Find Nearby Plumbers In Grand Forks, North Dakota

Total Care Plumbing demonstrates exceptional performance across all four dimensions, with particularly strong marks for professionalism and project completion. The company consistently receives praise for punctuality, courteous communication, honest pricing without upsells, and efficient problem-solving. Multiple reviews spanning from 2017 to 2025 confirm reliable follow-through on commitments and high-quality workmanship. The primary team members (Brad, Joaquin, Christian, and others) are frequently mentioned by name with specific positive attributes. While three negative reviews exist (pricing concerns, rudeness, and one refusal of service), they represent only 3.4% of the dataset and do not materially impact the overall score given the overwhelming positive consensus.

• Two negative reviews (1-star ratings from 2024-06-24 and 2019-06-06) cite pricing concerns and alleged overcharging, suggesting potential inconsistency in quote accuracy or pricing transparency despite the overwhelmingly positive feedback on fair pricing elsewhere.
• One 1-star review from 2022-03-07 reports the company refused service due to distance (Hatton area), contradicting multiple other reviews praising their willingness to travel; this may indicate service area policy changes or inconsistent decision-making.
• Multiple reviews mention the same individuals (Brad, Joaquin, Christian) across different time periods and service types, suggesting these are core team members; however, some reviews reference different names (Mark, Carmen, Vincent Di Marco, Jose), indicating either a larger team or possible name variations/aliases that could not be fully reconciled.
• Two reviews contain no text content (empty review fields with 5.0 ratings on 2025-03-11 and 2024-12-11), which are included in the count but provide no substantive data.
• Review dates span from 2017 to 2025, with the majority (approximately 70%) from 2023 onwards, indicating strong recent performance; however, older reviews (2017-2019) show consistent quality, suggesting long-term reliability.

This WW Score of 88.2 is highly reliable, based on 87 substantive reviews with consistent positive feedback across all dimensions and high mention counts (48-72 per dimension). The score reflects genuine customer satisfaction with professional service, fair pricing, and quality workmanship, though the three negative reviews warrant acknowledgment of occasional pricing disputes and service area limitations.

Professionalism is the most frequently praised dimension across this large review set, with dozens of customers explicitly citing courteous, punctual, and communicative technicians by name (Willie, Parker, Rafael, Kevin, Michael, Humberto, Jim, Russ, and others). Project completion scores well overall — the majority of reviewers confirm jobs were finished same-day or within the scheduled visit — but is tempered by one credible complaint of a job declared fixed that was not, a BBB complaint filed, and one no-show/no-call incident. Experience is consistently praised, with many reviewers noting skilled diagnosis, problem-solving in difficult conditions, and quality workmanship. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers call pricing reasonable or affordable, there are multiple credible negative reviews citing charges of $500–$800 for relatively minor repairs, lack of price transparency, and billing for time not worked — these are specific, detailed complaints that meaningfully drag the pricing score down.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: A significant number of reviews (approximately 35+) contain no text at all — only a 5-star rating labeled 'unknown' or blank. These provide zero usable data and inflate the raw star average without contributing evidence. They were excluded from scoring.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: Several reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Very trustworthy and reliable.', 'Very professional and curtious', 'Great service & very professional manner.') with no specifics. While not conclusive, the volume of such reviews warrants caution.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to reference multiple distinct businesses operating under similar names — 'Preferred Plumbing', 'My Plumber / MyPlumber Inc.', and possibly others. Technician names span a very wide range (Willie, Parker, Rafael Sr/Jr, Kevin, Humberto, Ryan, Dennis, Tom, Michael, Jim, Russ, Don, Barry, Freddie, Collin, Chaz, Fred Garcia, etc.), suggesting this may be an aggregated profile across multiple companies or franchises. Scores should be interpreted with this caveat in mind.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE FLAG: One 1-star review (Oct 2024) contains an extremely serious allegation — sexual harassment, refusal to leave the premises, attempted theft, and property damage. This review is highly specific in detail and geography. If credible, it represents a significant safety concern. It was factored into professionalism and project completion scoring.
• NEGATIVE FLAG: One 1-star review (Jul 2023) alleges the company lied about completing a repair, took payment, refused to refund, and did not respond to a BBB complaint. This is a credible, specific complaint that directly impacts project completion scoring.
• NEGATIVE FLAG: Multiple pricing complaints are specific and credible — $500 charged for a running toilet with alleged time inflation (Oct 2024), $800 for a faucet/valve repair with no price breakdown (Sep 2021), $175 for aerator cleaning plus $49 service call for an unresolved issue (May 2023), and a former employee review alleging the company does 'shitty work' and takes shortcuts (Mar 2019). These are not vague complaints and were weighted accordingly.
• NEGATIVE FLAG: One 1-star review (Aug 2015) describes a no-show with no proactive communication — the customer had to call to get an update and was still stood up. This negatively impacts professionalism scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: A substantial portion of reviews (roughly 60+) are older than 5 years, with some dating back to 2003–2012. More recent reviews (2024–2025) are given higher weight. The most recent negative reviews (2023–2024) are particularly significant as they reflect current business practices.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews with no date were treated as lower weight due to inability to assess recency.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews (155 total, ~120 with usable text) spanning over 20 years, providing HIGH statistical confidence in the directional scores, but reliability is meaningfully reduced by: the likely aggregation of multiple distinct business entities under one profile, a non-trivial cluster of credible negative reviews on pricing and project completion, a serious unverified harassment allegation, and a large number of blank or content-free 5-star submissions that suggest possible review padding.

Ron's Plumbing shows a generally positive track record across most dimensions, with many customers praising his friendliness, technical skill, and ability to complete jobs efficiently. However, there are notable and recurring concerns around communication and reliability — multiple reviews explicitly describe being forgotten, missed appointments, and poor follow-up, which meaningfully drag down the professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing feedback is mixed: most find him fair or worth the cost, but at least one reviewer found him somewhat expensive. The one review from within the past 12 months (2023) is positive and speaks to repeat use, which is a good signal, but the bulk of the review base is 5–10+ years old, limiting recency confidence. Overall, Ron appears to be a skilled plumber when he shows up, but scheduling and communication reliability are a documented weak point.

• 7 reviews contain no usable text (blank, single period, or 'unknown') and were excluded from dimension scoring — these inflate the raw review count without contributing meaningful data.
• The majority of reviews are older than 5 years, with most dating from 2010–2016. Only one review is from the past 12 months (November 2023). Recency confidence is limited.
• Two separate reviews explicitly state Ron said 'I forgot about you' regarding scheduled appointments, and one review documents a no-show. This is a consistent and credible pattern of scheduling/communication failure, not an isolated incident.
• Several 5-star reviews use very brief, generic praise ('Ron is top notch.', 'He's been excellent.') with no specifics. While not conclusive evidence of fake reviews, these add limited scoring value and were weighted conservatively.
• One review (2013) raises a workmanship concern — unnecessary drywall removal without considering less invasive alternatives — suggesting occasional lapses in problem-solving judgment.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high structural reliability due to sufficient review volume and multi-dimensional data, but should be interpreted cautiously given that most reviews are over 5 years old and documented scheduling failures represent a real and recurring risk for prospective customers.

Economy Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and generally professional service delivery, with particular strengths in responsiveness, staff friendliness, and skilled workmanship. However, the company is significantly hampered by persistent pricing concerns raised across 28 reviews, with customers frequently reporting rates of $400+ per hour labor, excessive charges for simple jobs, and perceived overpricing compared to competitors. Project completion shows mixed results, with several reports of incomplete fixes requiring callbacks and at least two serious cases of poor workmanship causing property damage. The company's willingness to stand behind mistakes appears inconsistent, with some customers receiving refunds while others faced dismissal of legitimate damage claims.

• PRICING PATTERN: 28 reviews explicitly mention pricing concerns. Multiple customers report labor rates of $400-500/hour, with several stating they were overcharged compared to competitors. This is the most consistent negative theme across the dataset.
• QUALITY CONTROL INCONSISTENCY: At least 3 reviews document poor workmanship requiring professional remediation by other plumbers. One customer had to hire a second plumber to redo shower/tub faucet installation; another discovered improper water heater installation; a third reported incomplete drain cleaning.
• ACCOUNTABILITY ISSUES: Two detailed 1-star reviews (May 21, 2024 and May 28, 2024) describe situations where the company refused to take responsibility for damage caused by their plumbers' errors, despite admissions of fault. One customer was left with $1,680 in additional costs.
• SCHEDULING RELIABILITY: Multiple reviews (2014-2017 era) report missed appointment windows, late arrivals without notice, and refusal to take jobs when dispatched. This pattern appears less frequent in recent reviews but indicates systemic issues.
• BACKFLOW TESTING SCAM ALLEGATION: One detailed 1-star review (June 4, 2021) alleges the company deliberately failed a new backflow valve to generate additional service revenue, charging $150 to test, then $250 to clean, then $150 to retest—all unnecessary per a competing tester.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWNS: Multiple reviews document unresponsive management, ignored emails/texts, and refusal to discuss complaints. One long-form complaint (May 21, 2024) details months of ignored communication regarding damage reimbursement.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews cluster in 2012-2015 and May-June 2024. Recent reviews (2025, late 2024) are predominantly positive, suggesting either improved operations or selection bias in recent reviewers.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('Great work. Fast service.' / 'Great work. Great people!' / 'Excellent work ethics and friendly'). However, these are brief and scattered, not systematic enough to warrant major confidence reduction.

This WW Score of 73.2 should be treated as moderately reliable but with significant caveats: while the company demonstrates genuine technical competence and professionalism in customer interaction, the persistent and detailed pricing complaints (28 mentions) and documented quality/accountability failures (particularly in 2024) represent material risks. The score reflects a company with strong operational fundamentals undermined by pricing practices that customers perceive as exploitative and inconsistent accountability when errors occur. Prospective customers should obtain detailed written estimates and clarify labor rates before engaging services.

Roto-Rooter receives consistently strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness from individual technicians, with hundreds of reviews praising courteous, knowledgeable, and prompt service. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension across this dataset, with an enormous volume of reviews describing charges as excessive, deceptive, or wildly inconsistent — including numerous accounts of bait-and-switch quoting, undisclosed fees, and charges for incomplete work. Project completion is significantly dragged down by a substantial minority of reviews describing failed repairs, no-shows, abandoned jobs, warranty disputes, and work that made problems worse. Experience scores moderately well overall, as many technicians are praised for skill and problem-solving, but this is offset by recurring accounts of misdiagnosis, wrong equipment, and upselling unnecessary services. The aggregate picture is a company with capable individual technicians but systemic issues around pricing transparency, scheduling reliability, and quality control.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates (e.g., two identical reviews from 'Paul arrived same day...', two identical 'Zach is the man...', two identical 'Based solely off customer service...', two identical 'Easy to schedule and a quick service...', two identical 'Great service. Would highly recommend!', two identical 'Efficient and effective...', two identical 'Excellent with Armando...', two identical 'Very prompt and helpful! Anthony...', two identical 'My name is Antoinette...'). These duplicates inflate positive scores and have been treated conservatively.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS: A large cluster of reviews dated 1996-2001 consist of single-line responses ('NO', 'NOT REALLY', 'ON TIME AND DID THE WORK') with no detail, all rated 5 stars. These appear to be placeholder or fabricated entries and were excluded from scoring.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 100+ reviews contain no text content but carry 5-star ratings. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data, but their presence inflates the raw star average.
• EXTREME RATING POLARIZATION: The dataset shows a pronounced bimodal distribution — a very large number of 5-star reviews with minimal detail alongside a substantial volume of detailed 1-star reviews describing serious failures. This pattern is consistent with either review manipulation on the positive end or a company with highly inconsistent service quality.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC: Pricing complaints are not isolated incidents — they span multiple years, multiple geographic locations, and multiple service types. Charges ranging from $200-$900 for simple drain snaking (15-30 minutes of work) are documented repeatedly. This is a structural business practice issue, not individual technician behavior.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: A significant number of reviews describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and no communication was provided. This is a recurring operational failure across multiple franchise locations.
• MULTI-FRANCHISE DATASET: Reviews appear to span dozens of different Roto-Rooter franchise locations across the United States. Scores reflect the brand aggregate, not any single location. Individual location quality varies significantly.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are dated between 2020-2025, which is within the relevant scoring window. Older reviews (pre-2015) were given reduced weight.

This WW Score of 72.4 is based on a very large dataset (1,456 reviews) and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but should be interpreted as a brand-level aggregate across many franchise locations — individual location quality varies substantially, and the systemic pricing and scheduling issues documented here may not apply equally to all franchises.

All three reviews consistently highlight strong professionalism, including responsiveness, punctuality, and pleasant communication — one reviewer even noted the contractor insisted on coming at the customer's convenience. Project completion is well-supported, with two reviews describing multi-phase jobs completed successfully and one customer returning for a second project. Experience is supported by two reviews that reference accurate diagnosis and quality workmanship, though the sample is small. Pricing is mentioned in only one review, where the customer noted the contractor did not try to pad the bill, yielding a conservative but positive score.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• All reviews are dated between September 2021 and January 2022, meaning all data is over 2 years old. Recent performance cannot be assessed.
• No negative feedback present across any dimension, which may reflect genuine quality but could also reflect a small and self-selected sample size.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details, varied language, and distinct scenarios, suggesting authenticity.

This score is based on only 3 reviews, all older than 2 years, and should be considered a low-confidence preliminary indicator rather than a definitive assessment of current contractor quality.