know how to complete an installation. The overall WW Score of approximately 52 reflects a contractor with genuine capability in some staff members but systemic failures in accountability, billing transparency, and job follow-through.

• BILLING MISCONDUCT PATTERN: Multiple reviews across different years (2009, 2011, 2012, 2023) describe being charged amounts significantly higher than quoted, with no satisfactory resolution. This is a recurring and documented pattern, not isolated incidents.
• ABANDONED WORK PATTERN: At least two detailed reviews describe multi-year failures to correctly complete an AC installation, with the manager explicitly refusing to remedy faulty work. This is a severe project completion flag.
• MANAGER CONDUCT: Multiple reviews independently describe the manager as rude, unresponsive, and dismissive — including one review where the manager told a customer their concerns were an attempt to 'get something for nothing.' This is a systemic leadership concern.
• WARRANTY AND DOCUMENTATION FAILURES: One reviewer spent over two years attempting to obtain a warranty document and owner's manual for a $3,500 installation with no success. Another was charged for a warranty service call without prior disclosure.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most detailed and severe negative reviews span from 2008 through 2023, indicating these are not isolated historical issues. The most recent reviews (2023) still include a significant billing complaint, suggesting problems have not been resolved over time.
• RECENCY NOTE: Many positive reviews are from 2012–2014 and should be weighted less heavily. The two most recent reviews (June 2023) are split — one positive, one strongly negative regarding billing.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews vary significantly in length, detail, writing style, and rating. Both positive and negative reviews contain specific names, dates, and job details. No artificial inflation pattern identified.

This WW Score is based on 31 reviews spanning 15 years with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; however, the score should be interpreted as a genuine reflection of an inconsistent contractor where individual technician quality varies widely and systemic billing and management accountability issues represent a meaningful risk to new customers.