Find Nearby Plumbers In Akron, Ohio

Miracle Plumbing's reviews paint a predominantly negative picture across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism suffers from repeated complaints about rude technicians, unresponsive office staff, no-call-backs from management, and poor follow-through on scheduling — offset only partially by a handful of reviews praising punctuality and courteous service. Pricing is a significant concern, with multiple reviewers explicitly describing inflated estimates, high service call fees for minimal work, and a pattern of recommending expensive replacements that turned out to be unnecessary. Project completion is the most damaging dimension, with multiple accounts of abandoned jobs, work left incomplete for weeks or months, parts left on floors, wrong equipment installed, and customers ultimately seeking other plumbers — though a few reviews do describe jobs completed satisfactorily. Experience scores low due to several documented cases of misdiagnosis (water heater leak not found, water softener declared broken when it had a loose connection, toilet flange falsely declared damaged), though a small number of reviews praise specific technicians like Seth and Brian as competent and thorough.

• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary significantly in tone, detail, length, and rating, suggesting authentic submissions.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews span 2016–2024. Only 3 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024), and all 3 are negative (ratings of 1, 2, and 2). This suggests performance has not improved and may have worsened recently.
• PATTERN WARNING: Multiple independent reviews describe technicians misdiagnosing problems and recommending costly replacements that were later found to be unnecessary by other plumbers — this is a recurring and serious pattern suggesting either incompetence or upselling misconduct.
• PATTERN WARNING: Multiple reviews mention inability to get callbacks from management (Jeff mentioned by name in two separate reviews), suggesting a systemic customer service failure at the management level.
• PATTERN WARNING: At least two reviews describe jobs being left incomplete or abandoned after estimates, with no follow-up from the company.

This WW Score of 38.7 is based on 20 reviews with strong coverage across all four dimensions and should be considered a reliable and conservative reflection of this contractor's performance — the low score is well-supported by specific, detailed, and consistent negative experiences reported across multiple years.

This contractor shows severe deficiencies across multiple dimensions. Professionalism is critically undermined by repeated no-shows, failure to communicate delays, dismissive treatment of customers, and disregard for scheduled appointments. Pricing concerns emerge from allegations of charging for damage caused by technicians and billing for work never performed. Project completion is compromised by incomplete service calls and unresolved issues. While two reviews mention competent technical work (AC repair, compressor service), the overwhelming pattern of customer dissatisfaction, legal disputes, and unethical business practices substantially outweighs isolated positive mentions. The company's reputation is severely damaged by documented court losses and scam allegations.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (3 of 6) allege fraudulent billing practices, including charging for damage technicians caused and billing for services never rendered. One review explicitly references a small claims court loss.
• CRITICAL: Pattern of no-shows and failure to honor scheduled appointments (2 reviews document this explicitly).
• CRITICAL: Alleged predatory business model where company allegedly profits by suing customers for non-payment on disputed charges.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2018-2021 (4 years old). Only 1 positive review from 2023 and 1 from 2020. Older reviews may not reflect current operations, but pattern is consistent across years.
• SUSPICIOUS PATTERN: The single 2023 positive review is generic and lacks specifics, while all negative reviews contain detailed, specific allegations with corroborating details (court cases, addresses, dates). This asymmetry suggests the positive review may be less reliable.
• LEGAL EXPOSURE: Company is documented as having lost small claims court case and is allegedly suing customers. This represents significant legal and ethical red flags.

This score should be trusted with MODERATE-to-HIGH confidence due to consistent patterns across multiple detailed reviews with specific allegations, but the small sample size (6 reviews) and age of some reviews (2018-2021) introduce some uncertainty. The documented court loss and multiple corroborating accounts of fraudulent billing practices are particularly concerning and suggest systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.

Sampsel Plumbing shows severe and consistent deficiencies across multiple dimensions. Two recent reviews (2020) document critical failures in professionalism (missed appointments, poor communication, inability to confirm scheduling), project completion (incomplete drain clearing that masked underlying problem, no warranty), and pricing (charged for work that did not solve the problem). Two older positive reviews (2019, 2015) praise responsiveness and workmanship, but are significantly outweighed by detailed accounts of service failures and customer disputes. The company's denial of responsibility and refusal to guarantee work compounds trust concerns.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Two most recent reviews (May 2020) are highly negative with specific, detailed complaints. Two positive reviews are from 2019 and 2015, suggesting possible service quality decline over time.
• DISPUTE PATTERN: Customer explicitly disputed credit card charge for incomplete service; company denied claim. This indicates unresolved service failure and potential billing ethics issue.
• SCHEDULING DYSFUNCTION: Review from 2020-05-21 documents systemic communication breakdown with single manager unable to manage appointments or provide basic scheduling information.
• TECHNICAL FAILURE: Drain clearing review shows incomplete diagnosis and work, requiring customer to hire second plumber who identified actual problem (collapsed pipe). Original plumber merely masked issue.
• WARRANTY REFUSAL: Company explicitly stated they do not guarantee drain openings and would charge again for same service, indicating lack of accountability.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence due to small sample size (4 reviews), but the consistency and specificity of recent negative reviews, combined with documented service failures and unresolved disputes, suggest genuine operational and quality issues that warrant serious caution.

Peterman Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all dimensions. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is sharply divided: one long-term customer praises responsiveness and care, one review notes punctuality and courtesy, but two reviews describe rude office staff and one describes an attempt to force a no-warranty waiver before work began. Pricing is a concern, with one reviewer reporting a final bill nearly three times the quoted estimate with no prior warning. Project completion is troubled — one review describes an incomplete job spanning five days with no resolution, another describes post-installation leaks and a dirty worksite, while the positive reviewer reports a fully completed and tidy installation. Experience scores moderately, with one reviewer praising neat workmanship and another describing leaking pipes and a misdiagnosed flue issue that cost the customer an unnecessary $125 chimney inspection fee.

• The 5-star review is notably long, highly promotional in tone, and references a large commercial project — it reads more like a testimonial or marketing piece than a typical customer review. Confidence in this review is reduced.
• Review dates span from 2016 to 2024, a range of 8 years. Only one review is within the past 12 months (January 2024). The majority of reviews are older than 3 years and should be weighted accordingly.
• With only 5 total reviews, the sample size is very small. Scores and the WW Score should be treated as preliminary indicators only, not definitive assessments.
• Three of five reviews are 1-star, suggesting a pattern of significant service failures that is not offset by the limited positive feedback.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning 8 years, with most data points being outdated and the sole recent positive review showing signs of promotional bias — the score should be treated as LOW reliability and interpreted with significant caution.

Crown Heating and Cooling receives overwhelmingly negative feedback across nearly all dimensions. Professionalism is a major concern, with multiple reviewers citing staff hanging up on customers, broken promises, missed appointments, dismissive owner behavior, and poor communication — offset only slightly by a handful of positive notes about punctuality and courteous technicians. Pricing is the single most criticized dimension, with multiple detailed accounts of price gouging, lack of cost transparency, refusal to itemize bills, and charges significantly above competitor quotes. Project completion is severely damaged by one extensively documented case of a botched installation requiring 11+ return visits, unresolved warranty disputes, and a no-show appointment, alongside other accounts of incomplete or abandoned service obligations. Experience scores marginally better, as some individual technicians were noted as knowledgeable and skilled, but this is undermined by installation errors, improper system configuration, and repeated failures on completed work.

• Two reviews (dated 2022-11-09 and 2022-11-18) appear to be from the same customer describing the same service incident with nearly identical details and phrasing. These were counted as a single unique experience for scoring purposes to avoid double-weighting.
• Most negative reviews are from 2017–2022, with only two reviews from 2024. The 2024 reviews are mixed (one positive, one strongly negative), suggesting issues may be ongoing rather than resolved.
• The single 5-star review from 2020 mentions only mask-wearing and cleanliness with no substantive detail about work quality — this is generic praise and was weighted conservatively.
• The positive 2024 review is brief and lacks specifics beyond punctuality and reasonable cost, limiting its evidentiary weight.
• Overall review pattern shows a strong cluster of 1-star reviews with specific, detailed complaints, which increases credibility of the negative feedback and reduces likelihood of coordinated fake negative reviews.

This WW Score is based on 11 reviews spanning 2016–2024 with 7 of 11 being detailed 1-star complaints containing specific, verifiable grievances — the score of 38.2 should be treated as a credible and conservative reflection of this contractor's service quality, though the limited number of recent reviews means current performance cannot be fully confirmed.

This contractor's review profile is deeply mixed and concerning. Two of the four reviews are strongly negative, with one describing abandoned work, uncorrected mistakes, and borrowed tools, and another alleging the contractor arrived impaired. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by these serious allegations, offset only partially by one reviewer praising a helpful phone conversation and one long-term customer expressing satisfaction. Project completion is scored very low due to an explicit account of a half-finished basement bathroom job left with uncorrected errors. The small review pool and wide date range (2017–2024) make it difficult to draw reliable conclusions about current performance.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score reliability is very low due to insufficient data volume.
• Two reviews are from 2017, making them over 7 years old. Only one review is from the past 12 months (2024), which carries the most recency weight.
• The 2024 review describes only a phone conversation with no actual service rendered — this limits its usefulness as a true service quality data point.
• One review explicitly alleges the contractor arrived drunk or impaired — a serious professional conduct concern.
• One review explicitly describes abandoned work, uncorrected plumbing errors, use of the customer's tools, and lack of a proper work vehicle or parts inventory.
• The single positive long-term review (2017) is generic and lacks specific detail, reducing its evidentiary weight.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the extremely small sample size means no dimension can be scored with high confidence.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning 7 years and should be treated as highly unreliable — prospective customers are strongly advised to seek additional references before hiring.