Find Nearby Plumbers In Columbus, Ohio

This contractor has a deeply polarized review profile, with enthusiastic praise from satisfied customers offset by serious complaints from others. Positive reviews highlight prompt response, honesty, and willingness to go above and beyond, including after-hours emergency service. However, multiple negative reviews describe significant failures: technicians unable or unwilling to resolve urgent situations, a pattern of equipment failures attributed to poor installation quality, a broken pipe with subsequent billing disputes sent to collections, and an allegation of employees being impaired on the job. Project completion is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers describing abandoned or unresolved work. The mixed record across all four dimensions prevents any dimension from scoring above the mid-range.

• Strong recency concern: the majority of positive reviews are from 2014–2017, while the most recent reviews (2019–2023) are predominantly 1-star complaints. The contractor's current performance profile appears significantly worse than older reviews suggest.
• One review alleges employees were visibly impaired (high) on job sites — this is a serious safety and professionalism concern that warrants caution.
• One review describes a billing dispute sent to collections after a technician broke a customer's pipe — this is a significant project completion and ethics red flag.
• The 2023 hot water heater review describes a multi-year pattern of recurring element failures and improper repair technique (element pulled without draining tank), suggesting systemic quality control issues.
• No clear fake review patterns detected, but the stark split between older 5-star and newer 1-star reviews may indicate a meaningful decline in service quality over time rather than fake activity.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a sufficient number of reviews, but the strong recency skew toward negative experiences significantly undermines confidence in the contractor's current service quality — prospective customers should weight the post-2019 reviews most heavily.

McAtee Plumbing demonstrates severe and consistent deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is undermined by widespread reports of rude staff, poor communication, missed appointments, and lack of responsiveness to customer concerns. Project completion is critically weak, with numerous accounts of incomplete work, abandoned jobs, technicians refusing to return, and failure to honor warranty commitments. Pricing practices are highly problematic, with customers reporting hidden charges, inflated fees, fraudulent billing, and refusal to provide transparent quotes. While some individual technicians (Alex, Booby, Dustin, Bradley, Josh, Richard, Kyle, Steven) received praise for technical competence and courtesy, these positive experiences are vastly outnumbered by accounts of incompetent diagnostics, improper repairs requiring costly corrections, and dishonest practices. The company's partnership with home warranty providers appears to enable exploitative behavior, as customers report being trapped in relationships with this contractor.

• CRITICAL: Overwhelming pattern of negative reviews (36 of 50 reviews are 1-star ratings). This is not a few isolated complaints but systemic failure.
• FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews explicitly accuse the company of dishonest practices, fraudulent billing, false diagnoses sent to warranty companies, and lying to insurance companies to avoid work.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Repeated pattern of technicians leaving jobs unfinished, refusing to return, or asking customers to complete work themselves.
• HIDDEN CHARGES: Consistent complaints about unexpected fees, inflated permit charges, bogus modification costs, and refusal to provide transparent pricing upfront.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: Pervasive reports of unreturned calls, voicemail systems that don't connect to humans, rude dispatch staff, and inability to reach management.
• WARRANTY ABUSE: Multiple customers report being charged for work supposedly covered under warranty, or being told warranty doesn't apply after initial diagnosis.
• RECENCY: While some positive reviews exist from 2019-2024, the negative reviews span from 2012 to 2025, indicating this is not a recent decline but a long-standing pattern.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between a small number of highly praised individual technicians and the company's systemic failures suggests management and dispatch issues, not isolated bad actors.
• GEOGRAPHIC PATTERN: Complaints span multiple states (GA, SC, VA, MD, etc.), indicating this is not a regional anomaly but company-wide dysfunction.

This WW Score of 38.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 50 reviews with substantial mention counts across all dimensions (18-32 mentions per dimension), all analyzed with HIGH or MODERATE confidence. The overwhelming consistency of negative feedback, combined with specific, detailed complaints across professionalism, pricing, completion, and experience, creates a clear and damning picture of a company with severe operational and ethical problems. The few positive reviews do not materially alter this assessment given their small proportion relative to the volume of serious complaints.

Hayner's Plumbing & HVAC shows severe deficiencies across multiple dimensions. While one recent positive review (2020) praised fast, friendly, and affordable service with creative problem-solving, two detailed negative reviews from 2016-2018 document critical failures: incomplete septic pumping work, multiple forgotten tasks (A/C wiring, water spigot activation), an 8-month project delay preventing occupancy, unresolved HVAC issues, poor follow-up communication, and unprofessional customer service responses. The stark contrast between the single positive review and two comprehensive negative accounts—particularly the detailed BBB complaint—suggests systemic operational and interpersonal problems that outweigh the one favorable experience.

• CRITICAL: Two detailed negative reviews document serious project completion failures (incomplete work, 8-month delays, forgotten tasks) versus one positive review. This pattern suggests chronic operational issues rather than isolated incidents.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The two most damaging reviews are from 2016-2018 (4-8 years old), while the positive review is from 2020 (4 years old). However, the detailed nature and specificity of the negative reviews (BBB complaint, multiple documented failures) carry significant weight despite age.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: The 2016 review explicitly documents rude, disrespectful, and unprofessional communication from the owner (Steve Hayner) in response to legitimate customer concerns. This is a direct character/conduct issue.
• PATTERN OF INCOMPLETE WORK: Multiple reviews cite forgotten tasks and incomplete projects (septic pumping not finished, A/C wires not connected, water spigot not activated, HVAC issues unresolved for months). This suggests a systemic follow-through problem.
• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews analyzed. While this meets the minimum threshold, confidence in the overall score is limited by the small sample and age of most data.

This WW Score should be treated with caution. While the score of 41.8 reflects genuine documented failures in project completion and professionalism, the analysis is based on only 3 reviews, with the two most critical negative reviews being 6-8 years old. The single recent positive review (2020) suggests possible improvement, but without additional recent data, it is unclear whether systemic issues have been resolved. Prospective customers should request recent references and clarify warranty/follow-up policies before engaging this contractor.

The review set presents a deeply divided picture of Bing Utilities, with two strongly positive and two strongly negative reviews. Professionalism scores are dragged down severely by two documented cases of the owner becoming unreachable after problems arose — including ignoring BBB complaints and no-showing a scheduled repair visit. Project completion is the most damaging dimension: two out of four reviews describe work that was explicitly left incomplete or unresolved for extended periods, including an ungraded yard and a water line that leaked for over a year. Pricing received relatively better marks, with two reviewers praising costs as far below competitors, though one reviewer was double-charged — a serious financial misconduct flag. The single positive experience review citing expertise and a 10-year guarantee is the primary driver of the experience score, but it is an older review and insufficient to offset the pattern of failure described elsewhere.

• SERIOUS PATTERN: Two separate reviews (2012 and 2022) independently describe the contractor becoming unresponsive after problems arose, suggesting a systemic pattern of abandoning difficult jobs rather than isolated incidents.
• FINANCIAL MISCONDUCT FLAG: One reviewer reports being double-charged on a credit card with no refund issued after repeated contact attempts — this is a significant red flag beyond ordinary service complaints.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The only two positive reviews are from 2013 and 2015 — both over 9 years old at time of this analysis. The two negative reviews are more recent (2012 and 2022). The most recent review (2022) is a 1-star complaint, suggesting performance has not improved over time.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 4 reviews total. This is insufficient to draw high-confidence conclusions about any dimension. All scores should be treated as preliminary estimates only.
• BBB COMPLAINTS MENTIONED: Two reviewers independently reference filing or intending to file BBB complaints, which corroborates the severity of the issues described and suggests these are not isolated misunderstandings.

This WW Score should be treated with significant caution — it is based on only 4 reviews spanning nearly a decade, the two positive reviews are outdated, and the two negative reviews describe serious unresolved issues including financial misconduct and abandoned work, making this contractor a high-risk hire based on available data.

The overwhelming majority of reviews paint a deeply troubling picture of this contractor across every dimension. Six of seven reviews are 1-star and describe serious failures including no-shows without notice, abandoned jobs, refused callbacks, and outright dishonesty. Project completion is the most critically damaged dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly stating work was left unfinished, messes were left behind, and the company refused to return or make things right. Professionalism scores are near-floor due to repeated no-call no-shows, rude or non-communicative behavior, and one reviewer describing staff as 'thugs.' The single positive review, which is also the oldest in the set (2018), describes a good experience with punctuality, fair pricing, and clean work — but it is heavily outweighed by the volume and severity of negative accounts. Experience scores are also very low, with one detailed review describing technically incorrect plumbing work that the plumber could not diagnose or fix.

• RECENCY WARNING: The only positive review is dated 2018, making it over 6 years old. All negative reviews are more recent (2019–2022), suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time. The positive review should be weighted minimally.
• ABANDONED WORK PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers describe the company refusing to return to complete or correct work, which is a serious and consistent pattern of project abandonment.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least two separate reviews describe scheduled appointments where the contractor failed to appear and did not call, indicating a systemic reliability problem.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE REFUSAL PATTERN: Multiple reviewers explicitly state the company refused callbacks, refused to correct problems, and refused to engage after payment — suggesting a deliberate pattern rather than isolated incidents.
• SAFETY/LIABILITY CONCERN: One review describes a jetter left stuck in a city sewer main for over a year, which may constitute an ongoing public infrastructure hazard.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 7 total reviews limits statistical confidence. However, the consistency and specificity of the negative reviews across different incidents and years increases their credibility.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall confidence due to the small review pool of 7, but the score itself is considered highly representative of actual service quality given the striking consistency, specificity, and multi-year pattern of serious complaints across all four dimensions.

This contractor's reviews paint a deeply concerning picture across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is heavily damaged by reports of unprepared technicians, failure to wear boot covers indoors, poor communication, and a company culture that doubles down on errors rather than acknowledging them. Pricing is a major red flag, with one customer billed $500 after a $350 quote, another receiving an unexpected $500 bill ten months after being told a service was free, and a third nearly paying $4,100 for a repair that was entirely unnecessary. Project completion is similarly poor, with multiple instances of technicians leaving jobs unfinished, returning multiple times without resolving issues, and one case of a false diagnosis that would have resulted in unnecessary excavation work. The sole positive review praises a membership club experience with courteous and professional technicians, which stands in stark contrast to the four negative reviews and may reflect a different tier of service or a different time period.

• 4 out of 5 reviews are 1-star; the single 5-star review uses unusually formal and promotional language ('Devoted Clientspring') and lacks specific detail about any actual service performed, which raises mild concern about its authenticity.
• Multiple reviews describe technicians arriving unprepared and needing to leave mid-job to obtain supplies — a recurring operational pattern suggesting systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.
• One review documents a potential false diagnosis that would have cost the customer $4,100; the company reportedly refused to acknowledge the error when contacted, suggesting a serious integrity concern.
• One review involves a billing dispute where a senior citizen on Social Security was charged nearly $500 after being told the service was covered under warranty — a potential consumer protection concern.
• Review dates span from 2022 to 2024; the most recent negative review (October 2024) suggests problems have not improved over time. The only positive review is from April 2023.
• Small sample size of 5 reviews limits statistical reliability. WW Score should be treated as directional, not definitive.

While the WW Score is calculated from a small sample of 5 reviews, the consistency and specificity of the negative feedback across multiple dimensions — pricing, preparation, diagnosis accuracy, and follow-through — lend meaningful credibility to the low score, and prospective customers should treat this rating as a serious warning signal.