Find Nearby Plumbers In Mentor, Ohio

Plumbing Perfections has a generally positive reputation for professionalism, punctuality, and reasonable pricing across multiple reviews, with customers praising Kyle and his team for clean work, good communication, and fair rates. However, one significant negative review from 2019 describes a materially incorrect installation of a whole-house water filter that was not properly grounded, resulting in over $800 in additional damage and remediation costs — this is a serious workmanship failure that meaningfully drags down both the experience and project completion scores. The positive reviews span a wide date range (2012 to 2023), with only two reviews from the past 12 months, limiting confidence in how current the overall picture is. The small total review count (5) means each review carries disproportionate weight, and the single negative review has a notable impact on scoring. Scores are held conservative given the limited data volume and the severity of the one documented failure.

• Only 5 total reviews analyzed — sample size is very small and scores should be treated with caution.
• One review (2019) documents a serious installation error (improper grounding of a water filtration system) that caused downstream equipment damage worth ~$800. This is a material quality failure and is weighted accordingly.
• Review recency concern: Only 2 of 5 reviews are from the past 12 months (2022–2023). Two reviews are from 2021 and 2019, and one is from 2012 — over a decade old. The 2012 review was included but given reduced weight due to age.
• The 2012 review is more than 10 years old and may not reflect current business practices or staffing. It should be treated as low-reliability data.
• No strong fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific job details, varied language, and include both positive and negative experiences, which is a positive authenticity signal.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning over a decade, with limited recent data, and should be considered a preliminary signal only — prospective customers should seek additional references before making a hiring decision.

John's Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and professionalism from individual technicians, with many reviews praising punctuality, friendliness, and quality workmanship. However, the company is significantly undermined by persistent pricing concerns—numerous customers report excessive charges, inflated hourly rates, undisclosed fees, and billing for time not worked. Project completion issues include scheduling failures, no-shows, and incomplete work requiring callbacks. The company shows a stark divide between field technician quality and office/management accountability, with many negative reviews citing poor follow-up and unresponsive management when disputes arise.

• CRITICAL PRICING PATTERN: At least 25+ reviews explicitly cite overcharging, inflated rates ($185-$225/hour), billing for unworked time, and unauthorized parts charges. This is the single largest complaint category and suggests systemic pricing practices rather than isolated incidents.
• OWNERSHIP CHANGE NOTED: One detailed 5-star review (2023-02-06) explicitly references new ownership since May 2022 and asks readers to give the company a fair chance. However, negative pricing and scheduling reviews continue post-May 2022, indicating issues persist under new management.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: Multiple reviews (2020-07-31, 2020-06-29, 2019-10-23, 2017-03-24, 2016-10-17, 2015-01-22, 2014-11-01, 2013-09-16) document no-shows, broken promises, and failure to return calls. This pattern spans years and multiple ownership periods.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Several reviews report jobs left unfinished, leaks after repair, or work that failed shortly after completion (2023-05-25, 2024-09-27, 2016-10-17, 2012-09-19).
• OFFICE VS. FIELD DISCONNECT: Review from 2023-09-04 explicitly notes 'night and day' difference between excellent field technicians and poor office communication/management. This pattern appears in multiple reviews.
• DIAGNOSTIC OVERREACH: Multiple reviews (2023-07-16, 2024-02-21, 2013-05-25) report technicians recommending expensive solutions (whole-house repiping, $9,000 jobs) that other plumbers later identified as unnecessary or vastly overpriced.
• RECENT NEGATIVE REVIEWS: Negative reviews continue through 2024 (June, August, September, October), indicating problems are ongoing and not resolved by management changes.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - LOW: While many recent reviews are uniformly 5-star with generic praise, they contain specific technician names, detailed scenarios, and varied language patterns. The negative reviews are highly detailed and credible. No strong evidence of fake positive reviews, but the volume of recent 5-stars vs. older mixed reviews warrants noting.

This WW Score of 68.2 is reliable and conservative. The company excels in technical execution and individual technician professionalism (78.5 experience score) but is severely compromised by systematic pricing practices that customers perceive as exploitative and by recurring scheduling/follow-up failures. The HIGH confidence across all dimensions is based on 47-89 mentions per category, providing robust data. However, the score reflects a company with significant structural problems in billing transparency and management accountability that offset strong field-level performance. Customers should expect quality work but should obtain detailed written estimates, verify all charges, and be prepared to dispute bills.

The contractor demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent mentions of punctuality, courtesy, and responsiveness across reviews. However, pricing presents a significant concern: while two reviews praise reasonable rates, one elderly customer reports being charged $250 for a simple hose tightening (7-mile service call), suggesting potential overcharging of vulnerable clients. Project completion is supported by limited evidence of timely work. The small sample size (3 reviews) and age of one review (2021) limit confidence in this assessment.

• PRICING CONCERN: One review alleges exploitation of elderly customer with $250 charge for minor repair (hose tightening). This contradicts other positive pricing feedback and warrants investigation.
• RECENCY ISSUE: One review is from November 2021 (nearly 2 years old). Only 2 of 3 reviews are from 2023.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews total. Score reliability is inherently limited.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (3 reviews) and conflicting pricing signals. The allegation of overcharging an elderly customer is a serious concern that cannot be ignored despite positive professionalism ratings.

Edwards Plumbing & Heating shows a deeply polarized customer base with significant quality and reliability issues. While technicians often demonstrate competence and professionalism (68.5/100), the company is severely hampered by egregious pricing practices (38.2/100) and chronic project completion failures (54.8/100). Customers consistently report being overcharged by 2-4x market rates, billed for incomplete work, and experiencing repeated no-shows and scheduling failures. The company's experience level is solid (71.3/100), but this is undermined by poor follow-through, lack of accountability, and management unresponsiveness. The overall WW Score of 52.3 reflects a company that cannot be reliably trusted despite occasional competent technicians.

• CRITICAL: Extreme pricing complaints dominate negative reviews—customers report charges of $3,000+ for water heaters retailing at $800-1,300, $500+ for simple toilet repairs, and systematic overcharging across all service categories.
• CRITICAL: Chronic project completion failures—numerous reviews document incomplete work, multiple no-shows, rescheduling delays spanning weeks or months, and abandoned jobs requiring customers to hire competitors.
• CRITICAL: Management accountability failure—repeated complaints of unanswered calls, broken promises to call back, supervisors refusing to engage, and owner unresponsiveness despite escalation attempts.
• HIGH: Deceptive billing practices—customers report being charged without prior estimates, hidden fees appearing on final bills, refusal to provide itemized invoices, and charges for work never performed.
• HIGH: Scheduling system dysfunction—consistent pattern of 3-4 hour appointment windows with late arrivals, no-call no-shows, and technicians arriving unprepared without necessary tools or parts.
• HIGH: Quality control issues—multiple reports of incorrect diagnoses leading to unnecessary expensive repairs, work that failed immediately after completion, and damage caused during service (broken windows, damaged pipes, flooded basements).
• MODERATE: Potential fake review pattern—cluster of 5-star reviews from June 2025 with generic praise and minimal detail, though balanced by substantial volume of detailed negative reviews across multiple years.
• MODERATE: Financing fraud allegations—customers report being charged 20% interest on zero-interest financing agreements and difficulty obtaining refunds on cancelled deposits.

This WW Score of 52.3 is highly reliable given the large sample size (500 reviews, 487 usable) and consistent patterns across all dimensions, but the score masks a company with severe structural problems in pricing transparency, project management, and customer accountability that make it unsuitable for most customers despite occasional competent technicians.

Troy's Plumbing exhibits severe and consistent deficiencies across all dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by pervasive no-shows, failure to communicate cancellations or delays, and unprofessional behavior including alleged intoxication on the job. Project completion is undermined by repeated broken promises, incomplete work, and refusal to honor callbacks or warranty obligations. Pricing complaints are frequent and substantive, with customers reporting significant overcharges, hidden fees, and inflated estimates compared to competitors. While some positive reviews cite fair pricing and quality workmanship, these are vastly outnumbered by detailed accounts of poor execution, safety hazards (carbon monoxide leak), and structural damage from improper installation. The company's pattern of avoiding responsibility for mistakes is particularly damaging.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document serious safety issues including carbon monoxide leaks from incorrectly installed water heaters and structural damage from poor workmanship requiring third-party remediation.
• PATTERN: Overwhelming evidence of no-shows and failure to communicate (at least 10 reviews explicitly document this behavior). This is the most consistent complaint across the dataset.
• PATTERN: Systematic pricing complaints including hidden charges, inflated estimates, and charges exceeding quoted amounts. Multiple customers report paying 2-4x more than competitors for identical work.
• PATTERN: Refusal to take responsibility for mistakes or honor warranty obligations. Multiple reviews document avoidance, rescheduling excuses, and broken promises spanning months.
• CREDIBILITY: One positive review (2014-07-19) explicitly calls out another review as 'clearly fake' with suspicious characteristics, suggesting awareness of review manipulation on this platform.
• RECENCY: Most damaging reviews are from 2019-2020, but pattern of no-shows and poor communication extends through 2024. Recent reviews show no improvement in core issues.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark polarization between 5-star reviews (often generic praise with minimal detail) and 1-star reviews (detailed, specific accounts of failures). This suggests either highly variable service quality or potential review authenticity issues.
• LEGAL RISK: At least one review mentions insurance company pursuing reimbursement for damages caused by poor installation, indicating potential liability exposure.

This WW Score of 42.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong warning signal. The score is based on 35 reviews with consistent, detailed, and specific complaints across all dimensions. The overwhelming majority of negative reviews contain verifiable details (dates, amounts, specific incidents) that corroborate each other, while positive reviews tend to be generic. The pattern of no-shows, communication failures, and refusal to honor commitments is documented across a 12-year span, indicating systemic rather than isolated problems. Potential customers should exercise extreme caution.

The review set is very small (4 reviews) and spans a wide date range from 2014 to 2020, making it difficult to draw reliable conclusions. The most recent review (January 2020) is a significant negative outlier, describing a complete failure in communication, follow-through, and responsiveness — directly impacting professionalism and project completion scores. The two positive reviews from 2016 and 2017 praise Brian personally for customer service and on-time, on-budget delivery, but they are now 7–8 years old and carry reduced weight under recency rules. The 2014 review ('It went very well') provides almost no usable detail. The mixed signals across dimensions result in conservative mid-range scores, pulled down meaningfully by the 2020 complaint.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score reliability is very low and should be treated as indicative only, not definitive.
• The two positive reviews from 2016 and 2017 use similarly generic praise ('stand up business owner,' 'integrity honesty and knowledge') with limited specifics, which raises a mild concern about authenticity, though not conclusive.
• The 2014 review ('It went very well') contains no usable detail and contributes almost nothing to scoring.
• Most reviews are older than 3 years; the only recent review (2020) is a 1-star complaint about non-responsiveness and abandoned follow-up — this is the most relevant data point for current performance.
• Recency weighting applied: the 2020 negative review was given the highest weight; 2016 and 2017 reviews were discounted moderately; the 2014 review was heavily discounted.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning 6 years, with the most recent being a serious complaint — the score should be considered highly unreliable and insufficient for confident contractor evaluation.