Find Nearby Plumbers In Sioux Falls, South Dakota

Dick's Plumbing shows highly inconsistent performance across reviews spanning 2008–2014. Pricing is a clear strength, with multiple reviews praising fair rates and transparent billing. However, professionalism is severely compromised by documented failures in punctuality, responsiveness, and follow-through—including a critical no-show appointment and multiple instances of unreturned emergency calls. Project completion is mixed: some jobs were completed satisfactorily, but others involved poor cleanup and incomplete communication. Technical skill appears solid when work is performed, but reliability issues overshadow competence. The business appears to have operated inconsistently over time, with older reviews (2008–2009) showing severe problems and more recent reviews (2011–2014) showing improvement, though punctuality issues persist.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 10+ years old (2008–2014). Only one review is from 2014; the majority predate 2012. Current performance cannot be reliably assessed from this dataset.
• CRITICAL RELIABILITY ISSUE: Two reviews (2011 and 2009) document complete failure to return emergency calls and no-show appointments. These are severe professionalism failures.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Stark contrast between 5-star reviews (praising service) and 1–2 star reviews (documenting serious failures). This suggests either significant business changes over time or highly variable service quality.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reviews mention broken promises to call back, missed appointments, and excuses. This is a recurring theme across different time periods.
• CLEANUP ISSUES: At least one review explicitly mentions poor cleanup and sloppy work (2008 review), contradicting positive claims in later reviews about cleanliness.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to age of data (10+ years old) and high inconsistency in service quality. The score reflects historical performance only and may not represent current operations. The severe professionalism failures documented in older reviews are concerning, though some improvement appears evident in 2011–2014 reviews. Recommend seeking current references before engaging this contractor.

The three reviews present a sharply divided picture of this contractor. Two positive reviews praise punctuality, courtesy, cleanliness, and technical competence, while one strongly negative review describes overcharging, unnecessary work, a two-week cleanup failure, and incorrect materials delivered. The single negative review carries significant weight on pricing and project completion, dragging those dimensions down considerably. Because the positive reviews are very old (2006 and 2017) and the negative review is also from 2018, no reviews fall within the past 12 months, severely limiting the reliability of this score as a reflection of current performance. With only 3 reviews total, all dimensions are scored conservatively.

• ALL THREE REVIEWS ARE OLDER THAN 5 YEARS — the most recent review is from 2018, meaning there is no data on current business performance. This score should not be treated as representative of present-day quality.
• VERY LOW REVIEW VOLUME — only 3 reviews total. The WW Score is statistically unreliable and should be treated with extreme caution.
• The 1-star review alleges serious misconduct: charging $3,000 for unnecessary work, using incorrect materials (sand instead of gravel), and failing to clean up the worksite for two weeks. These are significant red flags that are not offset by the two older positive reviews.
• The two positive reviews are generic in nature with limited specific detail, which slightly reduces their evidentiary weight, though they do mention some concrete details (punctuality, drain repair, cleanup).

This WW Score has very low reliability due to only 3 reviews, all of which are more than 5 years old, a stark split between positive and negative experiences, and the presence of a serious misconduct allegation that cannot be contextualized without more recent data.

Payton Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all dimensions. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is severely dragged down by three reviews describing rude behavior, aggressive communication, and poor treatment of a senior customer — offsetting the two positive reviews that praised friendliness and professionalism. Pricing is a significant concern, with two reviews explicitly citing excessive or deceptive charges (a $1,000 quote for a $122 faucet, an $80 trip charge, and a disputed restocking fee), while only one review implicitly suggests fair value. Project completion scores moderately, as two reviews confirm jobs were finished cleanly and on time, but one review describes work being abandoned mid-job, leaving a customer without a functioning sink. Experience scores conservatively due to only two mentions — one positive (sewer line replacement) and one negative (faucet removal mishandled).

• RECENCY WARNING: Only one review is from the past 12 months (March 2024). Two reviews are from 2022, one from 2021, and one from 2016. The most recent review is negative and pricing-related, which may reflect current business practices.
• SENIOR MISTREATMENT FLAG: One review explicitly describes predatory pricing behavior targeting an elderly customer, including removing a functional faucet, disposing of it without consent, and then demanding $1,000 for replacement plus fees when the customer declined.
• ABANDONED WORK FLAG: The faucet review describes a job left incomplete with the customer unable to use their bathroom sink — a serious project completion concern.
• SMALL SAMPLE WARNING: Only 5 reviews total. The WW Score should be treated as directional only and not statistically reliable. Confidence is inherently limited at this sample size.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary significantly in tone, detail, rating, and date — no signs of coordinated or fabricated reviews.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning 8 years, with the majority of data being over 2 years old, making it a low-reliability signal that should be interpreted with significant caution before hiring.

The three reviews present a deeply mixed and largely negative picture of this contractor. One positive review praises a plumber named Brian for responsiveness and going above and beyond on a Sunday night, which is the sole bright spot. However, a scathing review describes a technician named Brady causing significant additional damage during a simple valve repair, including drilling through a main water line and damaging pipe assemblies — a serious workmanship failure. A third review raises major concerns about pricing integrity, citing what amounts to roughly $400/hr labor for a 50-minute job, with no follow-up from the office after a complaint. The combination of alleged property damage, opaque pricing, and poor follow-through drives the score down substantially.

• Small sample size of only 3 reviews — WW Score should be treated as highly preliminary and unreliable for decision-making.
• Two different technician names appear (Brian and Brady), suggesting inconsistent quality across staff members rather than a uniform service standard.
• The negative review about Brady alleges active property damage and dishonesty ('LIES NOT TRUE'), which is a serious red flag beyond typical poor workmanship.
• The pricing review describes a failure to follow up after a complaint, suggesting potential issues with management responsiveness and business integrity.
• Review dates span from December 2023 to November 2024 — all within the past 12–24 months, so recency is not a concern, but the pattern of complaints is recent and ongoing.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be considered highly unreliable — the score reflects the available data but cannot be trusted as representative of the contractor's overall performance without significantly more reviews.

The overwhelming majority of reviews describe a deeply problematic contractor. Professionalism is the most-cited dimension and is catastrophically low, with dozens of reviewers documenting verbal abuse, harassment via text and phone, condescension, misogyny, no-shows, and threatening behavior toward customers including elderly and disabled individuals. Project completion is nearly as damning, with repeated accounts of abandoned jobs, flooded homes, unfinished bathrooms left for months, and work that had to be redone by other contractors. Experience scores are similarly poor, with multiple reviewers describing unlicensed work, code violations, incorrect installations, and botched repairs that worsened the original problem. Pricing receives a marginally higher score only because a small number of positive reviewers noted reasonable rates, but this is heavily offset by numerous accounts of overbilling, hidden charges, demands for more money mid-job, and charging for hours not worked. The handful of positive reviews (roughly 18 out of 72) are insufficient to meaningfully offset the volume and severity of negative experiences documented across more than a decade.

• UNLICENSED CONTRACTOR: Multiple independent reviewers across different years explicitly state that Stan Selig is not licensed to perform plumbing work in Vermont. The Better Business Bureau is also cited as having an alert on file for this business regarding lack of licensure. This is a critical safety and legal concern.
• PATTERN OF HARASSMENT: Numerous reviewers across multiple years describe being harassed via repeated phone calls and text messages after declining services or raising complaints. This pattern is consistent and spans from 2012 to 2025.
• SUSPECTED FAKE POSITIVE REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews are extremely brief, generic, and lack any specific detail (e.g., 'Outstanding!!', 'Very helpful and friendly', 'Stan is fast and efficient. Also a funny guy!'). Some positive reviews reference different named workers (Robert, Peter, Clayton, Nick, Brian) rather than Stan, raising questions about whether they pertain to the same business or operator. These reviews appear inconsistent with the dominant pattern and may not reflect the primary operator's work.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review beginning 'Had a kitchen sink plumbing issue, that called for a quick response' appears twice with identical text — once dated 2023-06-10 (rated 5 stars) and once dated 2022-10-02 (rated 1 star). The 1-star version is treated as the authentic sentiment given its narrative conclusion. This duplication is suspicious.
• ABANDONED WORK AND CODE VIOLATIONS: Multiple reviewers describe work left incomplete, installations not up to code, sewer vents left open into living spaces, and gas installations done incorrectly — some discovered years later during home inspections.
• ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR TOWARD VULNERABLE CUSTOMERS: At least two reviews describe Stan targeting or mistreating elderly or disabled customers, including a 93-year-old woman and a senior amputee. One review also describes sexually harassing text messages.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews span from 2012 through May 2025, indicating this is not an isolated historical pattern. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) continue to document the same behaviors, suggesting no improvement over time.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Five reviews contained no text and only a star rating (all 1-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH confidence — the score of 18.9 is a reliable reflection of a contractor with severe, consistent, and well-documented deficiencies across all four dimensions, compounded by credible reports of unlicensed operation and predatory behavior.

This analysis reveals that the reviews provided are NOT for a contractor or plumber, but rather for Charisma Property Management, a residential property management company. The WW Score Engine is designed to evaluate tradespeople (contractors, plumbers, electricians, etc.), not property management firms. The reviews document severe failures in professionalism (missed appointments, poor communication, rudeness, lack of responsiveness) and project completion (unresolved maintenance requests, safety hazards left unaddressed, lease violations). However, these dimensions cannot be meaningfully scored using the contractor/plumber framework. No reviews mention pricing, workmanship quality, or technical skill relevant to trade work.

• CRITICAL: These reviews are for a property management company, NOT a contractor or plumber. The WW Score Engine cannot reliably evaluate this business type using the provided scoring framework.
• All 12 reviews are overwhelmingly negative (11 one-star, 1 five-star). The single five-star review (2017) is from a property owner praising management services, while all tenant reviews are one-star.
• Review from 2020-06-10 contains irregular capitalization and formatting (wIth, tHey, preTending, wAy) suggesting possible copy-paste errors or non-native English composition, but content is coherent and specific.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months (10 of 12 reviews predate 2018). Only 1 review is from 2024. Recency is severely limited.
• The single positive review (5-star, 2017) praises Amy Miller and Charisma's honesty and professionalism as property managers—directly contradicting the overwhelming consensus of tenant complaints about dishonesty and poor communication.
• Reviews document serious legal/safety issues (black mold, electrical hazards, lease violations, deposit theft) rather than trade work quality.

This WW Score cannot be calculated or trusted because the business being reviewed is a property management company, not a contractor or plumber. The scoring framework is fundamentally misaligned with the service type. If evaluation of Charisma Property Management is needed, a different assessment tool designed for property management companies should be used instead.