Find Nearby Plumbers In Dayton, Ohio

This contractor's reviews present a deeply mixed picture across a very small sample of only 4 reviews. Professionalism is significantly dragged down by a no-show/no-call appointment (Review 4) and a technician allegedly operating outside company authorization while misrepresenting warranty terms (Review 1), though one reviewer praised a 1-hour emergency response time. Project completion is similarly split — two reviews describe completed work with satisfaction, while one documents a complete no-show and another raises serious concerns about warranty follow-through after job completion. Pricing received only one mention, and it was negative — a $1,800 charge tied to disputed warranty promises. Where work was actually performed, the quality appears adequate based on limited positive feedback, but the pattern of accountability failures is a serious concern.

• SERIOUS CONCERN: Review 1 alleges the technician operated independently (off the books) while wearing company uniform and driving a company truck, then charged $1,800 with a warranty the company refuses to honor. This suggests potential rogue employee behavior or deliberate misrepresentation.
• Review 4 documents a complete no-show and no-call for a scheduled estimate appointment — a significant professionalism failure.
• Sample size is extremely small (4 reviews). Scores carry very low statistical reliability and should not be treated as representative of consistent performance.
• Two of the four positive reviews (Reviews 2 and 3) are generic with minimal detail — no specifics about technician names, job scope complexity, or pricing — which slightly reduces their evidentiary weight, though they do not appear fabricated.
• Review dates span from mid-2023 to mid-2024, so all reviews fall within approximately the past 18 months. No significant recency weighting adjustment needed, but the most recent review (August 2024) is the most damaging.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews and should be treated as highly preliminary — the score reflects real and serious red flags but cannot be considered statistically reliable without a substantially larger review sample.

This contractor has a deeply mixed record across only 4 reviews, making any score inherently low-confidence. Professionalism is split: one reviewer praised a technician named Jerry as very professional and masked, and another praised dependability, but a third reviewer was stood up with no callback — a serious failure. Project completion is the most damaging dimension: one job resulted in persistent water intrusion into a basement after a main line replacement, with the company ultimately refusing to honor a warranty and demanding $1,100 to fix their own poor workmanship; this is partially offset by one reviewer noting the company returned to make things right after issues arose. Experience is similarly mixed, with one quick and effective repair contrasted sharply against a main line replacement that was described by the company's own technician as poorly sealed both inside and out. Pricing receives a very low score due to the single mention involving a disputed $1,100 charge to correct the contractor's own defective work.

• Very small sample size of only 4 reviews — WW Score should be treated as highly preliminary and not representative of consistent performance.
• The two positive reviews (5-star) lack granular detail on pricing and are older (2019 and 2020), reducing their reliability weight.
• The 1-star review regarding the main water line replacement describes a serious workmanship failure confirmed by the contractor's own technician, combined with a refusal to honor warranty — this is a significant red flag.
• The no-show/no-callback review (1-star, 2021) is the most recent review in the dataset, suggesting professionalism may have declined over time rather than improved.
• Most reviews are from 2019–2021, meaning no data exists from the past 12 months relative to a typical analysis window — recency is a concern.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning 2019–2021 with no recent data, and should be considered highly unreliable — the score reflects serious documented concerns but cannot be treated as statistically representative of this contractor's overall performance.

Pester Plumbing's review record is dominated by serious, detailed negative experiences spanning over a decade, with recurring complaints about poor communication, failed callbacks, incomplete or incorrect work, and unprofessional conduct by the owner and staff. Positive reviews do exist — a few customers praised promptness, friendliness, and fair rates — but these are heavily outnumbered and largely older or less detailed. Project completion is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers describing abandoned work, repeat visits that failed to fix problems, work done without permits, and a lien placed on a customer's property to force payment. Pricing concerns are significant, including bills arriving with late fees, charges doubling estimates, and hidden or changed fees. The overall picture is of a contractor with a small base of satisfied customers but a substantial and credible pattern of serious service failures.

• Multiple highly detailed negative reviews describe consistent patterns of owner misconduct including intimidation, ignoring certified mail, placing liens on property, and refusing to honor callbacks — these are credible and specific, not generic complaints.
• One review alleges Pester Plumbing performed work in Centerville in 2014 without a valid permit, which is a serious legal and safety concern.
• A gas leak resulting from a Pester installation was confirmed by a utility company (Vectren) worker — this is a significant safety and liability flag.
• Four out of seven homes in one neighborhood required corrective work from another company after Pester's installation, and Pester reportedly did not respond to BBB complaints for nearly two years.
• Positive reviews are sparse (4 out of 14) and several are from 2016–2017 or earlier; the most recent positive review is from 2023 but the most recent negative review is also from 2023, indicating problems have not been resolved over time.
• No strong fake review patterns detected — both positive and negative reviews contain specific names, dates, and details, lending credibility to the overall dataset.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months (only 2 reviews from 2023); the historical pattern of complaints is long-standing and consistent, reducing the likelihood that recent improvements have occurred.

This WW Score is based on 14 reviews with high mention counts across all four dimensions and is considered reliable; the low score reflects a consistent, multi-year, multi-reviewer pattern of serious service failures that should be weighted heavily by any prospective customer.

This contractor demonstrates severe deficiencies across multiple dimensions. Professionalism is compromised by no-shows, failure to appear for scheduled appointments, and poor communication. Pricing practices are problematic, with bait-and-switch tactics (quoted $168 but charged $296.95), unexplained surcharges, and non-refundable estimate fees that deter customers. Project completion is unreliable, with documented no-shows on two separate occasions and property damage without accountability. The single positive review indicates some technical competence, but this is heavily outweighed by systemic failures in reliability and customer service. The contractor's refusal to take responsibility for damages further undermines trust.

• CRITICAL: Multiple no-show incidents (Review dated 2023-11-15) with customer waiting 5 hours and contractor denying attendance despite no communication
• CRITICAL: Property damage incident (Review dated 2024-01-17) with contractor refusing responsibility
• CRITICAL: Pricing deception pattern — quoted $168 flat rate but charged $296.95 with questionable surcharges and parts markup (Review dated 2023-12-15)
• Estimate fee ($50) appears to be a barrier to customer acquisition rather than standard practice
• Only 1 of 5 reviews is positive; 4 of 5 are 1-star ratings indicating systemic issues rather than isolated incidents
• Positive review (2023-11-18) shows contractor CAN perform well and respond to callbacks, but this is exception rather than pattern

This score should be trusted as highly reliable. With 5 reviews showing consistent patterns of failure across professionalism, pricing, and completion, the low WW Score accurately reflects a contractor with serious operational and ethical issues. The single positive review prevents a lower score but does not offset the weight of documented damage, no-shows, and pricing deception.

Merrell Plumbing's review corpus is dominated by strongly negative experiences across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is severely undermined by repeated reports of scheduling failures, aggressive owner behavior, poor communication, and dismissive customer service — with only a small handful of reviewers praising individual technicians. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with numerous explicit complaints about overcharging, undisclosed fees, billing for unworked time, hidden credit card surcharges, and charges for warranty-covered repairs. Project completion is also poor, with multiple reviews describing incomplete work, recurring failures requiring repeat visits, unresolved leaks, improperly installed fixtures, and failure to clean up after jobs. Experience scores marginally higher due to a few positive reviews praising skilled technicians, but is dragged down by consistent reports of misdiagnosis, improper installations, and work that had to be redone.

• The review set spans 2013–2024, meaning many reviews are over 1 year old. The most recent review (2024) is positive, but the bulk of negative reviews cluster between 2013 and 2022. Recency weighting slightly favors the 2024 positive review but does not materially change the overall score.
• No strong fake review patterns detected. Positive reviews are few and contain some specific detail (named technician 'John', named technician 'Ben', specific job descriptions), which reduces suspicion of fabrication.
• The single 2024 review is positive and detailed, but it is one data point against a long history of negative feedback. It does not represent a reliable trend reversal.
• Multiple reviews independently describe the same pattern of billing disputes, aggressive payment demands, and owner hostility — this consistency across unrelated reviewers increases credibility of the negative feedback.
• Several reviews explicitly warn future customers to avoid the company, and at least two use the phrase 'shady business practices' independently, reinforcing a systemic pattern rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score is based on 18 reviews with strong dimensional coverage across all four categories, yielding HIGH confidence — the score of approximately 28 reliably reflects a contractor with serious and recurring issues in professionalism, pricing transparency, project completion, and workmanship quality.

Melton Plumbing's review record is one of the most consistently negative in all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is catastrophically low, with dozens of reviews documenting no-shows, missed appointment windows, unreturned calls and emails, rude and hostile behavior from the owner, technicians arriving without proper tools or parts, and outright lies told to both customers and home warranty companies. Project completion is nearly non-existent as a positive trait — the overwhelming majority of reviews describe jobs left unfinished, abandoned mid-repair, or never started at all despite weeks or months of waiting. Pricing and experience fare only marginally better in score, but only because a small number of positive reviews exist; multiple reviewers allege fraudulent upselling, inflated out-of-pocket charges, and misrepresentation of work scope to insurance companies, while technical errors include broken gas lines, mold contamination from improper cleanup, damaged flanges, and incorrect diagnoses. Only a handful of reviews (approximately 7 out of 72) describe a satisfactory experience, and these are vastly outweighed by the volume and severity of negative accounts spanning from 2018 through late 2024.

• PATTERN OF FRAUD ALLEGED: Multiple independent reviewers across multiple years allege that Melton Plumbing submitted false reports to home warranty companies (AHS, HSA, HMS) including marking jobs as complete when no work was performed, misrepresenting the nature of defects to avoid warranty coverage, and lying about site visits.
• OWNER CONDUCT: Numerous reviews specifically name the owner (Tom Melton / Tom) as hostile, verbally abusive, accusatory toward customers, and unresponsive. One review documents the owner threatening legal action against a customer for leaving a negative review.
• SAFETY INCIDENTS: At least two reviews describe serious safety failures — one involving a ruptured gas line left leaking overnight in a home with a pregnant woman and toddler, and another involving black mold being spread throughout a home via an unfiltered shop vac.
• POSITIVE REVIEW CREDIBILITY: The 7 positive reviews (all 5-star or high-rated) are sparse in detail relative to the volume and specificity of negative reviews. While not conclusively fake, they are insufficient to meaningfully offset the documented pattern of failure and do not address the systemic issues raised across dozens of negative accounts.
• RECENCY: Negative reviews are consistent and continuous from 2018 through October 2024, indicating no meaningful improvement over time. The most recent reviews (October 2024) describe the same patterns as reviews from 2018-2019.
• INCOMPLETE WORK / ABANDONMENT: A dominant pattern across 40+ reviews is jobs being started and then abandoned, with no follow-up communication for weeks or months, even for urgent situations such as active leaks, no hot water, and flooding.

This WW Score is based on 72 reviews spanning over six years with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, and the extremely low score should be treated as a reliable and well-evidenced assessment of this contractor's performance.