Find Nearby Plumbers In Cleveland, Ohio

Goodfellas Plumbing demonstrates severe and consistent deficiencies across professionalism and project completion. Multiple reviews document no-shows without notification, unresponsiveness to callbacks, and failure to honor warranties or complete promised repairs. Pricing concerns are mixed—one customer reported overcharging for routine work, while others found value reasonable. Technical skill appears adequate when work is performed, but follow-through and accountability are critically absent. The company's pattern of abandoning customers after payment and ignoring warranty obligations represents fundamental business failures that overshadow any technical competence.

• CRITICAL: Multiple independent reviews (2019, 2020, 2024) document identical failure pattern: no-shows, unresponsive communication, broken promises for callbacks. This is not isolated—it is systemic behavior.
• Review from 2020 documents $2,839 job with warranty explicitly violated; customer forced to pursue legal action and hire another company to complete work already paid for.
• Review from 2024 documents safety code violation (unshielded 220v wires) left unrepaired despite 20+ contact attempts and two explicit promises.
• Two positive reviews (2019, 2020) are generic in praise and lack specific detail; however, they are not flagged as fake because they do provide some context (toilet replacement recommendation, communication quality). Positive reviews are significantly outnumbered by detailed negative accounts.
• Recency concern: Most recent review (2024) shows problem persists; company has not improved despite years of documented complaints.

This WW Score of 32.8 is highly reliable and conservative. It is based on six reviews with consistent, detailed, and independently corroborated evidence of professional failure. The score should be trusted as an accurate reflection of serious and systemic business practice deficiencies.

ARK Plumbing's review corpus is dominated by deeply negative experiences, particularly among customers assigned through home warranty companies. Professionalism is the most-cited dimension and is catastrophically poor: dozens of reviewers explicitly describe the phone receptionist and owner (Elana) as rude, argumentative, dismissive, and in one case using profane language toward a customer. Project completion is similarly alarming, with numerous accounts of jobs left unfinished, leaks not repaired after multiple visits, open walls and pipes abandoned, and work that caused additional damage. Pricing drew consistent complaints of hidden charges, inflated out-of-pocket fees, and suspected fraudulent reporting to warranty companies to extract extra payments. Experience scores marginally higher due to a subset of positive reviews praising specific technicians (Jason, Sal, Juan, Derek, Andrew), but is undermined by multiple accounts of incorrect diagnoses, improper installations, and work that had to be redone by other companies. The positive reviews, while genuine in some cases, are vastly outnumbered and do not offset the overwhelming pattern of failure across all four dimensions.

• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A cluster of 5-star reviews dated 2023-06-09 with identical dates, very short and generic text (e.g., 'Amazing customer service', 'ARK was super nice to me', 'Best plumbing company in town'), and no specific details are consistent with coordinated or incentivized review activity. These reviews were scored conservatively.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: Several 5-star reviews from 2014–2017 contain text such as 'unknown', '.', or 'see above' with no usable content. These appear to be placeholder or imported reviews and were excluded from scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two pairs of near-identical 1-star reviews were found (e.g., the 'worst, rude, unprofessional' review appears twice with dates 2024-06-08 and 2024-03-22; the 'Worst service I've ever had' review appears twice with dates 2024-03-18 and 2024-03-18). These were counted as single mentions to avoid double-weighting.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTE: The majority of detailed, substantive reviews are from 2022–2025. Reviews from 2008–2017 are largely positive but many lack detail or contain placeholder text. The recent trend is strongly negative and was weighted more heavily.
• ETHICAL CONCERN — FRAUDULENT REPORTING: Multiple independent reviewers allege that ARK Plumbing submitted false or inflated reports to home warranty companies (misclassifying repairs as 'modifications', reporting non-existent issues, or claiming work was complete when it was not). This pattern across many unrelated reviewers suggests a systemic business practice rather than isolated incidents.
• OWNER CONDUCT WARNING: Multiple reviewers specifically name the owner 'Elana' as the source of rude, threatening, or abusive behavior, including one reviewer alleging the owner said 'F_CK OFF' and another reporting the owner threatened legal action in response to a review. This is a significant red flag for business integrity.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: A high volume of reviews describe technicians leaving jobs unfinished, abandoning open walls or pipes, or failing to fix the stated problem across multiple return visits. This is a systemic project completion failure, not isolated incidents.

This WW Score of 28.4 is based on a large volume of detailed, specific reviews spanning multiple years and is assessed with HIGH confidence; the score accurately reflects a contractor with severe and consistent deficiencies across all four measured dimensions, and prospective customers should treat this score as a strong warning against engagement.

Fazio Sewer & Plumbing receives a critically low WW Score of 28.4, driven by severe and consistent failures across all dimensions. Professionalism is the most damaging factor, with 52 reviews documenting hostile behavior, rudeness, disrespect toward customers (particularly women and minorities), yelling, cursing, and hanging up on customers. Project completion is equally problematic, with 48 reviews reporting incomplete work, no-shows, failure to return calls, abandoned jobs, and refusal to honor callbacks. Pricing concerns appear in 12 reviews, with customers reporting inflated charges, hidden fees, and refusal to provide itemized receipts. While a small number of reviews (5 positive) praise specific technicians' technical competence, this is overwhelmed by widespread complaints of poor workmanship, inadequate diagnostics, and damage caused during repairs. The company's pattern of non-responsiveness—voicemail boxes full, no call-backs for weeks, and unresponsiveness to warranty companies—is documented across nearly every negative review.

• SEVERE PATTERN OF ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR: Owner Joe Fazio is repeatedly documented as yelling, cursing, using profanity, making racist and gender-degrading comments, and hanging up on customers. Multiple reviews describe hostile phone calls and threatening behavior.
• SYSTEMATIC NON-RESPONSIVENESS: Overwhelming majority of reviews report inability to reach the company by phone, full voicemail boxes, no returned calls for weeks, and failure to follow up on scheduled appointments.
• INCOMPLETE AND ABANDONED WORK: Extensive documentation of jobs marked complete when unfinished, technicians leaving mid-job without explanation, refusal to return for callbacks, and work that requires other plumbers to fix.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE: Multiple reviews document water damage to floors, ceilings, and basements caused by negligent work, with company refusing responsibility or refusing to return to fix damage.
• FRAUDULENT BILLING: Several reviews report work marked complete to warranty companies when not actually completed, charges for unauthorized work, inflated estimates, and refusal to provide itemized receipts.
• DISCRIMINATORY BEHAVIOR: At least 2 reviews explicitly document racist and gender-based discrimination by technicians.
• PATTERN CONSISTENCY: Negative reviews span from 2015 to 2024 (9+ years) with nearly identical complaints, suggesting systemic operational failure rather than isolated incidents.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS ANOMALY: Only 5 five-star reviews among 60 total (8%), and these are notably brief and generic compared to detailed negative reviews. However, these do not appear to be fake—they mention specific technician names (Joe, Tony, John, Cam) and specific work performed.
• WARRANTY COMPANY RELATIONSHIP: Company is primarily used through home warranty programs (HSA, American Home Shield) where customers have no choice of contractor, explaining high volume of complaints from captive customers.

This WW Score is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 60 reviews with extensive detail, consistent patterns across 9+ years, HIGH confidence on the two largest dimensions (professionalism and project completion), and corroborating evidence from multiple independent sources. The score accurately reflects a company with severe systemic failures in customer service, work quality, and professional conduct.

A-1 Affordable Plumbing scores poorly across nearly all dimensions based on the available reviews. Professionalism is a consistent failure point: multiple reviewers describe rude or dismissive office staff, lack of communication about delays, technicians not wearing shoe covers or booties, and leaving customers' homes in worse condition than they found them. Project completion is the most damaging dimension — reviewers describe abandoned work, unresolved problems that worsened after visits, failure to contact warranty companies as promised, and technicians leaving without completing the job. On the experience dimension, several reviews document misdiagnosis of problems (sewage odor dismissed twice before a full basement backup), a new leak created after a repair attempt, and a technician unable to physically remove an old water heater. The only positive signals come from two older reviews (2017 and 2021) praising a technician named Bill or Billy, which prevents the score from bottoming out entirely but carry limited weight given the volume and recency of negative feedback.

• The two positive reviews (5-star, 2017 and 2021) are significantly outnumbered by negative reviews and are among the oldest in the dataset. They should be weighted accordingly.
• Most reviews are from 2019–2023, with the most recent being June 2023. The pattern of complaints is consistent across multiple years, suggesting systemic rather than isolated issues.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in length, detail, and writing style, and negative reviews include specific names, dates, and incident details, indicating authenticity.
• Recency note: The most recent review (June 2023) is a 1-star complaint. No positive reviews exist from the past 12 months relative to the most recent review date.
• Pricing data is based on only 2 mentions — one describing a $100 charge for a $20 part (price gouging concern) and one implying double-pricing as retaliation. Score is LOW CONFIDENCE and should not be treated as representative.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall confidence — professionalism, project completion, and experience are each supported by HIGH-confidence mention counts, but the total review pool of 10 is relatively small, and the pricing dimension is based on only 2 mentions and should be interpreted with caution.

This contractor's reviews paint an overwhelmingly negative picture across nearly every measurable dimension. Professionalism is severely damaged by repeated accounts of rudeness, no-shows, missed appointment windows, lack of communication, and inappropriate behavior — with only one review (Steve D., water heater install) offering a genuinely positive counterpoint. Project completion is catastrophically low: across four of five reviews, no work was completed, work was abandoned, or the completed work caused additional damage such as a broken shower drain leaking into a living room. The one positive review describes a smooth water heater installation with good technical explanation, which is the primary basis for the experience score, though two other reviews describe technicians who acknowledged problems but then falsely reported to warranty companies that no issues existed — a serious competency and integrity concern. Pricing data was entirely absent from all reviews and cannot be scored. The single positive review prevents scores from bottoming out entirely but does not meaningfully offset the volume and severity of negative experiences.

• INTEGRITY CONCERN: Two separate reviews (June 2022 and July–August 2021) describe technicians who verbally acknowledged plumbing problems on-site but then reported to home warranty companies that no issues existed. This pattern suggests potential fraud or systematic misrepresentation.
• CRIMINAL RECORD LINK: One reviewer included a link to what appears to be a criminal record for a named technician (Matthew Voorhies). This has not been verified but is flagged as a serious concern.
• ABANDONED WORK PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe work that was scheduled, rescheduled, and ultimately never performed despite repeated tenant and landlord time commitments spanning weeks.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2020 to 2023. The most recent review (November 2023) is the most severe, involving property damage. The sole positive review is from March 2022. No reviews from the past 12 months are present in this dataset.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 5 reviews are available. While the WW Score has been calculated, findings should be treated with caution due to limited sample size. The score is directionally reliable but not statistically robust.
• NO FAKE REVIEW INDICATORS DETECTED: Reviews vary significantly in length, detail, writing style, and rating. No signs of coordinated fake positive reviews were found.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the professionalism and project completion dimensions are based on 5 mentions each (HIGH confidence), but the small total review count, absence of pricing data, and a single outlier positive review limit the statistical robustness of the final score; the directional finding of very poor performance is strongly supported by the evidence.

The two most recent reviews (2023 and 2024) paint a deeply concerning picture of this contractor. In both cases, work was left in a non-functional or defective state, and the owner responded to complaints with hostility, rudeness, and victim-blaming rather than attempting to resolve the issues. The two older positive reviews (2020) mention professionalism and responsiveness, but they are over four years old and lack specific detail about workmanship outcomes. The weight of recent evidence strongly drags down all dimensions, particularly project completion and professionalism. The contrast between the 2020 and 2023-2024 reviews may suggest a significant decline in service quality over time.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The two positive reviews are from 2020 (4+ years old) and should be weighted significantly less than the two negative reviews from 2023 and 2024.
• PATTERN CONCERN: The two positive reviews are brief, generic, and lack specific workmanship details, which reduces their evidentiary value.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAG: In both negative reviews, the contractor (David Brown) responded to legitimate complaints with hostility, insults, and refusal to remedy defective work — a major professionalism red flag.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURE: Two separate reviews document installed work that was left non-functional or defective (shower diverter malfunction, clogged sink not cleared, wrong thermostat installed improperly).
• LOW REVIEW COUNT: Only 4 total reviews exist. This is insufficient for high-confidence scoring. All dimension scores should be treated with caution.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: The two 5-star reviews are vague and highly generic with no verifiable specifics, though this cannot be confirmed with certainty.

This WW Score has LOW reliability due to only 4 total reviews, a stark split between old positive and recent negative feedback, and documented patterns of defective work and hostile customer interactions in the most recent reviews.