Find Nearby Plumbers In Cleveland, Ohio

Plumbing 911 demonstrates a genuinely split reputation across a very large review base. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a recurring pattern of broken appointments, no-shows, rude office staff interactions, and scheduling failures — with multiple detailed negative reviews describing confirmed appointments that were canceled last-minute or simply not honored. Pricing is the weakest dimension: a substantial number of reviewers across many years explicitly describe charges as excessive, sometimes 2–6 times what competitors charged for identical work, and the $89 diagnostic fee combined with high labor quotes generated repeated complaints. Project completion is moderate-positive — most jobs that were started were finished, but there are notable exceptions including incomplete work, return visits required to fix errors, and at least one egregious multi-year unfinished job. Experience scores are moderate-positive, with many reviewers praising individual technicians by name for skill and problem-solving, but offset by multiple reviews describing misdiagnosis, inexperienced plumbers, and situations where a second company quickly resolved what Plumbing 911 could not.

• LARGE VOLUME OF BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 20+ reviews contain no text whatsoever, only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data. Their star ratings skew positive (mostly 4-5 stars), which may inflate the raw average rating but cannot be verified.
• ONE CLEARLY IRRELEVANT REVIEW DETECTED: One review (rated 5 stars, dated 2024-12-11) references 'We Buy Junk Cars' and a person named 'Mike' — this is almost certainly a misplaced review for a completely different business. It was excluded from all scoring.
• RECENCY CONCERN: A meaningful cluster of reviews (roughly 40%) are dated 2024-06-09 with identical timestamps, suggesting a bulk import or data migration artifact rather than organic review dates. These were treated with reduced confidence for recency weighting.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 10 distinct reviews across multiple years describe confirmed appointments that were canceled last-minute or where the technician simply did not appear. This is a systemic operational issue, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC AND SPECIFIC: Multiple reviewers provided direct price comparisons showing Plumbing 911 charged 2x to 6x what competitors charged for identical work. This is not vague dissatisfaction — it is a documented and recurring pattern.
• INDIVIDUAL TECHNICIAN VARIANCE IS HIGH: Reviews are heavily technician-dependent. Named technicians like Shane, Nick, Rob, Josh, Dennis, Ryan, and Adam receive strong individual praise, while anonymous or different technicians receive complaints. Company-level scores mask this variance.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW TO MODERATE: No strong evidence of coordinated fake reviews, but a subset of very short generic 5-star reviews ('Great service!', 'Awesome!', 'Very professional') with no specifics slightly inflate the positive signal. These were scored conservatively.
• GEOGRAPHIC SERVICE AREA COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews note that the company lists service areas on its website that it does not actually serve, leading to wasted customer time. This is a transparency issue.

This WW Score is based on a very large review dataset spanning over a decade and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy — the score of approximately 68 reliably reflects a company with competent individual technicians but systemic weaknesses in pricing transparency, scheduling reliability, and office staff professionalism that meaningfully reduce overall trustworthiness.

People's Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across a large review base spanning roughly 18 years. In recent reviews (2024–2025), professionalism scores are strong, with many customers praising punctuality, communication, and technician courtesy — particularly Matt, Sergio, and Josh. However, a significant cluster of negative reviews — many from the 2016–2022 period but some as recent as 2025 — describe serious failures in project completion, including work that failed shortly after service, refusal to honor warranties beyond 30 days, abandoned jobs through AHS, and technicians leaving without fully resolving issues. Pricing is a notable weak point, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out excessive markups, inflated labor rates, and charges for fixing the company's own mistakes. Experience scores are buoyed by many positive accounts of skilled diagnosis and problem-solving, but are dragged down by credible accounts of misdiagnosis, poor workmanship, and technicians lacking proper equipment. The overall picture is a company with capable technicians who perform well in direct-hire situations but has a documented pattern of poor accountability, warranty disputes, and pricing transparency issues.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2017-06-15 and two dated 2018-09-22 appear to be near-identical or exact duplicates. These were counted once each for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2013-09-29 are near-identical. Counted once for scoring.
• RECENCY IMBALANCE: A large portion of reviews (roughly 60+) predate 2023. The most recent 12 months (2024–2025) show a notably more positive trend, but older negative reviews carry significant weight given their specificity and volume.
• AHS/WARRANTY PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe a consistent pattern of People's Plumbing closing AHS claims without completing work, refusing to return, and offering only 30-day warranties. This is a systemic flag, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SPECIFIC AND CREDIBLE: Multiple reviewers cite specific dollar amounts and hourly rate calculations (e.g., $636/hr, $600/hr, $150 charge to fix their own installation error, excessive part markups). These are not vague complaints and significantly reduce the pricing score.
• GENERIC 5-STAR REVIEWS: Several reviews contain only 'unknown' as text with 5-star ratings. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they contain no usable data. This pattern may indicate placeholder or unverified reviews.
• SERGIO CONFLICT: One review (2022) makes a specific and serious allegation against technician Sergio involving theft of a thermostat. A separate review (2020) praises Sergio highly. This conflict is noted but the allegation is treated as a single data point.
• POSITIVE REVIEW CLUSTERING: Multiple 5-star reviews from June 2025 mention the same technician pair (Matt and Todd) within days of each other. While not conclusive, the clustering and similar phrasing warrants mild caution about review authenticity for that specific batch.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning 18 years, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution given the significant volume of detailed negative reviews describing systemic issues with warranty honoring, pricing transparency, and project completion — particularly for customers routed through home warranty programs.

Reeves Plumbing and Heating has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores moderately well due to a large volume of reviews praising courteous, friendly, and punctual technicians — but is significantly dragged down by a recurring pattern of no-shows, missed appointments, and failure to follow through on callbacks. Pricing is the weakest dimension: a substantial number of reviews — spanning years and covering gas lines, HVAC, sewer, and basic repairs — describe quotes that were dramatically higher than competitors, with multiple reviewers alleging that technicians fabricated or exaggerated the scope of problems to inflate bills. Project completion is mixed: many jobs were completed same-day and to satisfaction, but there are credible accounts of incomplete work, improperly sealed pipes, a cut copper pipe left open causing flooding, and a well left uncapped leading to bacterial contamination. Experience scores similarly: many technicians are praised as knowledgeable and skilled, but a meaningful minority of reviews describe misdiagnosis, unqualified technicians, and work that had to be redone by other companies.

• PRICING FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews across different years (2019, 2024, 2025) describe nearly identical scenarios — technicians claiming 5-9 gas leaks when only 1 existed, or recommending full system replacements for minor fixable issues. This pattern is too consistent and specific to dismiss as isolated complaints and suggests a systemic upselling or fraud problem.
• NO-SHOW / RELIABILITY PATTERN: At least 6 reviews explicitly describe missed appointments with no contact, including one reviewer who waited 3+ hours, another who rearranged schedules and was never called back, and a 2014 reviewer who documented three consecutive no-shows with water damage accumulating. This is a significant operational failure.
• INCOMPLETE / DAMAGING WORK: One review describes a technician cutting a copper pipe and leaving it open, causing flooding of multiple bathrooms and damage to electronics. Another describes a well left uncapped causing bacterial contamination. These are serious workmanship failures.
• BILLING DISPUTES: Multiple reviews describe prices being raised after verbal agreement, charges for work not performed, failure to provide receipts, and billing for hours not worked. One detailed 2016 review describes a 2.5-hour job billed at 6.5 hours.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2010 to 2025. The negative pricing and no-show complaints are present across all time periods including the most recent 12 months (2024-2025), suggesting these are not historical issues that have been resolved.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 12 reviews contained no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN (MINOR): A cluster of reviews dated 2024-06-09 contains multiple short, generic, highly positive reviews with no specifics (e.g., 'Really good service', 'Quick, helpful, and friendly!'). While not conclusive, this cluster warrants mild skepticism and slightly reduces confidence in the positive side of the score.
• SCORE SUPPRESSION APPLIED: Due to the credible and repeated nature of pricing fraud allegations and the no-show pattern, scores for Pricing and Project Completion were conservatively reduced below what raw positive review volume alone would suggest.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (175 reviews) spanning over a decade and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given credible, repeated, and specific allegations of price inflation, misdiagnosis, and appointment failures that appear systemic rather than isolated.

C. Lee Services receives strong praise for professionalism, punctuality, and courteous technicians across a large number of recent reviews, which keeps the professionalism score above average despite several notable complaints about poor communication and mishandled service calls. However, pricing is the most consistently criticized dimension across the review history, with multiple reviewers explicitly describing charges as excessive, non-transparent, or significantly higher than competitors — this drives the pricing score down sharply. Project completion is mixed: many jobs are described as completed well, but there are credible, detailed accounts of incomplete work, misdiagnosed problems, warranty disputes, and jobs requiring multiple return visits to finish correctly. Experience scores moderately well due to frequent mentions of knowledgeable technicians, but is tempered by several reviews describing incorrect diagnoses, failed repairs, and at least one case of fabricated damage findings. The WW Score of 62.4 reflects a company with genuine strengths in customer-facing professionalism but meaningful, recurring weaknesses in pricing fairness and consistent job execution.

• 4 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• Several 5-star reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Everything was done professionally', 'Very professional - will use again', 'Fast service when I needed it. Professional and courteous.') with no specific details. While not conclusive, this pattern warrants mild caution.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of negative reviews span from 2012 to 2022, while the majority of positive reviews are from 2024–2025. This divergence may reflect genuine improvement over time, but the negative patterns (overcharging, incomplete work, warranty disputes) do recur as recently as 2025, so the improvement cannot be fully confirmed.
• PRICING RED FLAG: At least 7 separate reviews across multiple years explicitly describe pricing as excessive, non-transparent, or significantly above competitor quotes. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: A detailed 1-star review from May 2025 describes a $874.80 charge across two botched visits, missing video footage that was paid for, and a spoiled freezer caused by a technician who unplugged it and left — with the owner refusing accountability. This is a serious and specific complaint.
• WARRANTY DISPUTE FLAG: A 2019 review describes a warranty claim being denied and the customer being accused of dishonesty. A 2015 review describes a promised refund that never materialized. These suggest a pattern of post-service accountability issues.
• FALSE DIAGNOSIS FLAG: A 2022 review alleges being charged for a camera inspection and shown evidence of a 'broken line' that did not exist when excavated. This is a serious allegation of potential fraud and reduces confidence in the experience dimension.

This WW Score is based on 48 reviews with usable data spanning over a decade, with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable — however, the significant split between glowing recent reviews and detailed negative reviews across all time periods means prospective customers should weigh the specific negative accounts carefully, particularly regarding pricing transparency and post-service accountability.

Service Experts demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with technicians consistently praised for punctuality, friendliness, and knowledge. However, the company is severely hampered by pervasive pricing concerns—customers repeatedly report markups of 300-800% on parts, diagnostic fees that seem excessive, and aggressive upselling tactics. Project completion is mixed, with many reports of incomplete work, multiple callbacks, and scheduling failures. The company's Advantage Program lease model is particularly controversial, with numerous complaints about predatory terms and hidden costs. While individual technicians often perform well, systemic issues with sales practices, pricing transparency, and follow-through significantly undermine customer satisfaction.

• STRONG PATTERN OF PRICING COMPLAINTS: Approximately 287 reviews explicitly mention overpricing, with customers reporting parts marked up 300-800% above retail, diagnostic fees of $99-$175 for simple issues, and labor rates of $150-$300+ per hour. This is the single most consistent complaint across the entire review set.
• PREDATORY ADVANTAGE PROGRAM: Multiple reviews describe the lease-based Advantage Program as a scam, with customers paying $140-$300/month for 7-10 years, totaling $12,000-$36,000 for equipment worth $5,000-$8,000. Customers report being misled about ownership, early termination penalties of 50-94% of original cost, and liens placed on homes without clear disclosure.
• AGGRESSIVE UPSELLING AND SALES TACTICS: Approximately 180+ reviews describe high-pressure sales tactics, including sending salesmen without customer consent, recommending unnecessary replacements, and using fear tactics about system failure. Technicians appear incentivized by commission to recommend expensive upgrades.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY AND MULTIPLE CALLBACKS: Approximately 120+ reviews report technicians returning multiple times to fix the same issue, incomplete work, incorrect diagnoses, and poor workmanship. Some customers report 3-6 visits for single problems.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW ISSUES: Approximately 95+ reviews report missed appointments, no-shows without notification, late arrivals, and poor communication about delays. Several customers report waiting 4+ hours with no contact.
• DISHONEST DIAGNOSTICS: Approximately 85+ reviews describe technicians making false diagnoses (claiming units need replacement when only minor repairs needed), deliberately breaking equipment during service, or misidentifying problems. Multiple customers report getting second opinions that contradicted Service Experts' diagnosis.
• POOR CUSTOMER SERVICE AND UNRESPONSIVE MANAGEMENT: Approximately 110+ reviews report difficulty reaching management, unanswered callbacks, refusal to honor warranties or service agreements, and dismissive treatment of complaints.
• ADVANTAGE PROGRAM HIDDEN TERMS: Multiple reviews describe discovering liens on homes, inability to refinance, non-transferable leases, and surprise charges after signing. Customers report being told one thing verbally and finding different terms in fine print.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Approximately 40-50 reviews from June 2025 and June 2006 contain nearly identical phrasing ('Hays/Hayes was on time, professional, friendly...', 'Ali came over...genuine, efficient, knowledgeable...'), suggesting possible review manipulation. These appear clustered by date.
• INSTALLATION DEFECTS: Multiple reviews report incorrect installations, wrong equipment sizes, improper wiring, missing permits, failed inspections, and equipment that failed within days of installation.
• MAINTENANCE CONTRACT FAILURES: Approximately 60+ reviews describe maintenance contracts that were not honored, services not performed despite payment, and inability to use contracted services within specified timeframes.

This WW Score of 62.3 should be treated with HIGH confidence due to the large sample size (1,000 reviews) and consistent patterns across multiple dimensions. However, the score masks a deeply problematic company: while technicians are often professional and knowledgeable, systemic issues with pricing, sales practices, and contract terms create significant customer harm. The pricing dimension (38.2) is particularly reliable and represents the company's most serious weakness. Potential customers should be aware that low individual technician ratings are frequently contradicted by complaints about company-level practices, hidden fees, and aggressive sales tactics. The presence of potential fake reviews in specific date clusters slightly reduces confidence in the overall rating distribution, but does not materially affect the validity of the core findings about pricing and sales practices, which are corroborated across hundreds of independent reviews.

Mr. Rooter receives broadly positive marks for individual technician professionalism and attitude, with dozens of reviews praising specific plumbers as courteous, knowledgeable, and communicative. However, these positives are significantly offset by a persistent and serious pattern of pricing complaints spanning the entire review history — multiple reviewers describe quotes that were two to three times higher than competitors, hidden upsells, bait-and-switch pricing, and charges for work not completed. Project completion is a major liability: numerous reviews describe no-shows, repeated rescheduling without notice, jobs left incomplete, callbacks ignored, and at least two detailed accounts of work that made problems worse rather than better. Experience scores moderately well when technicians are engaged, but several reviews describe technicians who misdiagnosed problems, failed to bring proper equipment, or pushed unnecessary excavation and replacement work. The overall picture is a company with capable individual workers but systemic issues in scheduling reliability, pricing transparency, and follow-through on completed work.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 6 reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates within days of each other (e.g., the 'toilet clog emergency' review, the 'couple times to figure out the problem' review, the 'Didn't even fix my problem' review, the 'Very knowledgeable respectful honest and friendly' review, the water heater installation review, and the toilet quote review all appear twice with dates 2-3 days apart). This is a strong indicator of review manipulation — both fake positive and fake negative reviews may have been submitted artificially.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE: A cluster of 5-star reviews with no text (blank reviews) appears repeatedly, particularly in the June 2025 and May 2025 date range. Blank 5-star reviews with no content provide no usable signal and may be artificially inflating the star average.
• UPSELL AND PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple independent, detailed reviews across a wide date range (2013–2025) describe a consistent pattern of technicians arriving and immediately pushing expensive excavation, pipe replacement, or hydro-jetting services — often before properly diagnosing the actual problem. Several reviewers confirmed the real issue was minor and fixable cheaply after getting a second opinion.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURE PATTERN: A significant number of reviews (estimated 15+) describe missed appointments, repeated rescheduling, no courtesy calls, and customers waiting 4–8+ hours with no technician arriving. This is a systemic operational issue, not isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE WORK AND CALLBACK FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe jobs left unfinished, problems that recurred shortly after service, and managers who did not return calls or honor warranties. One review describes a $40,000 total spend with the original problem still unresolved.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2025 and 2024, making the dataset relatively current. However, the negative patterns (pricing, no-shows, upselling) are consistent across the full review history dating back to 2013, suggesting these are entrenched operational issues rather than temporary problems.
• CONFIDENCE REDUCTION APPLIED TO PRICING SCORE: Due to the duplicate review pattern and suspected review manipulation, the pricing score has been held conservative despite the high volume of mentions. The volume of genuine negative pricing reviews is substantial and credible.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate reviews suggesting manipulation, a strong and consistent pattern of predatory pricing complaints across many years, and serious project completion failures documented in multiple detailed independent accounts.