Find Nearby Plumbers In Provo, Utah

This contractor's reviews are dominated by severe and repeated pricing complaints, with numerous customers reporting charges they describe as grossly excessive, hidden, or predatory — including charging elderly customers hundreds of dollars for simple repairs and providing estimates many times higher than competitors. Professionalism is mixed: individual plumbers are sometimes praised for courtesy and punctuality, but the company-level behavior (defensive owner responses, unresponsive management, a road-rage incident by an employee) drags the score down significantly. Project completion is a serious concern, with multiple reviews describing incomplete diagnoses, improperly performed repairs, abandoned follow-through, and work that failed to resolve the original problem. Technical experience is similarly split — a handful of reviewers praise knowledgeable plumbers, while several others describe misdiagnoses, unnecessary upselling, and repairs that had to be redone by other contractors. The overall picture is of a company with some capable individual technicians undermined by systemic pricing and quality control failures.

• Two reviews (dated 2015-03-06 and 2015-02-24) are near-identical in text and content, suggesting a duplicate submission or copied review. These were counted as one unique data point for scoring purposes.
• One review (dated 2016-06-13) contains only the word 'unknown' with a 5-star rating and provides no usable data — excluded from scoring.
• A significant portion of positive reviews are vague or generic (e.g., 'Yes job got done.', 'Quick and courteous, nice job!') with little specific detail, which limits their evidentiary weight.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months; only 4 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024). Recent reviews continue to reflect the same pricing and completion concerns seen historically.
• Multiple reviews explicitly describe the company targeting elderly or vulnerable customers with inflated estimates, which is a serious ethical flag beyond normal pricing complaints.
• Owner/management responses to negative reviews were described by multiple reviewers as defensive and dismissive, suggesting a systemic customer service issue at the company level.

This WW Score is based on 37 usable reviews spanning approximately 10 years, with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions due to strong mention counts; however, the preponderance of older reviews and the small number of recent data points mean current performance may differ, and the score should be treated as a reliable historical signal rather than a guaranteed reflection of present-day service quality.

American Leak Detection of Utah presents a deeply mixed picture across all dimensions. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by two detailed negative reviews describing rude technicians and poor owner responsiveness, despite positive reviews praising punctuality and friendly attitudes. Project completion is the most damaging dimension: two separate reviewers describe paying for incorrect leak locations that led to costly, unnecessary excavation work — one digging 8 feet with no pipe found, another having their entire front porch jackhammered unnecessarily — representing serious failures in the core service offered. Pricing sentiment is similarly split, with satisfied customers praising fair quotes while dissatisfied customers describe paying hundreds of dollars plus thousands in downstream costs due to inaccurate results. Experience scores reflect genuine technical skill concerns, as misidentified leak locations are not minor errors but fundamental failures in the company's primary competency. The overall WW Score of 54.3 reflects a contractor with real capability on good days but a documented pattern of costly errors and poor accountability when things go wrong.

• RECENCY WARNING: Only 2 of 6 reviews are from the past 12 months (2021 and 2022). Three reviews are from 2015–2020, meaning the score may not reflect current performance.
• ACCOUNTABILITY CONCERN: Two independent reviewers (2015 and 2021) describe nearly identical failure patterns — incorrect leak location marked, costly excavation performed, company unwilling to accept financial responsibility for downstream damages. This is a significant and recurring pattern.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW SPECIFICITY: The two 1-star reviews are highly detailed with specific dollar amounts, timelines, and sequences of events, lending them strong credibility. They should be weighted heavily.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 6 reviews total. The WW Score should be treated as directional only and not definitive. Confidence in the overall score is limited by sample size.
• NO FAKE REVIEW FLAGS DETECTED: Reviews vary in tone, detail, rating, and date. No suspicious patterns of repetitive or generic language were identified.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to a small review sample of only 6 reviews spanning 7 years, though the individual dimension scores are directionally meaningful given the high specificity and credibility of both positive and negative accounts.

Tracy's business shows a stark contrast between positive past performance and severe recent deterioration. While two older reviews (2022–2023) praise responsiveness, honesty, and workmanship quality, a detailed March 2024 review documents critical failures in project completion and communication: five rescheduled appointments, no-shows without notice, poor communication during illness, and an incomplete job. The most recent review explicitly states the customer would never hire him again despite acknowledging his health struggles. Professionalism scores are dragged down by repeated cancellations and failure to communicate; project completion is severely compromised by abandonment and delays. The limited mention count and recency of the negative review reduce overall confidence.

• CRITICAL: Most recent review (March 2024) documents severe project abandonment, multiple no-shows, and poor communication—contradicting earlier positive reviews from 2022–2023.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two positive reviews are 1–2 years old; the most damaging review is current (March 2024), suggesting recent business decline or personal issues affecting service quality.
• INCOMPLETE TRANSACTION: Customer reported no receipt for cash payment, raising concerns about record-keeping and professionalism.
• HEALTH-RELATED DISRUPTION: Contractor cited shoulder injury and illness as reasons for cancellations; while sympathetic, this does not excuse lack of communication or no-shows.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews limits statistical reliability; score should be treated as preliminary.

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (4 reviews) and conflicting signals between older positive reviews and a recent detailed negative experience. The March 2024 review is highly credible and specific, but represents only one recent data point. Recommend requesting additional recent reviews before making a hiring decision.

Two positive reviews describe successful installations of tankless water heaters and water softeners, suggesting some technical competence. However, the single 1-star review is deeply damaging and highly specific: it alleges an incomplete installation, possible unlicensed work, collected payment without finishing the job, and a highly inappropriate and offensive interaction with an owner. This negative review significantly drags down professionalism and project completion scores. The pricing dimension received only one mention — a discount/rebate referenced in a positive review — making that score low-confidence. Overall, the contractor's record is mixed and concerning given the severity of the complaint.

• SEVERE COMPLAINT: One reviewer alleges payment was collected without completing the agreed work across multiple jobs — a potential fraud indicator.
• ALLEGED UNLICENSED WORKER: The 1-star reviewer questions whether the plumber sent was even licensed, which is a serious legal and safety concern.
• UNPROFESSIONAL OWNER CONDUCT: An owner allegedly made unsolicited, offensive accusations about drug use to a client with no prior relationship — a major professionalism red flag.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: The 5-star review mentioning 'NASA grade tech' and a '$1000 discount or rebate thing' is vague, uses informal language, and lacks specific verifiable detail — treat with caution.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 3 reviews total. Scores are based on very limited data and should not be considered reliable indicators of consistent performance.
• RECENCY NOTE: All three reviews fall between March 2023 and August 2024. The most recent positive review (August 2024) is within the past 12 months, but the negative review (March 2023) is older than 12 months. Neither recency pattern is strong enough to discount either review.

This WW Score should be treated with very low confidence — it is based on only 3 reviews, one of which contains serious allegations of misconduct, incomplete work, and possible fraud, while the two positive reviews lack sufficient detail to fully offset those concerns.

Brown Plumbing's review record is dominated by serious negative experiences across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is heavily penalized by multiple accounts of rude workers, dismissive ownership, unresponsiveness, and a failure to return calls — with only a small number of older positive reviews providing any offset. Project completion is a major liability: reviews describe a collapsed basement ceiling from a loose valve, a faucet left hanging loose inside a wall, an unresolved leaking tub faucet after $522 charged, and a water heater repair that required multiple trips due to poor diagnosis. Pricing concerns are explicit, with one reviewer being charged for parts not needed and another charged for hours the plumber was not present. The few positive reviews are older (2013–2022) and lack the specificity and recency to meaningfully counterbalance the pattern of recent failures. The most recent reviews (2024) are uniformly negative, suggesting a deterioration in service quality over time.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The three most recent reviews (2024-09-10, 2024-07-02, 2024-06-19) are all 1–2 star ratings describing serious failures. Positive reviews are predominantly from 2013–2022, indicating a likely decline in service quality.
• ONE UNUSABLE REVIEW: The review dated 2014-07-28 contains only the word 'unknown' with a 5-star rating. This review was excluded from scoring as it contains no usable data.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW: The two very brief 5-star reviews from 2014 ('He showed up and explained...') and 2013 are sparse but not identical in phrasing. No strong fake review pattern detected, but their lack of detail limits their evidentiary value.
• OWNER ACCOUNTABILITY PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers (2024-09-10, 2020-05-10) explicitly describe the owner as dismissive and unwilling to accept responsibility for documented errors, which is a significant reputational and operational risk signal.
• BILLING INTEGRITY CONCERN: Two separate reviews (2024-06-19, 2016-05-10) describe being charged for time or parts that were not legitimately incurred, suggesting a possible systemic billing integrity issue.

This WW Score is based on 11 reviews with usable data spanning 2013–2024; confidence is MODERATE overall due to the meaningful volume of mentions across dimensions, but the score should be treated as a reliable warning signal given the concentration of detailed, specific negative reviews in the most recent period.

This contractor's review set is extremely small (3 reviews) and spans nearly two decades, making any score highly unreliable. Of the three reviews, two are severely negative and one is positive. The negative reviews describe serious issues including failure to follow up after estimates, starting work without a contract or authorization, leaving work incomplete, causing a gas leak, and filing a lien without a signed agreement — all of which heavily penalize professionalism, project completion, and pricing. The single positive review describes an efficient furnace replacement with a good outcome, but it is insufficient to offset the documented serious failures in the other two reviews.

• Only 3 reviews available — WW Score is at the absolute minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated with extreme caution.
• Reviews span from 2004 to 2006 — all reviews are approximately 18–21 years old. There is NO recent data. This score reflects historical performance only and may not represent current service quality.
• One review describes potentially fraudulent or legally actionable behavior: starting work without a contract, filing a lien without authorization, and leaving a gas leak unresolved. This is a serious red flag.
• The single positive review lacks specific detail about the contractor's name, process, or interaction, making it less verifiable than the two detailed negative reviews.
• No reviews from the past 12 months — recency weighting cannot be applied favorably.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all of which are over 18 years old, and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of current contractor performance — the score is provided for reference only and a consumer should seek current reviews before making any hiring decision.