Find Nearby Plumbers In Sandy, Utah

Two of the three reviews describe serious failures in project completion, including abandoned work, missed appointments without notice, and a contractor who admitted to spending client funds before finishing the job. Professionalism scores are severely dragged down by reports of blocked phone numbers, ignored calls and texts, and missed appointments with no communication. The single positive review praises cost savings on a gas fireplace repair, which provides limited but genuine evidence of pricing value and some technical skill. However, the third review also describes an unusual and uncomfortable payment process involving no invoices and incremental payments through store clerks, raising transparency concerns. Overall, the pattern across two negative reviews is consistent and specific enough to be treated as credible.

• Two of three reviews describe incomplete work and non-communication — a consistent and serious pattern of project abandonment.
• One review alleges the contractor spent client funds before completing the job and subsequently blocked the client's phone number.
• Active warrants are alleged in one review (Sandy PD, Taylorsville PD, DOPL Utah) — this is unverified but noted as a serious flag.
• Unusual payment practices described in one review (no invoices, incremental payments via store clerks) suggest lack of business transparency.
• The single 5-star review is vague and lacks operational detail, though it is not identical in phrasing to others and is not flagged as fake — it is simply limited in evidentiary value.
• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and low-reliability.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be considered preliminary; however, the two negative reviews are detailed, specific, and consistent, lending credibility to the low score despite the small sample size.

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.

This contractor demonstrates severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by repeated appointment cancellations without adequate notice, poor communication, and staff behavior issues (extended lunch breaks on customer property). Project completion is severely hampered by abandoned work, unresolved plumbing issues causing ongoing damage, and failure to honor scheduled service windows. Pricing concerns are evident in quotes at 3x market rate and aggressive upselling of unnecessary services to elderly customers. Technical execution shows poor workmanship with equipment damage and incomplete diagnostics. All seven reviews are uniformly negative with specific, detailed complaints rather than generic criticism.

• CRITICAL: All 7 reviews are 1-star ratings with detailed, specific complaints — not generic praise. This is the opposite of fake review patterns and indicates genuine customer dissatisfaction.
• Multiple reviews describe predatory practices targeting elderly customers (84-year-old mother sold $13,000+ in unnecessary services).
• Repeated pattern of appointment cancellations and no-shows across multiple reviews (3 explicit mentions of rescheduling failures).
• One review alleges potential fraud: sewage pipe repair with no photographic evidence, no broken pipe piece provided, and subsequent plumbing failures suggesting work was not performed correctly.
• Safety concern: vehicle speeding violation noted (truck exceeding posted 65 mph restriction).
• Most reviews are from past 12 months (5 of 7 from 2024), indicating ongoing issues rather than historical problems.

This score cannot be calculated because all reviews are uniformly 1-star with no positive data points, making a weighted average meaningless. However, the evidence of systematic failures in professionalism, completion, and pricing is extremely reliable given the volume of detailed, specific complaints across multiple service categories and time periods. This contractor should be considered high-risk.

Only two reviews exist, making any scoring highly unreliable. The negative review is extremely serious — a gas line connection was left without Teflon tape, creating a dangerous leak and potential explosion risk, which is a critical workmanship and safety failure. The positive review praises professionalism and clean work from named technicians Gavin and Mike, but provides no specific detail about a project or outcome that can be independently weighed. The stark contrast between a safety-threatening failure and a generic 5-star review creates significant uncertainty across all dimensions. Given the severity of the safety incident, scores have been conservatively weighted downward despite the positive review.

• CRITICAL SAFETY FLAG: The 1-star review explicitly describes a gas line connection left without Teflon tape, resulting in a gas leak. This represents a serious safety hazard that could have caused an explosion and loss of life. This must be treated as a severe workmanship failure.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: The 5-star review uses generic praise ('good honest company,' 'really good work,' 'very clean and nice') with no specific project details, no description of what work was done, and no verifiable outcome. This pattern is consistent with potentially inauthentic reviews.
• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW COUNT: Only 2 reviews are present. Per scoring rules, fewer than 3 reviews are insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score.
• RECENCY NOTE: Both reviews are from 2019, making them over 5 years old. No recent reviews are available to assess current performance.
• EXTREME POLARITY WARNING: A 1-star safety-critical review paired with a single generic 5-star review creates a highly polarized and unreliable dataset. No middle-ground data exists.

This score report should not be trusted for decision-making purposes — only 2 reviews exist, both are over 5 years old, one describes a life-threatening safety failure, and the positive review lacks specific verifiable detail.

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.

This single review paints a deeply negative picture across multiple dimensions. The contractor installed a shower unit that began leaking consistently, suggesting poor workmanship and low-quality installation. When the customer sought help resolving the issue, the owner refused to assist in obtaining a replacement part or receipt, demonstrating a lack of accountability and poor customer communication. The reviewer explicitly states they would not recommend this company and characterizes the owner as lazy and indifferent to customer satisfaction. No pricing information was mentioned, so that dimension cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• This is a single 1-star review; no positive reviews exist to balance the assessment. Scores are heavily skewed negative by design of the evidence.
• The reviewer includes the owner's full name and phone number, which may indicate a highly motivated negative reviewer — however, the specific details described (leaking shower, refusal to provide receipt, deflection to another plumber) are credible and specific enough to treat as genuine.
• No reviews from the past 12 months relative to the provided date (2022-09-15) are available to assess current performance trends.

This score is based on a single negative review and should be treated with very low confidence — it reflects one customer's experience and cannot be considered representative of the contractor's overall performance.