Find Nearby Plumbers In La Crosse, Wisconsin

Action Plumbing and Heating has a mixed but generally positive track record across its review history. Professionalism scores reasonably well, with multiple reviewers praising punctuality, courteous technicians, and responsive communication — however, this is offset by serious complaints including a misdirected appointment, a technician leaving a mess, and a plumber who failed to take responsibility for damage caused on the job. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while a few reviewers noted fair or competitive pricing, multiple negative reviews describe significant overcharging, undisclosed cost increases, non-itemized receipts, and a charge to fix a technician's own mistake. Project completion is similarly mixed — several jobs were completed quickly and correctly, but there are documented cases of incomplete work, a sink requiring three return visits, broken equipment left unresolved, and old pipes left in place after a full repipe job. Experience scores moderately, with standout positive examples such as Kyle's thorough boiler zone diagnosis and the creative wye joint repair, but dragged down by the stripped anode rod bolt, the broken tankless water heater, and the poorly installed kitchen sink.

• Two reviews consist only of a period ('.') with no substantive content — these were excluded from scoring as they contain no usable data.
• One review ('unknown') and one review ('Great') contain no actionable detail and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months, with most dating from 2011–2022. Only two reviews are from the past 12 months (2023). Recency weighting is limited and the current service quality may differ from historical patterns.
• The 2023-12-15 review raises a concern about Action Plumbing routing calls to a third-party contractor (JT Plumbing) without customer disclosure — this is a significant transparency and accountability flag.
• The 2012 review describes a highly detailed and serious pattern of misconduct including broken equipment, unauthorized placement of a water heater, inflated billing with no itemization, and unfinished work. This is a major project completion and pricing red flag.
• No strong fake review patterns detected, though several older 5-star reviews are generic and lack specifics. These were scored conservatively.

This WW Score is based on 25 reviews spanning over a decade, with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, but reliability is moderated by the age of most reviews, the presence of several content-free submissions, and a pattern of serious negative incidents that suggest inconsistent service quality depending on the technician or job type.

Niebuhr's reviews reveal a company with genuine technical competence that is significantly undermined by a persistent and well-documented pattern of billing disputes. Multiple reviewers across different years independently flagged trip charges, inflated labor hours, non-itemized parts costs, and charges for unnecessary replacements — this is the single most damaging theme in the review set. Professionalism is mixed: several reviewers praised friendliness and responsiveness, while others cited being misled on scheduling, abandoned appointments, and poor communication around disputes. Project completion is middling — most jobs were ultimately finished, but there are notable instances of repeat callbacks to fix mistakes, a no-show appointment, and one case where HVAC work was left in a worse state. Experience scores moderately well, as the majority of reviewers who commented on workmanship quality found it acceptable to excellent, with Tony Berg specifically praised multiple times for skill and knowledge.

• BILLING PATTERN WARNING: At least 5 independent reviews across multiple years (2011, 2021, 2024) explicitly describe disputed trip charges, inflated labor hours, or unnecessary parts charges. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY NOTE: The two most recent reviews (2024-04-18 and 2024-03-14) are both negative and both involve billing disputes, suggesting the billing issue has not been resolved over time.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of positive reviews are from 2013–2022, with no positive reviews in the most recent 24-month window. This is a meaningful trend.
• HVAC TRUST CONCERN: One reviewer (2020) reported that a different contractor found valves improperly shut off after Niebuhr's visit, raising a serious but unverified concern about intentional sabotage or gross negligence on HVAC work.
• FAKE REVIEW CHECK: No strong evidence of fake reviews detected. Reviews vary in detail, tone, rating, and date. Positive reviews reference specific technician names (Tony, Derek) and specific scenarios, which adds credibility.
• OLDER REVIEWS: Several reviews are from 2011–2017 and are weighted less heavily in scoring due to age. The score reflects a heavier weighting on post-2020 reviews where possible.

This WW Score is based on 17 reviews spanning 13 years with all four dimensions having 10 or more mentions each, giving the score HIGH confidence structurally — however, the strong and recurring billing complaints across multiple independent reviewers represent a reliable signal of a genuine business practice issue that meaningfully suppresses the score and should be taken seriously by any prospective customer.

Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and shows a mixed picture: several reviewers praised courteous, responsive, and communicative technicians, but two reviews explicitly cite rudeness and unprofessional behavior, including a customer being called 'naive' when questioning their bill. Pricing is a notable weak point — two separate reviews describe overbilling or being charged more than quoted, which is a serious red flag that significantly drags down the pricing score. Project completion is generally positive, with multiple reviewers noting same-day or timely service and jobs completed efficiently, though the small sample limits full confidence. Experience scores moderately well, with reviewers noting thorough diagnostics and honest advice against unnecessary work, but the dataset is too small to draw firm conclusions.

• Two independent reviews (2019 and 2020) explicitly mention overbilling or being charged more than the quoted price — this is a recurring pattern and a significant consumer risk.
• A customer was reportedly called 'naive' when questioning a billing discrepancy — this is a serious professionalism concern.
• Four of the six reviews are older than 12 months, with three dating back to 2016–2020. Only one review is from the past 12 months (July 2024). Recency of data is limited and the contractor's current service quality may differ.
• No suspected fake reviews detected — reviews vary in rating, detail, and tone, suggesting authentic submissions.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a small review pool of only 6 reviews spanning 8 years, with limited recent data; the recurring billing complaints are credible and meaningfully lower the score, but more recent reviews would be needed to assess whether these issues have been resolved.

Every Plumbing shows a deeply polarized performance profile. Older reviews (2015–2017) consistently praise professionalism, quality workmanship, and fair pricing, with customers reporting excellent service and recommending the company. However, recent reviews (2021, 2024) reveal severe deterioration in professionalism and communication—including rude behavior, failure to return calls for weeks, and incomplete work requiring customer follow-up. Project completion is inconsistent: some jobs are finished correctly and on time, while others are abandoned mid-process with customers forced to seek alternative providers. The company's technical skill remains evident in complex work (bathroom renovations, structural repairs), but this is undermined by poor customer service and unreliability.

• SIGNIFICANT RECENCY CONCERN: Positive reviews are 7–9 years old (2015–2017); negative reviews are recent (2021, 2024). This suggests a substantial decline in service quality over time.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: Multiple recent reviews cite rude behavior, profanity, poor communication, and dismissive attitudes toward customers—including a 34-year loyal client.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE PATTERN: Two separate reviews explicitly document failure to return calls and poor scheduling communication, suggesting systemic communication breakdown.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: The 2016 reverse osmosis review documents a job left unfinished with customer charged $200 for incomplete service, forcing them to hire a competitor.
• POLARIZED REVIEW PATTERN: No middle-ground reviews; all ratings are either 1-star or 5-star, with no 2–4 star reviews. This is atypical and may indicate either genuine service volatility or selection bias in review submission.

This score should be treated with caution due to extreme recency bias: the company's recent performance (past 3 years) appears substantially worse than its historical reputation, and the WW Score is heavily influenced by older positive reviews that may not reflect current operations. A customer considering this contractor should prioritize the recent 1-star reviews as more predictive of current service quality.

This contractor's reviews present a sharply divided picture. One positive review from 2021 praises affordability, cleanliness, code compliance, and full project completion on a whole-house re-plumb. However, two more recent reviews from 2023 and 2024 are strongly negative: one documents a failure to respond to a quote request entirely, and another describes an egregiously inflated furnace replacement quote of $7,000 against a market-reasonable cost closer to $2,700–$3,000, raising serious concerns about pricing integrity. The recency weighting further drags scores down, as the two negative reviews are from 2023–2024 while the sole positive review is from 2021. Professionalism and pricing scores are particularly penalized given the explicit complaints about non-responsiveness and price gouging.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The only positive review is from January 2021, over 3 years old. Both negative reviews are from 2023–2024 and therefore carry greater weight under recency rules.
• PRICING INTEGRITY FLAG: The 2023 review provides specific, detailed cost comparisons suggesting a markup of approximately $4,000 over reasonable market rates for a furnace installation. This is a significant red flag for price transparency and fairness.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE: The 2024 review documents a complete failure to respond to a quote request over more than one week, indicating possible operational or communication issues.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 3 reviews total. Scores are inherently low-confidence and should not be treated as definitive. Additional reviews are needed before drawing firm conclusions.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 3 years and should be treated as preliminary and low-confidence; the score directionally reflects serious concerns raised in recent reviews but cannot be considered statistically reliable.

This contractor's review set is overwhelmingly negative across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is the most heavily criticized area, with multiple reviewers describing rude technicians, failure to return to jobs, ignored billing instructions, and a worker found lying in the grass smoking while milking a service call for hours. Pricing is the second most condemned dimension, with reviewers citing unexplained charges, fees for travel time on estimates, triple-marked-up supplies, and an 18% interest charge billed to an elderly woman without clear disclosure. Project completion suffered significantly as well, with one job abandoned mid-work, a water softener left behind without haul-away, and a frozen pipe emergency left unresolved for days. The only positive signals came from a single 5-star review praising a water heater replacement as timely and knowledgeable, which provides a small but insufficient counterweight to the volume of serious complaints.

• RECENCY WARNING: The sole positive review is dated January 2019, making it over 5 years old. All negative reviews span 2015–2020. No reviews from the past 12 months are present; current performance cannot be assessed.
• PATTERN FLAG: The one 5-star review is notably brief, generic, and lacks specific detail compared to the highly detailed negative reviews. It cannot be confirmed as fake but should be treated with caution given the stark contrast in specificity.
• ETHICAL CONCERN: One review describes the owner personally visiting the home of a 91-year-old woman to collect payment, including $109 in undisclosed interest charges. This is a serious conduct flag that goes beyond typical service complaints.
• BILLING MISCONDUCT FLAG: Multiple reviews cite unexplained or deceptive charges — including charging for estimates advertised as free, billing the wrong party, and charging travel time without disclosure. This suggests a systemic billing transparency problem.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 7 reviews total. While enough to calculate a WW Score, the sample size is small and confidence in the score's precision is limited.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the small review sample of 7, the absence of any recent reviews within the past 12 months, and the presence of only one positive data point — however, the consistency and specificity of the negative reviews across multiple dimensions lend credibility to the low scores assigned.