Find Nearby Plumbers In Cincinnati, Ohio

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning nearly a decade. Professionalism is mixed: one review explicitly criticizes condescending behavior and late arrival, while two others praise punctuality and customer service follow-up. Pricing is a major concern, with one detailed complaint about dramatically inflated quotes (double market rate). Project completion appears solid where mentioned, with evidence of thorough work and follow-through on referrals. The lack of any mention of technical skill or workmanship quality prevents scoring on experience. The extreme age of most reviews (2011–2016) and the presence of a suspicious 5-star review with only a period as text reduce overall reliability.

• Suspicious review detected: Review dated 2015-07-31 contains only a period and 5-star rating with no substantive content — likely fake or spam.
• Extreme recency issue: All reviews are 8+ years old (2011–2016). No recent data available to assess current performance or whether issues have been corrected.
• Significant contradiction: One detailed negative review (late, condescending, overpriced) directly conflicts with positive reviews about punctuality and professionalism. This suggests either inconsistent service or a change in business practices over time.
• Pricing red flag: One review documents pricing at 2.35× competitor rate ($1,000 vs. $425), suggesting potential overcharging or poor estimating practices.

This score should be treated with caution. With only 3 usable reviews spanning 13 years and no recent data, it does not reliably reflect current contractor performance. The presence of contradictory reviews and a fake review further undermines confidence.

This contractor has a deeply polarized review profile across only 4 reviews, making any score highly tentative. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is severely damaged by two explicit complaints of tardiness, non-communication, full voicemail boxes, and a cancelled appointment — offset only partially by two positive reviews praising promptness and professionalism. Project completion is similarly mixed, with one review noting an abandoned or cancelled claim and another praising follow-through after a prior plumber failed. Experience received limited positive mentions in two reviews but was never directly criticized. Pricing was not mentioned in any review and cannot be scored. The overall picture suggests an inconsistent and potentially unreliable contractor.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score has very low statistical reliability and should be treated with caution.
• Two reviews explicitly report full voicemail and inability to contact the contractor, suggesting possible operational or business continuity issues.
• One review notes the contractor's website was shut down by its host, raising concerns about the business's current operational status.
• Reviews span from 2020 to 2022 — all reviews are more than 1 year old as of 2024, meaning current service quality is unknown.
• No pricing data available in any review — the Pricing dimension cannot be scored.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the small sample size limits confidence in any direction.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, all older than 1 year, with no pricing data and a sharply divided sentiment — it should be considered highly unreliable and insufficient for confident contractor evaluation.

This contractor's review set is small and heavily mixed, with two serious negative reviews dragging scores down significantly across professionalism and project completion. The two negative reviews describe a pattern of unresponsiveness, broken commitments, and an employee abandoning a customer mid-emergency to attend a family function — both of which are severe professionalism and project completion failures. The two positive reviews, while genuine in tone, are older (one from 2012, one from 2020) and provide limited counterbalance. Pricing received a single positive mention of a fair charge, but with only one data point this carries very low confidence. Experience is mixed: one review explicitly calls out a lack of technical knowledge on tankless water heaters, while two others praise the work quality.

• RECENCY CONCERN: One of the two positive reviews is from 2012 — over a decade old — and should be weighted minimally. The most recent reviews (2020–2021) skew negative.
• PATTERN CONCERN: The two negative reviews describe a recurring theme of unresponsiveness and failure to follow through, suggesting a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 4 reviews total. All dimension scores carry limited-to-moderate confidence at best. The WW Score should be treated as directional only.
• NO FAKE REVIEW INDICATORS DETECTED: The reviews vary in tone, detail, and rating, and appear to reflect genuine customer experiences.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning nearly a decade, with the most recent data pointing to serious service failures; the score should be considered low-confidence and directional only until a larger and more recent review set is available.

The review set paints a deeply concerning picture of this contractor across nearly every dimension. Project completion is the most heavily documented failure: multiple reviewers describe jobs left unfinished, recurring problems never resolved, technicians unwilling to perform necessary work, and no-shows after confirmed appointments. Professionalism scores marginally higher due to a small number of positive reviews praising politeness and responsiveness, but these are heavily outweighed by accounts of poor communication, failure to clean up, and refusal to honor callbacks. Experience is critically undermined by one reviewer reporting $14,000 in remediation costs to fix Allied's substandard work, another describing code violations, and multiple accounts of the same problem recurring after paid repairs. Pricing concerns are present in at least three reviews, with one customer paying over $700 with the same issue unresolved and being quoted $900 more, suggesting a pattern of charging repeatedly without delivering results.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are older than 12 months, with most dating from 2015–2019. Only one review (October 2023) is within the past 12 months. The score may not reflect current performance.
• PATTERN WARNING: The single recent 5-star review (2023) is brief, generic, and lacks specific detail about the work performed. It cannot be weighted heavily.
• CREDIBILITY NOTE: The two remaining 5-star reviews (2015, 2016) are older and while one contains some specifics (named technician 'Charles'), the other is entirely generic and may reflect a loyal customer relationship rather than objective assessment.
• SEVERE NEGATIVE PATTERN: At least 6 of 9 reviews describe substantive failures in workmanship, follow-through, or professionalism. This is not isolated — it represents a consistent pattern across multiple years and multiple reviewers.
• CODE VIOLATION FLAG: One reviewer explicitly states that a professional hired to remediate Allied's work confirmed it would not have passed code. This is a serious liability and quality indicator.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the small total review count (9 reviews) and the age of most reviews, but the consistency and specificity of negative feedback across multiple independent reviewers significantly reinforces the low score as a trustworthy signal of poor performance.

All three reviews describe serious failures across multiple dimensions. Professionalism was consistently poor: technicians failed to follow up after visits, the owner became defensive when confronted with legitimate complaints, and one incident involved a significant water spill caused by careless equipment choices that damaged a customer's home. Project completion was critically low — in two of three reviews the core plumbing problem was never resolved despite multiple visits and payments, and in the third the job was completed but a billing dispute arose immediately after. Pricing transparency was a notable concern, with one reviewer describing a bait-and-switch between a worst-case ballpark estimate and a flat-rate charge that bore no resemblance to the actual scope of work performed. Experience scores were slightly higher only because technicians did demonstrate some diagnostic ability and one job was technically completed, but misdiagnosis and incomplete work undermine confidence in their technical competence. The pattern across all three reviews is one of poor communication, lack of accountability, and failure to deliver on commitments.

• All three reviews are 1-star ratings — this is a uniformly negative dataset with no positive reviews to balance the score.
• Two of the three reviews are older than 12 months (2015 and 2019); only one review is from 2022. Recency weighting is limited.
• No fake review patterns detected — all three reviews are highly detailed, specific, and contain unique personal narratives with named individuals and specific dates, strongly suggesting authenticity.
• A recurring theme of poor internal communication between field staff and ownership appears in at least two reviews, suggesting a systemic organizational problem rather than isolated incidents.
• One review documents property damage caused directly by technician negligence (bucket overflow flooding kitchen, living room, and basement), which is a serious liability concern.
• The owner's response to a negative review threat — stating he 'doesn't agree with people leaving poor reviews' and becoming defensive — is flagged as a professionalism concern at the ownership level.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all of which are 1-star and span a 7-year period, so while the score reflects a genuinely poor performance picture, the small sample size limits statistical reliability and the score should be interpreted with caution.

The review corpus is overwhelmingly negative, with roughly 26 of 35 reviews awarding 1 star and describing severe, repeated failures across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most-cited dimension and is catastrophically poor: reviewers consistently describe no-shows, extreme lateness without notice, rude and dismissive staff, a verbally abusive owner (Brian), and technicians taking personal calls or using bathrooms without permission. Project completion is nearly as damning, with dozens of accounts of jobs abandoned mid-work, parts never ordered, six-attempt water heater replacements, work left incomplete ahead of a hurricane, and money charged for work never performed. Experience scores marginally higher only because a small cluster of positive reviews (primarily from 2017–2020) describe competent, efficient work — but these are vastly outnumbered by accounts of incompetent diagnosis, wrong tools, snakes left in drains, and problems recurring immediately after service. Pricing receives a moderate score because the handful of positive reviewers praised fair and transparent pricing, though negative reviewers allege charges for work not done, which partially offsets this.

• SEVERE PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT: The overwhelming majority of reviews (26 of 35) are 1-star and describe systemic failures — not isolated incidents. This is not a statistical anomaly but a consistent operational pattern.
• POTENTIAL FRAUD ALLEGATION: Multiple reviewers explicitly allege charging for work not performed, including one detailed account of $165 charged for 're-piping' that was never done and never refunded despite repeated requests.
• OWNER MISCONDUCT: Multiple reviews name the owner 'Brian Ross' directly as rude, dismissive, threatening, and unresponsive. One reviewer describes being called 'sweetie,' told to 'fix her attitude,' and hung up on.
• UNLICENSED TECHNICIAN ALLEGATION: One reviewer states there is no record with the Florida Plumbing Regulatory Board that technician 'Danille Scott' holds a plumbing license.
• GEOGRAPHIC INCONSISTENCY: Several reviews note that the company dispatches technicians hundreds of miles from its base (e.g., Orlando to Pensacola), with no local oversight, which reviewers link directly to accountability failures.
• RECENCY NOTE: The positive reviews are sparse and mostly dated 2018–2020, while the bulk of negative reviews cluster in 2016–2017. The most recent review (2020-12-17) is a 1-star describing the same no-show and communication failure pattern, suggesting problems persisted over years.
• POSSIBLE FAKE OR UNINFORMATIVE REVIEW: One review (2015-06-24) contains only the word 'unknown' with a 5-star rating and was excluded from scoring as it contains no usable data.
• POSITIVE REVIEW ISOLATION: The 7 positive reviews are specific and credible on their own, but they represent a small minority and several reference a single technician ('Dino' or 'Jay') rather than the company broadly, suggesting quality was highly dependent on which individual was dispatched.

This WW Score of 18.7 is based on a large, highly consistent body of evidence across 34 usable reviews and should be considered highly reliable — the data strongly and repeatedly supports a conclusion that this contractor delivers poor service across all measured dimensions.