Find Nearby Plumbers In West Valley City, Utah

Plumbing Specialists receives broadly positive feedback across professionalism, with many reviewers praising friendly, courteous, and responsive technicians like Patrick, John, and others. However, several serious negative reviews meaningfully drag down all dimensions: one incident involved a plumber breaking a neighbor's P-trap and causing sewage flooding with the company denying responsibility; another involved an owner leaving a job incomplete and flooding a basement; and a third involved a technician arriving with non-functional equipment and leaving. Pricing feedback is mixed — several reviewers praised fair or honest pricing, while others noted overcharging on materials or a $135 estimate fee when work was not performed. Project completion is moderately strong overall but is significantly penalized by the abandoned-job and denied-liability incidents. Experience scores are similarly pulled down by the condo drain incident and the overly complicated estimate described in the 3-star review, despite many positive accounts of skilled, efficient work.

• 22 of 68 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These blank reviews cannot be scored and were excluded from dimension analysis. Their presence inflates the apparent review count and may suggest padding of the review profile.
• The identical 1-star review submitted on consecutive dates (2022-05-25 and 2022-05-26) with word-for-word identical text is a likely duplicate submission by the same reviewer and was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• A large cluster of reviews share the exact date of 2023-06-10 and 2022-06-10, which is atypical and may suggest batch-imported or backdated reviews. Confidence in those reviews is reduced.
• Most reviews with substantive detail are from 2022 or earlier. Only 4 reviews with usable text are from the past 12 months (2024–2025), limiting recency confidence.
• One serious unresolved liability incident (sewage flooding neighbor's unit, company denied responsibility) and one incomplete job that flooded a basement represent significant reputational and workmanship risks that are not offset by generic praise reviews.

The WW Score of 74.1 is based on a reasonably large number of mentions across all four dimensions and should be treated as a moderately reliable signal, but is tempered by the presence of blank reviews, suspected batch-dated entries, and at least two serious unresolved incidents that suggest meaningful quality and accountability risks.

Electric Rooter demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally reliable service, with many customers praising punctuality, professionalism, and skilled workmanship. However, the company is significantly hampered by inconsistent pricing practices, with multiple complaints about high charges for simple jobs and lack of transparent cost justification. Project completion is reliable for straightforward jobs but shows concerning gaps in diagnostic accuracy and follow-through on complex issues (e.g., missed root ball recommendation leading to basement flooding, incomplete scoping in duplex scenario). Communication and responsiveness issues appear in several reviews, particularly regarding callbacks and office coordination. The company's strength lies in technical skill and field professionalism, but pricing transparency and diagnostic thoroughness are material weaknesses.

• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews (2015, 2014, 2015, 2015) report significantly higher charges than competitors for similar work, with some customers citing 2-3x markup. Lack of itemized billing in at least one case ($800 charge with unsubstantiated parts list).
• DIAGNOSTIC FAILURES: Two serious incidents where inadequate initial assessment led to customer damage: (1) 2017 review—technicians missed root balls during sewer scope, customer told 'wait a year,' resulted in basement flooding weeks later; (2) 2013 review—incomplete scoping of duplex system, customer charged 3 times for same job due to initial oversight.
• COMMUNICATION GAPS: Multiple reviews cite poor callback responsiveness (2016: 'too busy to call back,' 2 weeks delay; 2015: refused to provide service details and told customer not to call again; 2011: no courtesy call before arrival despite promise).
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: One customer reported second service (1.5 years later) was less effective than first service (2012 review, 3-star rating).
• CLEANUP/PROPERTY DAMAGE: Two reviews describe inadequate containment during work—one customer's basement flooded with drain sludge, carpet and cabinet damaged, no response to inquiry (2016); another noted late arrival despite promise (2013).
• RECENCY NOTE: Most reviews are 8+ years old (2013-2016 cluster). Only 6 reviews from 2020 onward; most recent positive reviews are from 2024 but limited in detail. Older negative reviews suggest systemic issues that may or may not persist.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while the company demonstrates genuine technical competence and professionalism in field execution, the frequency and severity of pricing complaints, diagnostic failures, and communication breakdowns across a 12-year review span indicate structural business issues that materially undermine trustworthiness. The recent positive reviews (2024) lack sufficient detail to confirm whether these problems have been resolved. Customers should obtain detailed written quotes and verify diagnostic findings before proceeding.

Terry's Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism, with consistently positive feedback on workmanship quality and honest diagnostics. However, the company is significantly hampered by persistent pricing concerns—many customers report overcharges, hidden fees, credit card surcharges, and quotes that far exceed market rates. Project completion shows mixed results with several reports of incomplete work, delayed callbacks, and follow-up issues. While the owner Terry and many individual technicians earn high praise for integrity and responsiveness, operational inconsistencies and aggressive pricing strategies create substantial customer dissatisfaction that offsets technical competence.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews dated 2025-05-10 and 2025-05-07 contain near-identical phrasing and suspiciously generic praise with minimal specifics. Multiple reviews use identical language ('very professional,' 'very friendly,' '100% satisfied') suggesting potential review manipulation. These 16 reviews (8 pairs) appear duplicated across two dates.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE PERVASIVE: 89 mentions of pricing issues reveal systematic overcharging pattern—customers report $500+ for simple faucet installations, $350 for 5-minute snake jobs, $249 per toilet for basic repairs, and unexplained credit card surcharges (15% in some cases). This is the single largest source of negative feedback.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Multiple reports of incomplete work, abandoned jobs, and failure to follow up on promised callbacks. One customer waited 2.5 months for promised follow-up work that never materialized. Another paid $525 for diagnostic work that yielded wrong diagnosis.
• INCONSISTENT STAFF PERFORMANCE: Wide variance in technician quality and attitude. Some reviews praise specific technicians (Rick, Jose, Derek, Wade) while others report rude, dismissive, or arrogant behavior from unnamed plumbers. One customer reported a plumber yelling at elderly father.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWNS: Multiple instances of no-shows, no-calls, missed appointment windows, and failure to return calls. One customer waited 4 hours past appointment window; another had plumber show up 1.5 hours late.
• WARRANTY AND GUARANTEE ISSUES: Company refuses to honor failed repairs beyond 30 days despite customer claims work was defective. One customer's repair failed after 36 days; company refused callback without additional service fee.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent reviews (May 2025) show suspicious clustering and duplication. Older reviews (2018-2022) show more balanced mix of positive and negative feedback, suggesting recent review activity may not be fully authentic.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while the score reflects genuine technical competence and professionalism (supported by 156+ mentions), the pervasive and consistent pricing complaints (89 mentions) and project completion failures (118 mentions) indicate systematic business practice issues that significantly undermine trustworthiness. The suspicious clustering of identical reviews in May 2025 further reduces confidence in the overall rating. Customers should expect quality workmanship but should obtain detailed written estimates and clarify all fees upfront before engaging this company.

H&M Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and responsiveness, with many customers praising quick arrival times, knowledgeable work, and fair pricing in positive reviews. However, the company is significantly undermined by serious follow-through and accountability issues: multiple customers report no-shows, failure to return calls after service denial, unresponsiveness to warranty claims, and incomplete callbacks on promised work. Professionalism scores are dragged down by inconsistent customer service attitudes, with some technicians displaying dismissive or rude behavior. Pricing complaints are notable, with several customers reporting overcharges or discovering significantly lower quotes elsewhere for identical work. The company's unlicensed status (per one 2023 review) and pattern of diagnostic failures add credibility concerns.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2023-03-03, 2024-07-30, 2024-10-29) allege H&M Plumbing is UNLICENSED and operating without proper licensing from CSLB (California State License Board). This is a serious legal and safety concern.
• PATTERN OF NO-SHOWS AND BROKEN COMMITMENTS: At least 5 reviews document no-shows, missed appointments, or failure to follow up after initial service (2020-11-07, 2021-08-02, 2018-10-15, 2018-09-02, 2022-01-14). This is a recurring operational failure.
• DIAGNOSTIC FAILURES: Multiple customers report H&M failed to identify problems that other plumbers found immediately (2021-01-18, 2022-02-25, 2022-09-13, 2024-10-29). One customer was charged $500 for work on a non-existent leak.
• OVERPRICING PATTERN: Several reviews document significantly inflated quotes compared to competitors (2020-09-13 quoted $600+ vs. competitor $120-399; 2021-02-03 quoted $365 vs. competitor ~$180; 2020-08-25 quoted $250 vs. competitor $77 for identical work).
• UNRESPONSIVENESS AFTER PAYMENT: Multiple customers report being ignored after paying for service or after service denial (2024-07-30, 2021-08-02, 2022-01-14). One customer waited weeks for a promised callback that never came.
• INCONSISTENT CUSTOMER SERVICE: Reviews describe technicians with dismissive attitudes, rudeness, and impatience (2021-02-03, 2022-02-25). One review mentions strong smell of marijuana during 9am service call.
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: The dataset contains an unusually high concentration of 5-star reviews (approximately 70% of reviews are 5-star) clustered in 2018-2020, followed by a sharp increase in 1-star reviews from 2021 onward. This temporal clustering and the stark contrast between glowing praise (often generic) and detailed negative accounts raises questions about review authenticity during the earlier period.
• WARRANTY AND FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Multiple customers report H&M failed to honor warranty promises or follow up on issues (2018-11-02, 2018-10-15, 2021-08-02).
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2021-2024 (recent), while most positive reviews are from 2018-2020 (older). This suggests potential deterioration in service quality or business practices over time.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with CAUTION and SKEPTICISM. While the score reflects genuine high marks for technical skill and responsiveness in many reviews, it is significantly undermined by: (1) credible allegations of unlicensed operation, (2) a documented pattern of no-shows and broken commitments, (3) multiple diagnostic failures resulting in customer financial harm, (4) consistent overpricing relative to competitors, and (5) a suspicious temporal clustering of reviews suggesting possible review manipulation. The company demonstrates competence in execution but serious deficiencies in professionalism, accountability, and business integrity. Customers should independently verify licensing status and obtain multiple quotes before engaging this company.

Stallion Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and fair pricing, with many customers praising punctuality, communication, and honest estimates. However, project completion is a significant weakness, with multiple documented cases of incomplete repairs, callbacks not honored, and work that failed shortly after completion. The company shows solid technical expertise and problem-solving ability, but execution and follow-through issues substantially undermine overall reliability. Recent reviews (2024-2025) are predominantly positive, but older reviews (2014-2019) reveal persistent patterns of service failures and poor customer service recovery.

• CRITICAL: Multiple 1-star reviews document serious project completion failures including: incomplete repairs requiring multiple callbacks, work that failed within days/weeks, refusal to honor warranty/callback commitments, and poor handling of customer complaints. These are not isolated incidents but a pattern spanning 2014-2019.
• SUSPICIOUS PATTERN: Dramatic shift in review quality between older reviews (2014-2019: mixed 1-5 stars with detailed complaints) and recent reviews (2024-2025: nearly all 5-star with generic praise). Recent reviews show repetitive phrasing ('amazing job,' 'fair price,' 'highly recommend') with minimal specificity, suggesting possible review manipulation or selection bias.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Water softener installation review by 'Alex Sibilla' appears identically twice (2024-06-09 and 2024-04-01), raising authenticity concerns.
• RECENCY BIAS: 40 of 67 reviews (60%) are from 2024-2025, while only 8 reviews are from 2017-2019 when serious failures were documented. This temporal clustering may mask ongoing issues.
• WARRANTY CLAIM PATTERN: Multiple negative reviews specifically mention home warranty claims with allegations of overcharging, upselling unnecessary work, and refusing to honor warranty terms. This suggests potential systemic issues with warranty-claim handling.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE FAILURES: Several reviews document rude technicians, office staff hanging up on customers, and failure to follow up on promised callbacks—indicating organizational culture issues beyond individual technician performance.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION despite HIGH confidence in data volume. The dramatic divergence between recent 5-star reviews and older detailed negative reviews, combined with documented patterns of project completion failures and warranty-claim disputes, suggests the recent positive trend may not reflect true service quality. The score of 72.8 is conservative and appropriate given the serious project completion issues (68.2), but customers should be aware that historical data shows significant risk of incomplete work and poor follow-through, particularly on warranty claims.

Precision Plumbing draws a large volume of strongly positive reviews praising individual technicians by name for professionalism, punctuality, clear communication, and technical skill — these positives are consistent and span many years and locations. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews (roughly 15–18% of substantive reviews) describe serious issues including no-shows, scheduling failures, poor communication, alleged price gouging, overcharging, warranty disputes, substandard workmanship, and in at least two cases regulatory investigations by the Nevada State Contractors Board. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers call pricing fair or reasonable, a notable cluster of negative reviewers describe charges they considered grossly excessive (e.g., $528/hour, $750 for a $1.99 fix, $1,400 for a 20-minute job, $650 for a cartridge replacement). Project completion is moderately strong but is dragged down by multiple documented no-shows, abandoned jobs, and at least one case of work left incomplete for weeks. Experience scores well overall given the volume of praise for diagnostic skill and quality workmanship, but is tempered by a handful of reviews describing incompetent diagnosis or dangerous substandard work.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Numerous reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., multiple identical 'Fast, affordable, friendly, and super reliable' reviews on 2018-02-22; identical 'Great family business' reviews on 2022-09-08; identical 'Will hire again' reviews on 2022-09-12; identical 'Great and quick service' and 'Excellent customer service' reviews on 2022-09-06; identical 'He did a good job and was nice to work with' reviews on 2022-10-20; identical 'Friendly service, great job' reviews on 2022-10-01; identical 'Kieth was very easy to work with' reviews on 2022-10-22; identical 'Very high quality work promp service' reviews on 2023-01-24; identical 'The young man did an expert job' reviews on 2022-12-16; identical 'Precision Plumbimg is a great Company' reviews on 2020-10-24 and 2020-10-25). This pattern strongly suggests review manipulation or system duplication and reduces confidence in the raw positive review count.
• REGULATORY FLAG: At least two reviews (dated August 2024) allege that Precision Plumbing (dba aaa Precision Plumbing, Las Vegas) was under investigation by the Nevada State Board of Contractors for substandard work, failed city inspection, a life-threatening gas leak, and deceptive practices. These are serious allegations that, if accurate, represent significant safety and integrity concerns.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to reference multiple distinct businesses operating under the 'Precision Plumbing' name across different geographic markets (Las Vegas NV, Bay Area CA, Michigan, South Carolina, California Central Valley, etc.) as well as references to 'Plumbing Squad' and 'Budget Water Heaters.' Scores may reflect an aggregation of different companies rather than a single contractor, which limits the reliability of any single composite score.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS PATTERN: A recurring pattern of pricing complaints exists across multiple reviewers and years — including allegations of price gouging against elderly or disabled customers, charges not matching quotes, refusal to provide itemized receipts, and hourly rates described as $600+ per hour for simple jobs. This is not isolated and depresses the pricing score significantly.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: Multiple independent reviewers across different time periods describe no-shows, missed appointment windows without notification, and failure to return calls. This is a consistent pattern affecting the project completion score.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are from 2019 through mid-2025, with the most recent cluster from May–June 2025. Reviews from 2025 are predominantly positive and recent, which is a positive signal, but the negative regulatory and safety reviews from mid-2024 are also recent and carry significant weight.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 40–50 reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules, but their volume inflates the apparent star average.

This WW Score of 72.1 carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate reviews suggesting possible manipulation, multi-entity ambiguity across geographic markets, serious unresolved regulatory allegations from 2024, and a consistent minority pattern of pricing, scheduling, and workmanship complaints that cannot be dismissed as outliers.