Find Nearby Plumbers In Elyria, Ohio

Piedmont Plumbing receives consistently positive feedback across all scored dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently mentioned quality — reviewers cite punctuality, friendliness, and availability. Pricing transparency is explicitly praised in multiple reviews, including one detailed account confirming no hidden fees across two separate jobs. Project completion is supported by the most detailed review, which describes two fully completed installations done on schedule, though only two reviews speak to this dimension directly. Experience and technical knowledge are affirmed by references to well pump and water treatment system installations handled competently, though the evidence base remains small overall.

• One review contains only 'unknown' as text and was excluded from scoring as it provides no usable data.
• All reviews are rated 5 stars, which warrants mild caution, though the detailed long-form review adds credibility and specificity that reduces fake review concern.
• All reviews are older than 8 years (most recent: November 2016; oldest: December 2011). Recency is a significant concern — there is no data from the past several years, and current performance cannot be reliably inferred.
• Total usable review count is very low (4 reviews). Scores should be treated as directional only and not definitive.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to a very small review sample (4 usable reviews), all of which are more than 8 years old, making it impossible to assess the contractor's current quality or consistency.

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.

JD's Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 2018–2024. While positive reviews praise professionalism, responsiveness, and technical skill (particularly from 2018–2020), recent reviews (2020–2024) reveal serious concerns with pricing transparency, project completion, and follow-through. Multiple customers report unexpected price increases, incomplete work, poor communication, and unresolved callbacks. The company demonstrates capability when execution is sound, but reliability and accountability appear compromised, particularly in managing customer expectations and honoring commitments.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2020–2024 (recent), while positive reviews cluster in 2018–2020. This suggests service quality has deteriorated over time.
• PRICING RED FLAGS: Multiple reviews (2024, 2021, 2020) report unexpected price increases, vague estimates, billing for full hours on partial work, and charges for parts already provided. Pattern suggests systematic pricing opacity.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Several reviews document incomplete work, abandoned jobs, unfilled holes, damaged property left unaddressed, and multiple failed callback attempts. One customer waited 17 days without shower access due to repeated no-shows and miscommunication.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Receptionist dishonesty documented in 2020 review (multiple lies about part arrival and plumber location). Owner hung up on customer per 2020 review. Pattern of unresponsiveness to follow-up requests.
• QUALITY CONTROL VARIANCE: Reviews indicate inconsistent technician competence. Some employees lack English proficiency and technical knowledge (dishwasher install 2021). Damage to property (vanity, tile, wall) left unaddressed.
• CALLBACK AVOIDANCE: 2019 review documents five unanswered callback requests. 2021 review required multiple phone calls and emails to correct invoice. Pattern of poor follow-through on promised repairs.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical WW Score of 62.8 reflects mixed data, the temporal pattern is alarming: service quality appears to have declined significantly from 2018–2020 to 2020–2024. Recent reviews (past 2 years) are predominantly negative and document systemic issues with pricing transparency, project completion, and accountability. The company demonstrates capability but lacks reliability and customer-centric practices. Prospective customers should request detailed written estimates, clarify all costs upfront, and verify callback commitments in writing before engaging this contractor.

This business appears to be a parts supplier/retail store rather than a contracting or plumbing service. The reviews do not address contractor services such as job completion, punctuality, or professional workmanship on customer projects. Two reviews praise product knowledge and customer service at the retail counter. However, one detailed negative review from 2013 documents a serious pricing and product quality issue involving a defective floor model faucet and subsequent overcharging. The business model mismatch and insufficient data on actual contracting services prevent reliable WW Score calculation.

• CRITICAL: This business appears to be a retail parts supplier, not a contractor/plumber service provider. WW Score is designed for service contractors, not retail establishments.
• Review dates span 2013–2020; most positive reviews are 4+ years old (2017, 2019, 2020), with only one recent data point.
• Three reviews contain generic praise with minimal specific detail about actual services rendered, suggesting possible retail testimonials rather than project-based contractor reviews.
• One substantive negative review (2013) documents serious product quality and pricing concerns that contradict the generic praise in other reviews.
• Insufficient data on core contractor dimensions (professionalism, project completion) to calculate a meaningful WW Score.

This WW Score cannot be reliably calculated because the business reviewed is a retail parts supplier, not a service contractor, and reviews do not contain sufficient evidence of actual contracting work, project completion, or professional service delivery.

All three reviews describe severe failures in project completion, workmanship, and follow-through. The contractor failed to complete work correctly (improper roof ventilation, missing sheathing replacement, roof leaks), refused callbacks and warranty documentation, and became belligerent when contacted about defects. Professionalism was compromised by unprofessional text messages and avoidance of responsibility. One review explicitly mentions a demand for additional payment ($500) to fix work that should have been done correctly initially. These are not isolated complaints but consistent patterns across multiple projects.

• CRITICAL: All three reviews are 1-star ratings with detailed, specific complaints—not generic praise. This is NOT a fake review pattern; rather, it indicates genuine customer dissatisfaction.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two reviews are from 2016 and one from 2018. All reviews are older than 6 years. Current business practices may differ, but no recent data available to assess improvement.
• PATTERN OF DEFECTS: Multiple reviews cite identical or similar failures (incomplete sheathing replacement, roof leaks, improper ventilation), suggesting systemic quality control issues.
• UNRESOLVED DISPUTES: At least two reviews indicate ongoing disputes or litigation contemplation, suggesting no satisfactory resolution was reached.
• INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR RELIABLE SCORING: Only 3 reviews total. WW Score calculation requires minimum 3 reviews, but confidence in any score derived from only 3 reviews—especially all negative—is inherently limited.

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume (only 3 reviews) and age (all 6+ years old). However, the consistent pattern of severe defects, incomplete work, poor communication, and unresolved disputes across all available reviews strongly suggests serious quality and professionalism issues. Any engagement with this contractor should be approached with extreme caution, and current references should be requested to determine if practices have improved since 2018.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. While both reviews are highly positive and mention all four dimensions, the sample size is too small to produce a statistically meaningful composite score. Each dimension is supported by only 2 mentions, resulting in LIMITED confidence across all categories.

• Sample size critically low: only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with highly generic praise language ('highly recommend', 'impeccable work', 'reasonable pricing'). Pattern suggests potential review bias or selection bias.
• Review dates are significantly outdated: 2015 and 2018. No recent reviews (past 12 months) available to assess current service quality.
• No negative feedback or specific technical details provided in either review. Lack of specificity reduces ability to validate claims.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2). Do not use this assessment for decision-making. Collect at least 3 additional recent reviews before generating a trustworthy WW Score.