Find Nearby Plumbers In Lehi, Utah

The review corpus spans nearly two decades and reveals a deeply polarized customer base. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by repeated accounts of rude, condescending, or dishonest technicians, no-shows, and poor communication from management, even though a meaningful subset of reviewers praised individual plumbers as courteous and punctual. Pricing is the single most damaging dimension: an overwhelming majority of reviewers — across all time periods and locations — explicitly describe charges as exorbitant, far above market rate, and in several cases potentially predatory, particularly toward elderly or first-time homeowners. Project completion is mixed: many jobs were finished satisfactorily, but a notable number of reviews describe repeat failures, unresolved callbacks, abandoned work, failed inspections, and warranty disputes. Technical experience is similarly split, with some reviewers praising problem-solving ability while others describe sloppy workmanship, incorrect installations, and technicians who misdiagnosed problems that other plumbers resolved cheaply and quickly.

• PRICING CONCERN: Pricing complaints are the single most consistent theme across the entire review set, spanning 2005–2024, with dozens of reviewers independently describing charges as 2x–5x market rate. This is a strong and credible pattern, not an outlier.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe a specific pattern of verbal low quotes followed by significantly higher charges on final invoices, upselling unnecessary work, and targeting vulnerable customers (elderly, emergency situations, first-time homeowners).
• FAKE/THIN REVIEW FLAG: Approximately 12 reviews consist solely of 'unknown' text with a star rating and provide zero usable data. These were excluded from scoring. Their presence inflates the raw review count and may represent padding.
• FAKE/THIN REVIEW FLAG: Several 5-star reviews contain only a period ('.') as text with no detail. These were excluded from scoring as they provide no verifiable information.
• GENERIC PRAISE FLAG: A cluster of short 5-star reviews (e.g., 'excellent very friendly', 'Very professional very friendly') lack any specifics and follow a suspiciously similar pattern. Confidence in these is reduced.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent detailed negative review (October 2024) describes the same predatory pricing and billing opacity patterns seen in reviews going back to 2006, suggesting these are systemic and ongoing issues rather than isolated incidents.
• MULTI-LOCATION ISSUE: Reviews appear to reference multiple Ben Franklin Plumbing franchise locations across different states (Florida, Ohio, New Jersey, etc.). Scores reflect the aggregate brand experience but individual franchise quality may vary significantly.
• MANAGEMENT CONDUCT: Multiple reviews specifically call out owner-level or management-level misconduct including threats, yelling, hanging up on customers, and refusing to honor warranties — this is a serious flag beyond technician-level issues.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES: At least 4 reviews describe installations that failed shortly after completion, including a gas leak from incorrect installation, cracked pipes, failed sump pumps, and leaking faucets — indicating quality control issues at the technical level.

This WW Score is based on 88 reviews with a large proportion containing substantive detail, spanning nearly 20 years, and the HIGH confidence rating across all four dimensions reflects strong evidentiary support — however, the multi-franchise nature of the reviews means this score represents a brand-level aggregate and prospective customers should seek location-specific reviews before hiring.

All five reviews are 1-star and paint a consistently negative picture across every dimension. Professionalism is severely damaged by reports of no-shows, failure to return calls, communication barriers, aggressive behavior, and outright dishonesty from the business owner. Project completion is a critical failure point: multiple reviewers describe abandoned work, unresolved warranty callbacks, yards left in disarray, and work not completed to code. Pricing concerns are serious, with one reviewer describing a bait-and-switch mid-job requote and another paying $5,500 for subpar results with no invoice provided. Workmanship quality is also poor, evidenced by a water pressure failure after a main line repair and a leaking line that failed again within weeks of service.

• One review (dated 2022-09-17) appears to be about a personal vehicle sale transaction, not a plumbing or contracting job. It was excluded from the WW Score calculation as it does not reflect contractor service quality, though it does raise serious character and honesty concerns about the business owner.
• All usable reviews are 1-star with no positive reviews present in this dataset. While this could reflect genuine poor performance, the complete absence of any positive reviews means the score is based entirely on negative feedback — users should seek additional sources to confirm.
• The most recent review is from July 2024, confirming that performance issues are not historical only — problems appear to be ongoing as of the past 12 months.
• Two reviews are older than 3 years (2019 and 2021), which reduces their recency weight, but the pattern of complaints is consistent across all time periods reviewed.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific names, dollar amounts, dates, and detailed incident descriptions, suggesting authentic customer experiences.

This WW Score is based on a small but consistently negative and detail-rich set of reviews spanning multiple years, including one from 2024, giving it moderate-to-high reliability as a warning signal despite the limited review count.

Analysis of three reviews reveals severe internal contradiction and insufficient data for reliable scoring. Two recent reviews (2021) praise professionalism, pricing, and work quality with enthusiastic language, while one older review (2019) alleges a $2,500 deposit scam with complete project abandonment. The extreme polarity, small sample size, and presence of potentially suspicious review patterns (repetitive exclamation marks, generic praise language in positive reviews) prevent confident assessment. The alleged fraud claim is serious but unverified and predates the positive reviews by nearly two years.

• CRITICAL: Extreme contradiction between reviews — two 5-star reviews praising service vs. one 1-star fraud allegation claiming $2,500 deposit theft and project abandonment
• RECENCY CONCERN: Positive reviews are from November 2021; fraud allegation is from June 2019 (nearly 2 years prior). Timeline suggests either unresolved legal issue or potentially fabricated complaint
• SUSPICIOUS PATTERN: Two positive reviews contain repetitive punctuation (multiple exclamation marks), generic praise language, and lack specific technical details — possible fake reviews
• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE: Only 3 reviews total; cannot establish reliable patterns or confidence in any dimension
• UNVERIFIED CLAIM: Fraud allegation mentions pending court action but provides no corroborating evidence or resolution status

This score should NOT be trusted for decision-making. The data is contradictory, the sample is too small, and potential fake reviews combined with an unverified fraud claim create too much uncertainty to recommend this contractor based on this analysis alone. Independent verification and legal record checks are strongly recommended before engaging this business.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. The reviews are highly polarized: one 5-star praising professionalism and efficiency, one 1-star citing multiple technical failures, poor communication, and unresolved callbacks. Professionalism scores reflect conflicting evidence (one extremely positive, one extremely negative). Project completion and experience scores are heavily penalized by the second review's documented failures (incorrect toilet placement, missing vent, loose faucet connection, unfinished work). The extreme divergence and very small sample size make any aggregate score unreliable.

• Only 2 reviews — insufficient for reliable WW Score calculation per Step 4 guidance
• Extreme polarity between reviews (5-star vs 1-star) suggests inconsistent service quality or possible service model variation
• Second review is from 2017 (over 6 years old) — recency is poor; first review from 2022 is more recent
• Second review contains specific, detailed complaints (toilet placement 3 inches off, missing vent, loose copper pipe) indicating genuine technical issues, not generic criticism
• First review lacks specifics about actual work quality — only mentions 'professional' and 'efficient' without describing the actual plumbing work performed

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2). The extreme divergence between reviews and poor recency of the negative review prevent confident assessment of current service quality.

Both reviews are positive, but the dataset is far too small to produce a reliable WW Score. The detailed 2013 review paints a strong picture of professionalism — Dan called ahead, arrived early, confirmed appointments, communicated clearly, and kept the work area clean. Pricing was explicitly noted as favorable, coming in at roughly half a competitor's quote. Project completion was thorough, including relighting pilot lights and testing the BBQ line after gas restoration. The second review is brief and generic, adding limited incremental evidence. All scores are conservative due to the very low mention counts and the age of both reviews.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules (minimum 3 reviews required).
• Both reviews are significantly outdated: the most recent is from 2013 and the other from 2006. Neither falls within the past 12 months, meaning these scores may not reflect current performance.
• The second review ('They were very good and I would hire them again. They were very prompt and clean.') is extremely brief and generic with no specific details, limiting its evidentiary value.
• No negative feedback exists in this dataset, but this should not be interpreted as a clean record — it may simply reflect an insufficient sample size.

This score should be treated as highly unreliable due to only 2 reviews being available, both of which are over 10 years old and therefore provide no meaningful signal about current contractor performance.

Only one review exists for this contractor, making any score highly unreliable. That single review is severely negative, describing an abandoned project with no warning, which directly impacts both professionalism and project completion scores. The reviewer explicitly cites a lack of professionalism and accountability, and describes the contractor walking off a job mid-project. Pricing and experience were not mentioned at all and cannot be scored. With only one data point from 2018, this report should be treated with extreme caution.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from January 2018, making it over 6 years old. Contractor performance may have changed significantly since then.
• Project abandonment explicitly reported — contractor left job incomplete without notice, a serious red flag for project completion.
• Pricing and experience dimensions have zero data and cannot be evaluated.

This score report is based on a single review from 2018 and should not be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's overall performance.