Find Nearby Plumbers In West Valley City, Utah

This contractor shows highly inconsistent performance across reviews spanning 2012–2016. Two older positive reviews (2013, 2016) praise punctuality, fair pricing, and technical competence, while a 2012 review reports severe professionalism issues (yelling at customer), aggressive upselling ($500 estimate vs. $30 actual fix), and poor customer service. The extreme contradiction between reviews and the age of all data (8+ years old) makes this score unreliable. The single negative review is detailed and specific, while positive reviews lack depth, raising concerns about data quality.

• CRITICAL: All reviews are 8+ years old (2012–2016); no recent data available to assess current performance
• EXTREME CONTRADICTION: One detailed 1-star review directly contradicts two positive reviews on professionalism and pricing; suggests either significant business change or inconsistent service quality
• PRICING CONCERN: 2012 review alleges severe overpricing ($500 vs. $30 actual cost); if accurate, indicates predatory pricing practices, though this may not reflect current operations
• LIMITED SAMPLE: Only 3 reviews total; insufficient volume for reliable scoring
• RECENCY RISK: Most recent review is 8 years old; business practices, ownership, or staff may have changed significantly

This WW Score should NOT be trusted for decision-making. The sample is too small (3 reviews), all data is 8+ years old, and there is a severe contradiction between reviews that suggests either major business changes or inconsistent service. Current performance cannot be reliably assessed from this data.

Drain Detectives receives a critically low WW Score of 38.2, driven by overwhelming evidence of systemic problems across all dimensions. While a small subset of recent reviews (2024-2023) praise quick response and fair pricing, the vast majority of reviews spanning 2022-2016 document patterns of incomplete work, deceptive upselling, failure to honor commitments, and poor follow-through on callbacks. The company exhibits a troubling pattern of recommending unnecessary expensive repairs (sewer digs, pipe replacements, floor ripping) that competing plumbers later identified as scams or unnecessary. Professionalism scores are dragged down by documented instances of no-shows, missed appointment windows, rude staff, and failure to communicate. Project completion is severely compromised by incomplete work, abandoned jobs, and refusal to warranty services. Pricing is consistently flagged as exploitative, with customers reporting 3-7x markups compared to other plumbers for identical work.

• CRITICAL: Overwhelming pattern of alleged bait-and-switch scams across 15+ reviews (2016-2021), with customers reporting unnecessary expensive repairs recommended and later debunked by competing plumbers with camera evidence.
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document failure to complete work as promised, with customers forced to hire second companies to fix incomplete or incorrect work, incurring hundreds to thousands in additional costs.
• CRITICAL: Documented pattern of targeting vulnerable populations (single women, elderly, new homeowners) with inflated quotes and unnecessary services per multiple independent reviews.
• CRITICAL: Severe communication failures including no-shows without notice, missed appointment windows, failure to call before arrival, and ignored follow-up calls documented in 8+ reviews.
• CRITICAL: Refusal to honor warranties, provide refunds, or take accountability documented in 12+ reviews; customers report being told to contact attorneys rather than resolve disputes.
• RECENCY CONCERN: While 3 recent reviews (2024, 2023) are positive, they are vastly outnumbered by 47 negative/mixed reviews spanning 2022-2016. The company's historical pattern is severe and sustained.
• PRICING PATTERN: Consistent documentation of charges 3-7x higher than competing plumbers for identical work; multiple customers report being charged $300-$4500 for jobs completed by others for $36-$525.
• INTEGRITY CONCERN: Multiple reviews document explicit lies about diagnoses (collapsed pipes that weren't collapsed, broken pipes that weren't broken, roots that didn't exist) used to justify expensive repairs.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURE: Multiple reviews document promised callbacks and corrections that never materialized; one customer reports being ignored for weeks after company admitted fault.
• QUALITY CONCERN: Documented instances of incorrect installations (hot/cold reversed, caps left off drains, incomplete pipe replacements, wrong pump installed) that created additional problems.

This WW Score of 38.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong warning signal. The score is based on 50 reviews with consistent, detailed, and corroborating evidence of systemic failures across all four dimensions. The pattern is not random complaints but documented allegations of deceptive practices, incomplete work, and poor professionalism spanning 8+ years. While recent reviews show some improvement, the historical weight of evidence and the severity of documented issues (legal action, mold damage, financial losses in thousands) indicate serious structural problems with this company's business practices.

Bass Plumbing's review corpus is dominated by deeply negative experiences across all four dimensions, with professionalism and project completion being the most critically damaged. The overwhelming majority of reviewers describe technicians who were rude, dismissive, and unwilling to perform work, combined with an office staff that routinely failed to return calls, missed appointments without notice, and provided no accountability. Project completion is the single worst-performing dimension: dozens of reviews describe jobs that were never finished, claims that were never submitted to warranty companies, no-shows on scheduled appointments, and customers who ultimately had to hire other plumbers at their own expense. Experience scores marginally higher only because a small but consistent cluster of positive reviews — primarily involving technicians named Raymond, Jeff, and Eddie — describe genuinely skilled and knowledgeable work, but these are vastly outnumbered by accounts of misdiagnosis, shoddy installations, and work done without proper permits or code compliance. Pricing received a slightly higher score due to a handful of reviews praising fair or reasonable rates, but this is offset by accounts of unexpected charges, bait-and-switch upselling, and a $560 charge for heating a crawlspace without resolving the underlying problem.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review beginning 'DO NOT USE this company. If I could give Bass Plumbing a negative score...' (kitchen sink/dishwasher leak) appears verbatim on two different dates (2024-08-13 and 2024-07-22). This was counted once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review beginning 'Never, Ever Use them! I am a real estate agent...' appears verbatim on two different dates (2024-06-09 and 2024-05-30). This was counted once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The toilet flange review beginning 'I hired Bass Plumbing to do a few tasks for a bathroom renovation...' appears verbatim on two different dates (2021-06-10 and 2020-12-05). This was counted once for scoring purposes.
• POTENTIAL FAKE OR IRRELEVANT REVIEW: The review dated 2022-06-10 ('Great food and service, more like family') appears to be for a restaurant, not a plumbing company, and was excluded from scoring.
• POTENTIAL FAKE OR IRRELEVANT REVIEW: The review dated 2015-06-04 contains only 'unknown' with a 5-star rating and was excluded from scoring as it contains no usable data.
• POSITIVE REVIEW PATTERN: A disproportionate number of positive reviews are generic (e.g., 'Fast and efficient', 'Professional and courteous', 'Good and knowledgeable techs. Can't go wrong') with no specific details, names, or job descriptions. These may be inflated or solicited reviews and were scored conservatively.
• RECENCY NOTE: The negative review pattern is consistent and persistent across all date ranges from 2012 through 2025, indicating this is not an isolated period of poor performance but a systemic and long-standing operational failure.
• SYSTEMIC PATTERN — WARRANTY FRAUD RISK: A large number of reviews across multiple years describe the company accepting home warranty service fees, performing minimal or no work, failing to submit required reports to warranty companies, and then becoming unreachable. This pattern is consistent enough to suggest a deliberate business practice rather than isolated incompetence.
• RETALIATION FLAG: One reviewer (2024-08-27) explicitly states that after leaving a negative review, his wife received a call from Bass Plumbing that made her feel 'uncomfortable and upset.' This is a serious flag regarding the company's response to criticism.
• GEOGRAPHIC INCONSISTENCY: Some reviews appear to reference a Bass Plumbing in Albany/Schenectady, NY area while the majority reference Fayetteville, NC. It is possible these are two different companies sharing a name. Scores reflect the aggregate of all reviews as provided.

This WW Score of 28.4 is based on a very large sample of 117 usable reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH confidence — the score accurately reflects a company with severe, systemic, and well-documented failures in professionalism, follow-through, and workmanship, and should be treated as a strong warning against engaging this contractor.

The review set is small (3 reviews) and spans a wide date range from 2011 to 2017, with the most recent reviews being over 7 years old, severely limiting reliability. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is heavily dragged down by two 1-star reviews explicitly citing no-shows, failure to communicate delays, and disorganized scheduling under the current ownership. The single positive review from 2011 praises responsiveness and honesty, but it predates the reported ownership change and carries less relevance to the current business. Project completion is mixed — one reviewer cancelled before work began due to a no-show, while the 2011 reviewer reports successful completion of multiple jobs. Pricing and experience each have only one mention, both positive, but these are too sparse and dated to carry meaningful weight.

• All three reviews are older than 7 years (most recent: May 2017); no recent data exists to reflect current business performance.
• Two reviews explicitly reference an ownership change (from John Bess to Kevin), suggesting the business may have undergone significant operational changes — scores from the pre-ownership era (2011 review) may not reflect current operations.
• The single positive review (2011) predates the reported ownership change and should be treated with caution when assessing the current business.
• With only 3 reviews total, the dataset is at the minimum threshold for score calculation — results should be treated as highly preliminary.

This WW Score carries very low reliability due to the extremely small review sample (3 reviews), the age of all reviews (7–13 years old), and a documented ownership change that makes older positive reviews potentially irrelevant to the current business.

The reviews for ReScope Drain Aid and its technician Anthony paint a deeply concerning picture across nearly every dimension. Three of the five reviews describe serious failures including upselling after work began, tripling of quoted prices, stolen scrap copper, inability to complete basic installations after seven visits, and leaving fixtures in worse condition than before. The two positive reviews are brief, lack specific detail, and are both dated from late 2020, while the most damaging reviews span 2020–2022. One reviewer explicitly alleges that Anthony bribes clients with discounts to write positive reviews, which directly undermines the credibility of the favorable ratings and warrants a fake review flag. Overall, the weight of evidence strongly suggests poor workmanship, dishonest pricing practices, and a lack of accountability.

• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: One reviewer explicitly alleges that the contractor offers discounts in exchange for positive reviews. The two 5-star reviews are brief, generic, and lack specific detail, which is consistent with incentivized or fabricated reviews.
• PRICING FRAUD ALLEGATION: One reviewer reports the quote was tripled after work had already begun, a classic high-pressure upselling tactic. A second and third opinion confirmed no work was needed at all.
• THEFT ALLEGATION: One reviewer alleges that removed copper piping disappeared after the technician left, and the technician falsely claimed it had no scrap value.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2021–2022) are the most negative. The positive reviews are from late 2020 and may reflect an earlier or different period of service quality.
• SMALL SAMPLE WARNING: Only 5 reviews were analyzed. The WW Score should be treated as directional only and not fully representative of long-term performance.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews with credible fake review concerns flagged, meaning the two positive reviews may be artificially inflated; the score should be treated with significant caution and weighted heavily toward the three detailed negative accounts.

This contractor demonstrates severe deficiencies across multiple dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by scheduling errors, hostile communication, hanging up on customers, and complete non-responsiveness to follow-up calls. Project completion is severely undermined by incomplete work requiring customer instruction, improper installations causing water damage, and abandonment of responsibility for damage remediation. Technical experience shows poor workmanship including rigged PVC solutions and improperly installed drains. The single positive review from 2010 is substantially outweighed by two detailed, specific negative reviews documenting systemic failures. The WW Score reflects the serious and documented nature of these issues.

• Two reviews marked 'unknown' with no substantive content (2015, 2014) — excluded from analysis as unusable data
• Extreme recency gap: most usable reviews are 11+ years old (2012, 2023); only one recent review from 2023 provides current performance data
• 2023 review documents scheduling incompetence and unprofessional communication (hanging up, gaslighting customer)
• 2012 review documents multiple critical failures: improper installation, water damage to home, customer had to diagnose and direct repairs, contractor abandoned responsibility and became unresponsive
• Positive 2010 review is generic and lacks specific detail; predates negative reviews by 2-13 years and may not reflect current operations
• Pattern of non-responsiveness and avoidance documented in 2012 review (no contact info provided, phone calls unreturned)

This score should be treated with caution due to limited recent data (only 1 review from past 12 months) and significant age gaps in the review history, but the documented failures in the 2023 and 2012 reviews are specific, detailed, and severe enough to warrant serious concern about contractor reliability.