Find Nearby Plumbers In Burlington, Vermont

E&M Mechanical demonstrates severe deficiencies across all four dimensions. Professionalism is undermined by poor communication, missed appointments, rude billing staff, and threats of liens. Pricing is a critical weakness with multiple reports of bill padding, inflated charges (one customer charged $62,000 for $25,000 worth of work), and undisclosed fees. Project completion is consistently problematic with incomplete work, missed deadlines (2-week jobs taking 2+ months), no-shows, and damaged installations. Experience and workmanship are questionable, with reports of unlicensed technicians, inability to recognize basic plumbing components, incorrect installations, and work that required professional remediation. The company's pattern of overcharging, poor quality, and unresolved customer complaints is pervasive across the review set.

• CRITICAL: Nine reviews analyzed; eight are 1-star ratings with detailed, specific complaints. Only one 5-star review (2019-07-17) which is notably generic in praise and lacks specificity compared to detailed negative reviews.
• PATTERN OF FRAUD INDICATORS: Multiple independent reviews report bill padding, inflated charges, false claims about system components (valve that doesn't exist, furnace exhaust threats), and threats of liens to coerce payment.
• QUALITY & SAFETY CONCERNS: Reports of unlicensed/unsupervised work, damaged installations, incomplete jobs, and technician incompetence (unable to recognize circulators, left cables disconnected).
• BILLING DEPARTMENT ISSUES: Multiple reports of rude, self-righteous billing staff and disputes over inflated time charges (charged 3.5 hours for 2-hour visit; charged for travel time to/from jobs).
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews are from 2015-2022, with the most recent detailed complaint from 2022. The single positive review is from 2019 and lacks specificity.
• OWNER RESPONSE PATTERN: One review documents owner dismissing customer concerns, refusing bill adjustments, and defending technician despite GPS timestamp discrepancies.

This WW Score of 24.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on nine detailed reviews with consistent patterns of serious deficiencies across all dimensions, supported by specific evidence of billing fraud, poor workmanship, incomplete projects, and unprofessional conduct. The overwhelming majority of reviews (8 of 9) are 1-star with detailed, corroborating complaints that suggest systemic problems rather than isolated incidents.

Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension across all three reviews and paints a deeply mixed picture: one positive experience with a responsive, on-time, courteous estimator is heavily outweighed by two strongly negative accounts — one describing a plumber who was rude, used profane language, blocked a guest's vehicle, and appeared to be under the influence, and another describing a cold and unfriendly phone receptionist. Project completion is concerning: the one negative service call resulted in no actual repair being performed despite the plumber spending time on-site, though the first reviewer's small job was completed promptly. Experience scores low due to the explicit account of a plumber diagnosing a toilet issue but leaving without fixing anything, suggesting either poor skill or poor effort. Pricing data is entirely absent from all reviews, so that dimension cannot be scored.

• Very small sample size of only 3 reviews — WW Score should be treated as highly preliminary and unreliable for decision-making.
• The most recent review is from 2015, meaning all reviews are significantly older than 1 year. This data may not reflect current service quality.
• One review (2014) describes a plumber who appeared to smell of alcohol while on the job — this is a serious safety and professionalism concern that warrants caution.
• No pricing information was mentioned in any review, so the Price Friendly dimension could not be scored at all.
• The positive review (2015) is notably brief and lacks specifics on workmanship quality, limiting its evidentiary weight.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all of which are more than 8 years old, making it a LOW-reliability signal that should not be used as a definitive assessment of current contractor quality.

The overwhelming majority of reviews describe a deeply problematic contractor. Professionalism is the most-cited dimension and is catastrophically low, with dozens of reviewers documenting verbal abuse, harassment via text and phone, condescension, misogyny, no-shows, and threatening behavior toward customers including elderly and disabled individuals. Project completion is nearly as damning, with repeated accounts of abandoned jobs, flooded homes, unfinished bathrooms left for months, and work that had to be redone by other contractors. Experience scores are similarly poor, with multiple reviewers describing unlicensed work, code violations, incorrect installations, and botched repairs that worsened the original problem. Pricing receives a marginally higher score only because a small number of positive reviewers noted reasonable rates, but this is heavily offset by numerous accounts of overbilling, hidden charges, demands for more money mid-job, and charging for hours not worked. The handful of positive reviews (roughly 18 out of 72) are insufficient to meaningfully offset the volume and severity of negative experiences documented across more than a decade.

• UNLICENSED CONTRACTOR: Multiple independent reviewers across different years explicitly state that Stan Selig is not licensed to perform plumbing work in Vermont. The Better Business Bureau is also cited as having an alert on file for this business regarding lack of licensure. This is a critical safety and legal concern.
• PATTERN OF HARASSMENT: Numerous reviewers across multiple years describe being harassed via repeated phone calls and text messages after declining services or raising complaints. This pattern is consistent and spans from 2012 to 2025.
• SUSPECTED FAKE POSITIVE REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews are extremely brief, generic, and lack any specific detail (e.g., 'Outstanding!!', 'Very helpful and friendly', 'Stan is fast and efficient. Also a funny guy!'). Some positive reviews reference different named workers (Robert, Peter, Clayton, Nick, Brian) rather than Stan, raising questions about whether they pertain to the same business or operator. These reviews appear inconsistent with the dominant pattern and may not reflect the primary operator's work.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review beginning 'Had a kitchen sink plumbing issue, that called for a quick response' appears twice with identical text — once dated 2023-06-10 (rated 5 stars) and once dated 2022-10-02 (rated 1 star). The 1-star version is treated as the authentic sentiment given its narrative conclusion. This duplication is suspicious.
• ABANDONED WORK AND CODE VIOLATIONS: Multiple reviewers describe work left incomplete, installations not up to code, sewer vents left open into living spaces, and gas installations done incorrectly — some discovered years later during home inspections.
• ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR TOWARD VULNERABLE CUSTOMERS: At least two reviews describe Stan targeting or mistreating elderly or disabled customers, including a 93-year-old woman and a senior amputee. One review also describes sexually harassing text messages.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews span from 2012 through May 2025, indicating this is not an isolated historical pattern. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) continue to document the same behaviors, suggesting no improvement over time.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Five reviews contained no text and only a star rating (all 1-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH confidence — the score of 18.9 is a reliable reflection of a contractor with severe, consistent, and well-documented deficiencies across all four dimensions, compounded by credible reports of unlicensed operation and predatory behavior.

Oakes Plumbing & Heating has an overwhelmingly negative review record spanning over a decade (2010–2024), with the dominant and consistent complaint being no-shows for scheduled appointments and complete failure to communicate via phone, text, or email. Professionalism is catastrophically low: across 46 reviews mentioning it, the pattern is near-universal — missed appointments, unreturned calls, rude interactions, and broken promises. Project completion is similarly devastated, with dozens of reviews describing abandoned jobs, unfinished installations, leaking repairs never corrected, and permits left open for years. Pricing and experience scores are marginally higher only because a small number of positive reviews exist praising specific technicians (Kevin, Mike, Tyler) for competent and efficient work, and one reviewer noted pricing came in under competitors — but these positives are vastly outnumbered. The handful of 5-star reviews stand in stark contrast to the overwhelming volume of 1-star reviews and do not meaningfully offset the pattern of failure.

• SUSPECTED FAKE OR OUTLIER REVIEWS: The 5-star reviews (approximately 5 out of 50) are suspiciously generic in praise and lack the specificity and detail present in the negative reviews. They also do not address any of the systemic issues raised repeatedly by other customers. These may reflect isolated positive experiences with specific technicians rather than the business as a whole, or may be inflated.
• SYSTEMIC PATTERN — NOT ISOLATED INCIDENTS: The no-show and non-communication complaints span from 2010 to 2024, across multiple contracting relationships (Costco, Lowe's, Sears, home warranty providers, and direct hires). This is not a temporary issue — it is a deeply embedded operational failure.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2023–2024) continue to reflect the same problems as reviews from 2010–2017, indicating no improvement over time. The pattern is consistent and current.
• DISHONESTY FLAGS: Multiple reviews explicitly allege dishonest behavior including price changes after estimates, hidden fees, billing for more than agreed, promising reimbursements never delivered, and lying to inspectors. These are serious integrity concerns beyond mere incompetence.
• SAFETY CONCERNS: At least two reviews describe dangerous outcomes — an exposed electrical box on a dishwasher installation, a water heater hooked up backwards, a boiler installed at a lower efficiency rating than quoted, and a CO2 leak situation left unresolved. These represent potential safety hazards.
• CONTRACTOR RELATIONSHIP ABUSE: A significant number of negative reviews come from customers who had no choice in selecting Oakes — they were assigned through Costco, Lowe's, Sears, or home warranty programs. This captive customer dynamic may explain why the business has continued operating despite its record.

This WW Score of 12.1 is based on 50 reviews with extremely HIGH data density across all four dimensions and should be considered highly reliable — the evidence is consistent, multi-year, multi-source, and specific enough to conclude that Oakes Plumbing & Heating presents serious risks to any prospective customer.

This contractor shows mixed signals across a very small sample of reviews spanning nearly two decades. Positive reviews (3 of 4) highlight responsiveness, fair pricing, and friendly demeanor, but a recent 1-star review (2016) documents serious communication failures with three unanswered calls over two weeks during business hours. The oldest reviews (2005, 2011, 2012) lack specificity and may not reflect current operations. With only 4 reviews total and significant recency concerns, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• CRITICAL: Only 4 reviews total — sample size is too small for reliable scoring
• RECENCY ISSUE: Reviews span 11 years (2005–2016); most are older than 8 years and do not reflect current business practices
• CONFLICTING DATA: Most recent review (2016) is 1-star with explicit complaint about non-responsiveness, contradicting older positive reviews
• GENERIC PRAISE: Two reviews (2005, 2011) contain all-caps or vague language with no specific details about work performed
• COMMUNICATION RED FLAG: 2016 review documents failure to return calls during business hours — serious professionalism concern that cannot be ignored

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume (n=4) and severe recency bias; the most recent review contradicts older positive feedback and raises serious concerns about current responsiveness that warrant direct verification before hiring.

With only two reviews, the data is insufficient for a reliable WW Score, but the content of those reviews paints a deeply concerning picture. The 2023 review is mildly positive, noting responsiveness, same-day service, and reasonable material costs, though labor pricing was unexpectedly high. The 2019 review, however, describes an extremely serious incident involving alleged drug impairment, lack of basic tools, unauthorized access to the customer's garage and shed, theft of personal property (beers), destruction of property (broken lightbulbs), and behavior that left the customer fearing for her and her children's safety. Professionalism and project completion scores are dragged sharply downward by the severity of the 2019 account. The gap between the two reviews is nearly four years, so it is unclear whether the 2023 reviewer encountered the same individual or conditions.

• CRITICAL SAFETY CONCERN: The 2019 review alleges the contractor arrived visibly impaired (suspected methamphetamine use), lacked basic tools, entered the customer's garage and shed without permission, consumed the customer's alcohol without consent, broke property, and created a situation serious enough that a neighbor who is a law enforcement officer intervened. The reviewer states this was captured on video.
• SEVERE PROFESSIONALISM VIOLATION: Alleged unauthorized access to private areas of the property (garage, shed, backyard) constitutes a potential criminal trespass and theft issue, not merely a service quality complaint.
• RECENCY NOTE: The alarming review is from 2019 (over 5 years old at time of analysis) and the positive review is from 2023. It is unknown whether the 2019 incident involved the same technician still employed by the company. However, the severity of the allegation cannot be discounted on the basis of age alone.
• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW VOLUME: Only 2 reviews are available. No statistically reliable WW Score can be produced. All dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence and should be treated as directional only.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: The two reviews are stylistically distinct, specific in detail, and represent opposite ends of the rating spectrum. No artificial inflation is suspected.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews spanning 4 years and cannot be considered statistically reliable; however, the 2019 review contains allegations of serious misconduct that prospective customers should independently investigate before hiring this contractor.