Find Nearby Plumbers In St. George, Utah

This contractor shows mixed performance across a very small sample of reviews. Professionalism is inconsistent: one review praises rapid response (20 minutes), while another reports a 3-day delay and lost customer information. Pricing is a significant concern, with one customer reporting a $1,400 quote that was overpriced by $600 compared to a competitor's assessment. Project completion and experience scores are supported by positive feedback on workmanship quality, but the sample size is too small to establish reliable patterns. The oldest reviews (2014–2015) limit recency confidence.

• Only 3 total reviews analyzed — insufficient data for high-confidence scoring
• Reviews span 2014–2017 with no recent data (all older than 1 year); current performance unknown
• Severe pricing complaint in 2015 review suggests potential overcharging practices; no recent pricing feedback to confirm if this has been addressed
• Professionalism shows high volatility: excellent response time in one review vs. lost customer record and 3-day delay in another
• No mention of callbacks, warranty work, or follow-up service in any review

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size (3 reviews), age of data (all pre-2018), and conflicting signals on professionalism and pricing. A score of 62.8 reflects genuine concerns about pricing practices and communication consistency, but cannot be considered reliable without additional recent reviews.

Brandon (Bald Dude Plumbing) presents a deeply polarized review profile. On the positive side, many customers praise his responsiveness, emergency availability, fair pricing, and veteran discounts, with several noting fast turnaround and solid workmanship. However, a significant cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — describes a serious and recurring pattern of abandoned jobs, no-shows after appointments, ignored calls and texts, and in at least two cases, work that caused additional damage or was left incomplete after payment was collected. The project completion dimension is the most heavily penalized, as multiple reviewers explicitly describe jobs being abandoned mid-work, broken promises to return, and one instance of a customer being charged $185 for a repair that was never completed. Professionalism scores are dragged down substantially by the no-show and ghosting pattern, which appears across at least five separate reviews. Pricing and experience scores are more favorable but are tempered by instances where quality of work was described as subpar or caused downstream damage.

• SERIOUS PATTERN — At least 5 reviews independently describe the same behavior: Brandon scheduling follow-up appointments, failing to show, and then ignoring calls/texts. This is a systemic reliability issue, not isolated incidents.
• ABANDONED WORK — One reviewer explicitly states Brandon disassembled a faucet, left to get parts at 3:30 PM, never returned, and abandoned his tools. The subsequent plumber found bent components and the faucet required full replacement.
• PAYMENT WITHOUT COMPLETION — One reviewer paid $185 for a water heater repair that was not completed; Brandon never returned and never refunded the money despite multiple calls.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE — One reviewer reports Brandon's repairs caused a leak that damaged their unit and the unit below, with subpar drywall repair and a large mess left behind.
• CALLER ID AVOIDANCE — One reviewer explicitly describes Brandon answering calls from an unrecognized number but ignoring calls from the customer's known number, suggesting deliberate evasion after payment.
• RECENCY NOTE — The most recent reviews (2024) are predominantly positive, while the most severe complaints cluster in 2022–2023. It is unclear whether service quality has genuinely improved or whether the negative pattern may recur.
• NO FAKE REVIEW FLAG — Reviews appear genuine with specific details, varied language, and a realistic mix of positive and negative experiences. No fake review pattern detected.

This WW Score is based on 23 reviews with high mention counts across all four dimensions and should be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's performance, though prospective customers should weigh the recurring no-show and job abandonment complaints heavily before hiring.

Benjamin Franklin Plumbing receives a mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores moderately — several reviewers praised punctuality, courtesy, and communication, but a serious safety incident (gas leak left unaddressed for 4 days) and a dismissive response to poor workmanship significantly drag the score down. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers citing extremely high quotes, a $70 estimate fee, incomplete work still billed at full price, and bids running 30% above competitors — only one reviewer noted favorable pricing treatment. Project completion is also troubled, with at least three reviews describing incomplete work, subcontracted work left in an amateurish state with no follow-up, and a plumber who attempted to upsell a $20,000 pipe replacement instead of solving a simple clog. Experience shows a split: some reviewers praised skilled, knowledgeable plumbers by name, while others encountered technicians who caused new problems (broken sink, gas leak, poor installation) or lacked basic diagnostic judgment.

• 5 reviews contain only 'unknown' or '.' as text with no usable content — these were excluded from scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• Several older reviews (2006–2016) may not reflect current service quality; only 2 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024), which limits recency confidence.
• The 2020 gas leak incident is a serious safety flag — the company allegedly left a family without gas remediation for 4 days after a potentially dangerous installation error.
• The 2016 subcontracted electrical/plumbing job review describes work that had to be entirely redone with no resolution from the company despite contact attempts — a significant project completion failure.
• The 2014 review describes a plumber attempting to upsell a $20,000 pipe replacement to a 79-year-old homeowner for what turned out to be an $80 clog fix — a potential predatory pricing concern.
• No clear fake review patterns detected, but several 5-star reviews with 'unknown' text are suspicious and were excluded from scoring.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — while mention counts are sufficient for HIGH confidence on all scored dimensions, the review set spans nearly 18 years with only 2 recent reviews, and 5 reviews contained no usable text, meaning the score may not accurately reflect the contractor's current performance.

Positive Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is significantly undermined by multiple reviews citing failure to return calls, a technician becoming belligerent with a customer, and a no-callback on an urgent leak — though several positive reviews praise friendliness, communication, and reliability. Pricing is similarly split: some reviewers found prices very competitive, while one review documented a charge of $325 for work an electrician quoted at $75, and another noted a quote that doubled on a second visit with no clear explanation. Project completion is a notable concern, with at least two reviews describing abandoned follow-through after initial diagnosis, and one detailed account of a bathtub installation left unlevel, with a drain off-center and improper fittings used. Experience scores moderately, with some reviewers praising technical knowledge and problem-solving (slab leak diagnosis, old plumbing expertise), but the detailed bathtub installation failure — including use of a gas-line fitting on a water line and unnecessary structural damage — raises serious workmanship concerns. The reviews span from 2006 to 2023, and the most recent reviews (2019–2023) skew more negative, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are from 2006–2017. Reviews from 2019 onward are predominantly negative (4 out of 5 are 1-star), suggesting a possible decline in service quality in recent years. More weight has been given to post-2019 reviews.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary significantly in length, detail, specificity, and rating. Language is not repetitive or templated. No fake review flag raised.
• CALLBACK FAILURE: At least two separate reviews (2019-10-31 and 2019-05-20) explicitly describe the company failing to return calls after initial contact or diagnosis, indicating a systemic responsiveness issue.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERN: The 2019-02-01 review provides highly specific and credible detail of substandard installation work, including use of incorrect fittings, structural damage, and an unlevel tub — corroborated by a second licensed plumber. This is a significant quality flag.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: One review explicitly warns customers to get a price upfront after being charged $325 for work quoted elsewhere at $75. A second review noted a quote that doubled between visits with no clear justification.
• MULTIPLE TECHNICIANS: Reviews reference both 'Jason' and 'Andrzej' as technicians under the Positive Plumbing brand. Quality and professionalism experiences differ between the two, which may explain some score variance.

This WW Score is based on 11 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions and carries MODERATE overall reliability; while mention counts are sufficient for confidence, the wide date range (2006–2023) and the clear negative trend in recent years mean the score should be interpreted cautiously, with the post-2019 negative reviews treated as the most predictive of current service quality.

S&S Mechanical demonstrates significant and consistent performance issues across all dimensions. Professionalism is undermined by poor communication (missed appointments, unreturned callbacks), unprofessional behavior (technician appearing unwell), and inconsistent service quality. Pricing is a major concern with multiple reviews citing excessive labor charges, inflated service quotes, and disputed billing practices. Project completion is severely compromised by incomplete initial repairs requiring callbacks, extended troubleshooting spanning months with 7 visits for a single issue, and failure to honor warranty commitments. Technical experience is questionable given the pattern of misdiagnosis, poor workmanship (uncapped wires left in attic), and high technician turnover suggesting inadequate training or poor working conditions. The company's track record shows a pattern of creating problems rather than solving them.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 5+ years old (2014-2019). Only 2 reviews from 2021-2022. Current performance may differ significantly.
• PATTERN OF SYSTEMIC FAILURE: Multiple reviews describe extended service issues requiring numerous callbacks and technician visits, suggesting either poor initial workmanship or inadequate diagnostic capability.
• BILLING DISPUTES: Consistent complaints across multiple reviews about excessive labor charges, inflated quotes, and disputed warranty coverage indicate potential pricing manipulation.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE BREAKDOWN: Multiple reports of unreturned calls, missed appointments, and unresponsive management (owner Cory mentioned as non-responsive in 2016 review).
• QUALITY CONTROL: Evidence of poor workmanship (uncapped wires, incomplete repairs) and high technician turnover (reviewer noted revolving door of employees with <2 years tenure).

This score should be treated with caution due to review age (most 5+ years old), but the consistency of negative patterns across multiple independent reviews and dimensions suggests genuine systemic issues rather than isolated incidents. The WW Score of 42.8 reflects a contractor with significant performance, pricing, and customer service concerns that warrant serious consideration before engagement.

Free Flow exhibits severe and consistent professionalism failures across multiple reviews, including abandoning jobs mid-service, refusing work without explanation, poor hygiene practices, and lack of proper identification. Project completion is critically undermined by incomplete diagnostics, failed repairs that required competitor intervention, and jobs left unfinished. While some positive reviews praise pricing transparency and friendliness, these are heavily outweighed by documented failures in core service delivery. The company demonstrates technical knowledge in some cases but fails in problem-solving and follow-through, which are essential to plumbing work.

• SEVERE PATTERN: Multiple reviews (3 of 7) document job abandonment without explanation or resolution—this is a critical red flag for reliability
• PROFESSIONALISM CRISIS: Review from 2020 describes unsanitary behavior (contact with toilet water, unwashed hands, inappropriate bathroom use during open house) that suggests serious lapses in professional standards
• DIAGNOSTIC FAILURE: 2016 review explicitly states Free Flow misdiagnosed the problem (cleaned storm line instead of sewer line), requiring customer to hire competitor for actual fix—indicates lack of technical competence
• ATTITUDE ISSUES: Multiple reviews document defensive, dismissive, or hostile attitudes from technicians (copping attitude, leaving without word, refusing reasonable requests)
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are older (2016–2020), but the 2020 review is recent and documents severe professionalism violations. Positive reviews cluster in 2017–2018 with generic praise lacking specifics
• POSITIVE REVIEWS APPEAR GENERIC: Several 5-star reviews use similar enthusiastic language ('outstanding,' 'genuine,' 'definitely') with minimal specific detail about actual work performed—suggests possible bias or selective posting

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (7 reviews) and significant temporal spread, but the pattern of documented failures—job abandonment, diagnostic errors, and professionalism violations—is consistent enough across independent reviews to indicate genuine service quality problems. The score reflects real customer harm and should not be dismissed.