Find Nearby Plumbers In West Valley City, Utah

ABC Plumbing has a large and predominantly positive review base, with the majority of recent reviews (2024–2025) describing prompt, professional, and courteous technicians by name, suggesting a strong core team. Pricing is frequently praised as fair and competitive, with multiple reviewers noting ABC came in significantly lower than competitors. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — spanning the full date range — describe serious failures including abandoned jobs, no-shows, poor communication between office and field staff, billing disputes, work that failed shortly after completion, and in a few cases allegations of dishonest or predatory behavior. Project completion is the most consistently flagged concern in negative reviews, with multiple customers reporting work left unfinished or callbacks ignored. The score is moderated downward from what the volume of 5-star reviews might suggest, because the negative reviews contain specific, credible, and recurring patterns of failure that cannot be dismissed.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 3 pairs of near-identical or word-for-word duplicate reviews were found (e.g., the Jovi/quick/reasonable review appearing on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04; the Tammy/Jason/external repairs review appearing on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04; the Dana/Matthew/bathroom sink review appearing twice on 2025-02-06). This pattern is consistent with review manipulation or accidental double-posting and reduces confidence in the authenticity of some 5-star reviews.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 2 reviews appear to be for unrelated businesses or contain no plumbing-related content (e.g., 'LIFT MARKETING Website Design Agency' rated 2 stars on 2025-06-05 and 2025-06-02; a review about a fast food experience on 2018-12-15; a review referencing 'Pipe Wrench Plumbing' on 2006-08-15). These were excluded from scoring.
• REVIEWS WITH NO TEXT: Multiple reviews contained only a star rating and no written content. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per Rule 1.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE PATTERNS: Multiple 1-star reviews across different time periods describe abandoned work, no-shows, billing for incomplete service, poor office-to-field communication, and in one case an allegation of work that caused $15,000–$20,000 in foundation damage. These are specific and credible and were weighted accordingly.
• RECENCY NOTE: The bulk of highly positive reviews are concentrated in 2024–2025, which may reflect genuine improvement in service quality, a more active review solicitation strategy, or both. Older reviews (2013–2021) show a more mixed picture. Recent reviews were weighted more heavily per Rule 6.
• MULTI-ENTITY RISK: The review corpus appears to aggregate reviews from multiple ABC Plumbing locations or franchises across different states (Texas, California, New York, Kentucky, etc.). Scores may reflect the performance of more than one distinct business operating under the same name, which limits the reliability of the composite WW Score for any single location.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate reviews, irrelevant reviews mixed into the dataset, multi-location aggregation risk, and a recurring pattern of credible negative experiences that suggest the 5-star majority does not fully represent all customer outcomes.

All three reviews are positive and highlight professional behavior, punctuality, cleanliness, and problem-solving persistence. However, the sample size is very small (only 3 reviews), and most reviews lack specific detail about pricing transparency or comprehensive project scope. Two reviews are significantly dated (2010 and 2012), limiting their relevance to current service quality. The single recent review (2024) is generic praise without substantive detail, raising minor concerns about depth of feedback.

• Only 3 total reviews analyzed — sample size is too small for high confidence
• Two of three reviews are over 10 years old (2010, 2012); only one review is recent (2024)
• Recent review (2024) contains generic praise ('sincerely kind people', 'amazing value') without specific examples or details
• No negative feedback or critical commentary across any review — may indicate selection bias or incomplete review dataset
• Pricing dimension based on only 1 mention with vague language ('amazing value') — insufficient evidence for reliable pricing assessment

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size (3 reviews), heavy reliance on outdated feedback, and lack of specific detail in recent reviews. A minimum of 10–15 reviews with balanced positive and critical feedback would be needed to establish reliable confidence in this contractor's performance.

The bulk of reviews are recent (2025) and relate to Roto-Rooter technicians — primarily 'Benny' — who are consistently praised for friendliness, professionalism, and responsiveness including late-night emergency calls. However, the dataset also contains serious negative reviews specifically about Rooter Wizard (a separate company sharing some reviews in this set), including a detailed 1-star account of a failed pre-purchase inspection, misrepresentation, no-show appointments, and substandard work that cost the customer thousands of dollars. Additional 1-star reviews cite poor callback responsiveness and a decline in service quality after ownership change. Pricing is generally viewed positively with mentions of fair rates and transparency, but one reviewer noted the service is 'a bit more expensive than other companies.' Project completion scores are tempered by the serious Rooter Wizard complaints involving incomplete work, code violations, and an abandoned appointment. The mixed provenance of reviews — spanning two distinct companies and a decade of dates — significantly complicates the overall picture.

• POSSIBLE FAKE OR INFLATED REVIEWS: A large cluster of 5-star reviews for 'Benny' from Roto-Rooter are dated 2025-04-10 through 2025-06-09 and share highly repetitive phrasing ('Benny was awesome', 'Benny was great', 'Benny did a great job'). Many lack specific detail. This pattern is consistent with solicited or coached reviews and warrants skepticism.
• 5 reviews contain no text at all — only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• MIXED ENTITY PROBLEM: This review set appears to contain reviews for at least two distinct companies — Roto-Rooter (recent reviews, 2025) and Rooter Wizard LLC (older reviews, 2013–2024). These are separate businesses. Scores are blended across both, which reduces reliability. The WW Score should not be applied to either company in isolation without separating the datasets.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE REVIEW (2023): One detailed 1-star review describes gross negligence by Rooter Wizard — failed inspection, misrepresentation of pipe condition, no-show for follow-up appointment, substandard cleanout installation not to code, and regulatory complaints filed. This is a significant red flag for the Rooter Wizard entity.
• RECENCY IMBALANCE: The majority of positive reviews are from 2025 and relate to Roto-Rooter. Negative reviews are older (2015–2023) and relate to Rooter Wizard. This temporal split further supports the mixed-entity problem and means the positive trend may not reflect the full historical record.
• RESPONSIVENESS CONCERN: Two separate reviews (2016 and 2022) independently cite failure to return calls and declining dependability, suggesting a systemic issue with the Rooter Wizard entity at certain periods.

This WW Score has LOW-TO-MODERATE reliability due to the mixing of reviews from two distinct companies (Roto-Rooter and Rooter Wizard), a suspicious cluster of repetitive 5-star reviews for a single technician, and at least one serious documented complaint involving professional negligence, misrepresentation, and regulatory involvement — the score should not be used to evaluate either company independently without first separating the review datasets.

Trusted Handyman demonstrates solid technical skill and workmanship (85/100), with multiple reviews praising quality output and problem-solving. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by serious communication and reliability issues: three reviews explicitly cite missed appointments, poor communication, unresponsiveness, and difficulty scheduling. Pricing is reasonably perceived as fair (80/100) across the mentions provided. Project completion shows mixed results—several jobs were completed well and on time, but two reviews detail blown appointments and lack of follow-through on commitments. The contractor's technical abilities are not in question, but inconsistent professionalism and reliability create substantial trust concerns.

• CRITICAL: Three reviews (1-star ratings from 2020, 2018, and 2016) describe serious professionalism failures: missed appointments without rescheduling calls, hanging up during initial contact, and poor communication about pricing and scheduling. These are not isolated complaints.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2017–2019 (3–6 years old). The most recent review (2020) is highly negative, suggesting possible deterioration in service quality over time.
• PATTERN DETECTED: Positive reviews use similar generic praise language ('highly recommend,' 'great work,' 'trustworthy') with minimal specific detail, while negative reviews provide concrete examples of failures. This asymmetry warrants caution.
• PERSONALITY CONCERN: One review (2016) mentions the contractor boasts about church leadership, which the reviewer found off-putting and potentially indicative of dishonesty. This is subjective but reflects interpersonal friction.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While technical competence is well-documented, serious and repeated professionalism failures (missed appointments, poor communication, unresponsiveness) across multiple years undermine overall trustworthiness. The age of positive reviews and recency of negative feedback suggest caution; potential customers should prioritize communication clarity and appointment confirmation before engaging.

This contractor/plumber company exhibits a deeply polarized performance profile. While individual technicians frequently demonstrate strong technical expertise and professionalism (evidenced by 89 mentions of professional conduct), the company is severely hampered by systemic pricing deception, aggressive upselling tactics, and chronic project completion failures. Pricing emerges as the most critical weakness, with 67 reviews documenting bait-and-switch tactics, hidden fees, and quotes 3-7x higher than competitors for identical work. Project completion suffers from no-shows, missed appointments, incomplete work, and warranty non-compliance. The company's business model appears to rely on high-pressure sales and fear-based upselling rather than honest service delivery.

• CRITICAL: Systematic pricing fraud pattern — 67 reviews document deceptive pricing practices including $88 specials quoted as $400+, hidden 'truck operating supplies' fees, and deliberate misquotes. This is not isolated; it is structural.
• CRITICAL: Predatory upselling — Multiple reviews (15+) describe technicians fabricating problems (broken sewer lines that don't exist, unsafe furnaces, collapsed pipes that are fine) to justify $5k-$21k unnecessary repairs. Second opinions consistently reveal no actual problems.
• CRITICAL: No-show and appointment failures — 12+ reviews document missed appointments, rescheduling without notice, and technicians being 'too busy' to honor commitments. One customer was told they were 'lower priority.'
• CRITICAL: Warranty non-compliance — Multiple customers report warranty work never performed, callbacks never made, and company refusing to honor stated 90-day guarantees.
• CRITICAL: Commission-based technician compensation — Explicitly mentioned in reviews; creates direct financial incentive for unnecessary upselling and dishonest recommendations.
• CRITICAL: Post-acquisition decline — One review explicitly notes service degradation after company acquisition of 'Oy Boy' and 'ESCO,' with systematic upselling of acquired customer base.
• CRITICAL: Misogynistic behavior — One detailed review documents technician refusing to speak with female homeowner, insisting on male decision-maker only, and fabricating system age/condition data.
• CRITICAL: Harassment — Multiple reviews describe aggressive, non-stop texting and calling to schedule appointments, then no-showing when appointments are made.
• HIGH CONCERN: Fake review pattern detected — Approximately 40-50 reviews contain nearly identical phrasing ('Jonny/Johnny was professional,' 'knowledgeable,' 'friendly,' 'cleaned up'), minimal specificity, and suspiciously generic praise. Many lack dates or contain only 5-star ratings with one-sentence comments. This suggests review manipulation.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Positive reviews cluster heavily in 2024-2025 (likely fake/manipulated), while detailed negative reviews span 2011-2024 with consistent complaint patterns, suggesting long-standing systemic issues.
• PATTERN: Company response to complaints is dismissive — One review notes company response letter was 'just a formal letter stating the same thing they will not help you they will not change policy.'
• PATTERN: Targeting vulnerable populations — Multiple reviews describe targeting elderly customers, renters, and out-of-town homeowners with inflated quotes and fear-based sales tactics.

This WW Score of 62.3 should be treated with HIGH confidence due to large sample size (150 reviews, 89+ mentions per dimension), but the score significantly understates the company's actual risk profile because it averages strong individual technician performance against systemic corporate fraud, pricing deception, and predatory business practices that appear intentional and structural rather than isolated incidents. The company's business model appears designed to exploit information asymmetry and customer vulnerability. Customers should assume high risk of overcharging, unnecessary repairs, and unmet commitments regardless of individual technician quality.

ARS Rescue Rooter presents a deeply polarized review profile. A significant portion of positive reviews praise individual technicians as professional, courteous, knowledgeable, and timely, which elevates the professionalism and experience scores above what the negative reviews alone would suggest. However, the volume and severity of negative reviews is substantial: recurring themes include no-shows, missed appointment windows without notification, high-pressure sales tactics, price gouging on parts and labor (often 3-10x market rate), misdiagnosis of problems to upsell unnecessary repairs or full system replacements, and near-total failure of customer service escalation. Pricing receives the lowest score due to overwhelming and consistent evidence of extreme markups, bait-and-switch advertising, and refusal to provide itemized invoices. Project completion suffers from numerous accounts of incomplete work, failed inspections, return visits required, and jobs abandoned mid-project. The review set also contains a large number of brewery reviews (ARS Brewing in Philadelphia) and other clearly off-topic reviews that were excluded from scoring.

• MAJOR DATA CONTAMINATION: A significant number of reviews in this dataset are clearly for a different business — ARS Brewing, a craft brewery in Philadelphia, PA. These reviews reference beer, food trucks, taprooms, and brewery atmosphere and have no relevance to HVAC or plumbing services. These were excluded from scoring but inflate the raw review count significantly.
• SUSPECTED FAKE OR INFLATED POSITIVE REVIEWS: A large cluster of reviews dated 2025-06-06 through 2025-06-09 are near-identical in phrasing (e.g., multiple exact duplicates of 'Great service, very professional.', 'All went well; Very professional.', 'The tech arrived early for the appointment. He was courteous & professional and quickly completed the job.', 'Adam check everything, and got a/c back on.', 'Daniel was amazing', 'Not friend, right away started to charge me without inspection of the drain.'). These appear to be the same reviews submitted multiple times across different dates, strongly suggesting review manipulation or a data feed error. Confidence in the positive review pool is reduced accordingly.
• REVIEW DUPLICATION: Dozens of reviews appear verbatim multiple times across different dates (e.g., the Jeremy R Smith review, the Andy and Alex review, the Service men were efficient review, the Horrible experience review). This suggests either a data pipeline issue or deliberate review stuffing. Duplicate reviews were counted only once per unique text for scoring purposes.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW PATTERN: Across hundreds of unique negative reviews spanning 2011 to 2025, a consistent and severe pattern emerges of ARS failing to honor appointment windows, providing no notification of delays or cancellations, and offering no meaningful recourse through customer service. This is a systemic operational failure, not isolated incidents.
• PRICE GOUGING PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different cities and years report being quoted 3x to 10x market rate for parts and labor. Examples include $455/lb for refrigerant (market: $40-80), $650 for a $25 capacitor, $1,100 for a 30-minute warranty repair, and $10,000+ for sewer work completed by competitors for under $2,000. This pattern is too consistent and widespread to be coincidental.
• MISDIAGNOSIS AND UPSELL PATTERN: Numerous reviewers report being told they needed full system replacements or expensive repairs, only to have a second-opinion technician fix the actual problem for a fraction of the cost. In several cases, reviewers allege ARS technicians deliberately disabled or damaged equipment to create a sale opportunity.
• OFF-TOPIC REVIEWS EXCLUDED: Reviews referencing beer, breweries, food trucks, and taproom experiences were identified as belonging to ARS Brewing (Philadelphia) and were excluded from all dimension scoring. These reviews do not reflect the HVAC and plumbing contractor being evaluated.
• GEOGRAPHIC INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference ARS locations across many states (TX, FL, NC, SC, VA, IL, OH, TN, GA, etc.), suggesting this is a national franchise. Service quality appears highly variable by location, which limits the reliability of any aggregate score as a predictor for a specific local branch.

This WW Score of 52.1 should be treated with caution: while it is based on a very large number of substantive reviews providing HIGH confidence in the statistical sense, the score is significantly undermined by confirmed review duplication, suspected fake positive reviews, off-topic brewery reviews contaminating the dataset, and extreme geographic variability across a national franchise — consumers should research their specific local ARS branch independently before engaging services.