Find Nearby Plumbers In Beavercreek, Ohio

Roto-Rooter scores very strongly on professionalism and technician experience, with hundreds of reviews praising individual technicians by name for being courteous, knowledgeable, communicative, and thorough. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs resolved same-day or within a short timeframe, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, broken promises on follow-up visits, and warranty disputes. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension across the entire review set — dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges as 'outrageous,' 'ridiculous,' 'a scam,' or triple the price of competitors, with specific dollar amounts cited ranging from $315 for 4 minutes of work to $8,700 for a water heater installation. Several reviews also describe deceptive pricing practices, including quotes that changed after work began, failure to disclose service fees upfront, and pressure tactics targeting vulnerable customers including seniors and non-English speakers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., multiple identical reviews for 'Gio,' 'Gabriel,' 'Daniel,' 'Gus,' 'Giovanni,' and others). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate a review solicitation system that caused customers to submit the same review twice, or potential manipulation. Confidence in raw review count is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 150-200 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (almost all 5-star). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from scoring but inflate the total count.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SEVERE AND SPECIFIC: Negative pricing reviews are not vague — they cite specific dollar amounts, compare to competitor prices, and describe practices such as quoting after work begins, refusing to honor coupons, and charging elderly or non-English-speaking customers without disclosure. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe technicians failing to arrive within promised windows, no-call-no-shows, and dispatch communication failures. This is a recurring pattern affecting the project completion score.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Several reviews describe Roto-Rooter refusing to honor stated warranties, including a 6-month guarantee and a 30-day guarantee, with customers being charged again for the same recurring issue.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: A small but notable number of reviews describe active harm caused by technicians — flooding a kitchen, improperly setting a toilet, changing the wrong pipe, leaving sewage handprints, and damaging property with no accountability.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians quoting extremely high prices and then reducing them when customers push back, suggesting initial quotes are inflated as a negotiating tactic rather than honest pricing.
• RECENCY: All reviews are dated between approximately May 7, 2025 and June 9, 2025 — all within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is fully applied.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review set and carries HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews inflating volume, a strong and consistent pattern of severe pricing complaints that meaningfully suppresses the score, and documented instances of incomplete work and warranty non-compliance that suggest the positive technician-level experience does not always translate to a satisfactory overall customer outcome.

All three reviews speak positively about professionalism, with mentions of friendliness, courtesy, fast response times, and respectful behavior in the home — this is the most consistently supported dimension. Pricing is noted favorably in two reviews, with explicit comparisons to larger competitors and mention of reasonable weekend rates. Project completion is supported by two reviews referencing work being finished thoroughly, including cleanup, though the sample is very small. Experience is referenced in two reviews, including one that explicitly calls the technician 'clearly extremely experienced' and describes skilled problem-solving. Overall the picture is positive, but the extremely small review pool — and the fact that two of three reviews are over 12 years old — significantly limits reliability.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated with caution.
• Two of three reviews are dated 2011, making them over 12 years old. These reviews carry reduced weight and may not reflect current service quality.
• Only one review (2024) is within the past 12 months. The score is heavily influenced by outdated data.
• No negative feedback present across any review — while this could reflect genuine quality, it may also reflect a very small and potentially non-representative sample.

This WW Score has very low reliability due to only 3 reviews being available, two of which are more than 12 years old, making it unsuitable as a confident indicator of current contractor performance.

Allen receives consistently positive feedback on professionalism across the reviews that contain usable data, with multiple reviewers noting his courtesy, respectfulness, and communication. Pricing is viewed favorably in the two reviews that mention it, with one reviewer explicitly contrasting his fair quote against a competitor's excessive one. Project completion scores are tempered by one reviewer who felt insufficient effort was given and would not trust Allen with anything more complex than a basic drain cleaning, which is a meaningful signal. Experience scores are similarly moderate — while one review highlights impressive problem-solving (securing a free Moen replacement), the skeptical review raises a concern about depth of skill that cannot be ignored.

• Two reviews contain no usable content: one is marked 'unknown' and one states only 'I had no problems at all.' These were excluded from scoring as they provide no evidence for any dimension.
• Four of the six reviews are more than 10 years old, and the most recent usable review is from 2018. This data is significantly outdated and may not reflect current performance.
• The total usable review count is very low (4 reviews). Scores should be treated as preliminary estimates only.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the small sample size limits meaningful pattern analysis.

This WW Score carries low overall reliability due to a very small usable review pool, significant age of the data (most reviews are 6–17 years old), and two reviews that provided no scorable information — treat this score as a rough directional indicator only, not a confident assessment.

Nelson Mechanical shows a split picture across only three reviews. Two positive reviews highlight strong punctuality, professional demeanor, fair and transparent pricing, and quality technical work including a complex multi-floor remodel that passed inspection on the first attempt. However, the negative review describes a significant failure in scheduling communication — the customer was not placed on the schedule, was not proactively notified, and was left waiting with no resolution — which meaningfully drags down both professionalism and project completion scores. With only three reviews spanning 2019, the dataset is too small and too dated to draw reliable conclusions about current service quality.

• All three reviews are from 2019 — over 5 years old. These scores may not reflect current business performance.
• Only 3 reviews total — dataset is at the minimum threshold for score calculation. Results should be treated with significant caution.
• No reviews from the past 12 months were provided, making recency weighting impossible.
• The two positive reviews are detailed and specific, reducing fake review concern, but the small sample size limits overall reliability.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews all dated 2019, making it a low-reliability snapshot that should not be used as a confident indicator of current service quality.

D&B Plumbing has an overwhelmingly negative review record across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is the most-cited concern, with dozens of reviewers describing rude technicians, the owner Dennis being dismissive and combative, phones going unanswered, no-shows, and broken appointment windows. Project completion is catastrophically poor — a recurring pattern involves technicians leaving jobs incomplete, falsely reporting work as done to home warranty companies, and causing secondary water damage that was never remediated. Experience scores are also very low, with multiple reviewers describing misdiagnoses, incorrect parts installed, damage caused during repairs (flooded basements, ruptured seals, broken faucet meshes), and a failure to identify obvious issues like corroded pipes or wrong anode rods. Pricing concerns include attempts to charge excessive fees for minimal work, hidden charges beyond warranty service fees, and recommending lower-quality replacement parts while billing for premium ones. The 10 positive reviews (all 5-star) are heavily outweighed by 32 negative reviews and represent a minority pattern that does not offset the systemic failures documented across the majority of the review set.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN — MODERATE: The 10 positive reviews are notably brief, generic, and lack the specific detail present in negative reviews. Several use near-identical framing ('very pleased,' 'friendly and fast,' 'would use again') with no technician names, specific issues described, or verifiable context. This pattern warrants caution when weighting positive reviews.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span 2014–2024. Negative reviews are consistent across the entire 10-year period, including 6 reviews from 2022–2024, indicating no meaningful improvement in service quality over time. The most recent review (August 2024) is a 1-star complaint.
• SYSTEMATIC FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years allege that D&B technicians deliberately misreported findings to home warranty companies (AHS, 2-10, American Home Shield) to avoid performing covered work. This is a serious ethical and potentially legal concern that goes beyond poor service quality.
• SECONDARY DAMAGE PATTERN: At least 6 reviews describe new or worsened property damage caused by D&B technicians during service visits, including flooded basements, warped floors, damaged furnaces, and mold — with the company refusing accountability in all documented cases.
• OWNER CONDUCT: Multiple reviews specifically name the owner 'Dennis' as rude, dishonest, and unresponsive. This suggests the problems are systemic and leadership-driven rather than isolated to individual technicians.
• HOME WARRANTY DEPENDENCY: Nearly all reviews — both positive and negative — involve customers who had no choice but to use D&B through a home warranty assignment. This means the customer base has limited ability to self-select away from the company, which may inflate review volume without reflecting voluntary customer trust.

This WW Score of 22.1 is based on 42 reviews spanning 10 years with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, and should be considered a reliable and conservative reflection of D&B Plumbing's actual service quality — the score would likely be even lower if not for a small cluster of brief positive reviews whose authenticity cannot be fully verified.

Every single review across this dataset describes a contractor who failed to complete work, abandoned jobs, ignored calls, and in multiple cases caused new damage that did not exist before his arrival. Professionalism is catastrophically low — Aaron is documented cussing out a customer, hanging up on clients, ignoring voicemails and texts for months, and failing to appear for scheduled return visits across all five reviews. Project completion is near zero, with multiple reviewers explicitly stating work was left unfinished, incorrectly installed, or actively made worse, and one reviewer successfully taking Aaron to small claims court. On experience, multiple reviews describe technically flawed workmanship — a leaking pipe fitting forced on incorrectly, a farmhouse sink installed wrong enough that a countertop installer refused to proceed, and a drain job that created a new leak — confirming a pattern of inadequate skill. Pricing received a marginally higher score only because one reviewer noted the job took many hours, but this is heavily offset by a documented instance of charging illegal sales tax and a quote that more than doubled at billing.

• ALL 5 reviews are 1-star ratings — this is a uniformly negative dataset with no positive signal in any dimension.
• A pattern of abandonment is documented across all 5 reviews: Aaron consistently fails to return for callbacks, ignores calls and texts, and in one case explicitly told a customer 'good luck getting a refund' — suggesting a systemic business practice rather than isolated incidents.
• One reviewer explicitly states Aaron is not bonded and carries no insurance, which is a serious legal and consumer protection concern.
• One reviewer took Aaron to small claims court and won a judgment of $1,600 plus court costs, which Aaron did not appear to contest — this is a significant legal red flag.
• Reviews span from January 2021 to September 2023, indicating this pattern of behavior has persisted over nearly three years with no apparent correction.
• No fake review concerns detected — all reviews contain specific, detailed, and independently consistent accounts of distinct incidents, lending high credibility to the negative findings.

This WW Score is highly reliable: all 5 reviews contain detailed, specific, and independently corroborated accounts of serious failures across every scored dimension, and the consistent pattern across a nearly three-year span leaves no reasonable doubt about the quality of service provided by this contractor.