Find Nearby Plumbers In Madison, Wisconsin

Country Plumber demonstrates strong technical expertise and workmanship (82/100), with many customers praising skilled problem-solving and quality repairs. However, the company is significantly hampered by serious professionalism issues, particularly chronic communication failures and no-shows that appear across multiple years of reviews. Project completion is compromised by missed appointments, unreturned calls, and incomplete work. Pricing concerns emerge in several detailed complaints about unexpected charges, markups, and billing discrepancies. While older reviews (2009-2015) and recent positive reviews (2024-2025) show capable work, the persistent pattern of responsiveness failures and customer service breakdowns across the entire timeline is a major red flag.

• CRITICAL: Chronic no-show and callback failures documented across 10+ reviews spanning 2009-2024, suggesting systemic operational issues rather than isolated incidents
• BILLING INTEGRITY CONCERNS: Multiple detailed complaints about unexpected charges, undisclosed fees, and markups (e.g., $450 vs $150 quoted, $75 markup on city-required part, credit card fees added after quote)
• INCOMPLETE WORK: At least 3 reviews document unfinished jobs or partial solutions (roots left behind, pipe not fully cleared, tank settling misdiagnosis)
• CUSTOMER SERVICE PATTERN: Receptionist takes messages but owner/manager 'Tom' does not return calls; company appears indifferent to long-term customer concerns
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Multiple reviews mention refusal to warranty work or vague 'NO WARRANTY' notes despite additional charges paid
• DAMAGE LIABILITY DENIAL: 2015-2017 reviews show company refusing responsibility for water damage caused by their installation defects
• RECENCY NOTE: Most reviews are 2+ years old; recent 2024-2025 reviews are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail, creating potential recency bias. However, negative patterns persist even in recent data (March 2025 billing complaint)
• EMPTY/MINIMAL REVIEWS: 11 reviews contain no text or single words, reducing data quality

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While the sample size is adequate (60 reviews), the company exhibits a stark bifurcation between technical competence (high marks) and operational/customer service failures (low marks). The persistent callback and no-show pattern across 15+ years is highly credible and concerning. However, recent positive reviews suggest possible operational improvements, though the March 2025 billing complaint indicates problems persist. Customers should expect quality work but should verify all pricing in writing and prepare for potential communication challenges.

Stagecoach Plumbing shows strong technical expertise and generally professional staff (particularly Will and Greg), with multiple reviews praising their knowledge, responsiveness, and workmanship quality. However, the company is significantly undermined by persistent pricing concerns—multiple customers report unexpected charges, travel fees not disclosed upfront, and labor rates perceived as excessive. Project completion is mixed, with some jobs done well but at least one instance of sloppy work (stripped screws) and poor follow-up on damage caused. Older reviews (2014–2017) are notably more positive; recent reviews (2022–2024) reveal escalating customer dissatisfaction with costs and service recovery.

• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: At least 5 reviews explicitly mention surprise charges, undisclosed travel fees, or labor rates not explained upfront. This is a critical pattern suggesting systemic pricing communication failure.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2014–2021 (older than 3 years). Recent reviews (2022–2024) are predominantly negative (ratings 1–2), suggesting service quality or pricing practices have deteriorated.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: One detailed 2022 review documents multiple technical installation errors (T&P valve backgrade, improper flex line routing, missing insulation, misspelled company name on equipment). This contradicts claims of expert workmanship.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURE: Review from 2022 reports customer was told to wait days for callback to fix damage caused by Stagecoach's own mistake, indicating poor accountability.
• STAFF CONDUCT VARIANCE: While Will and Greg are praised in older reviews, recent reviews cite owner rudeness and dismissive customer service (2023 no-show incident, 2018 emergency call rudeness).
• UNVERIFIABLE ALLEGATION: One 2021 review alleges employee theft ('sticky fingers') with no detail—flagged but not weighted heavily due to lack of specificity.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While technical expertise is well-documented (HIGH confidence), the company's pricing practices are a major liability with consistent negative evidence across multiple years. The sharp decline in review sentiment from 2014–2021 to 2022–2024 suggests current performance may be worse than the overall score indicates. Customers should explicitly request itemized quotes including travel and labor rates before engaging this company.

Lichtfeld Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews, with strong positive feedback on pricing, knowledge, and responsiveness offset by serious concerns about workmanship quality and accountability. Two highly detailed negative reviews (2018, 2013) document installation errors, water damage, and refusal to take responsibility, while four positive reviews praise their local expertise, fair pricing, and helpfulness. The 2018 review is particularly damaging, describing multiple installation failures (backwards valve, improper drain installation) and alleged unprofessional conduct during damage assessment. Project completion scores are pulled down by explicit failures to complete work correctly and follow-through issues. Professionalism is similarly compromised by documented poor customer service and integrity concerns, despite positive mentions of communication and attitude in other reviews.

• CRITICAL: Two detailed 1-star reviews (2018, 2013) describe serious installation failures and accountability issues that directly contradict positive reviews. The 2018 review is highly specific and credible, documenting multiple plumbing errors (backwards valve installation, improper drain sealing) and alleged unprofessional conduct during damage dispute resolution.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2011-2020 (older than 1 year). The most recent detailed negative review is from 2018. No reviews from past 12 months limits ability to assess current performance.
• PATTERN INCONSISTENCY: Positive reviews consistently praise Melanie and Jeff by name and mention local expertise; negative reviews describe serious technical failures and poor dispute resolution. This suggests real performance variability or potential service quality decline over time.
• ACCOUNTABILITY RED FLAG: The 2018 review explicitly describes Lichtfeld initially accepting responsibility, then sending a third party to 'discredit' the customer and ultimately refusing to pay for damage caused by their installation errors. This is a serious integrity concern.

This score should be treated with caution due to extreme polarization in reviews and lack of recent data; the WW Score of 68.2 reflects genuine quality inconsistency, but the presence of credible, detailed negative reviews describing installation failures and poor accountability suggests the true performance may be lower than this score indicates.

Dave Jones exhibits significant inconsistency across all dimensions. While some customers report excellent service, professionalism, and quality work, a substantial number of reviews document serious failures in responsiveness, punctuality, and follow-through. Communication and callback issues appear repeatedly across multiple reviews spanning years. Pricing practices are controversial, with several customers citing unexpectedly high charges and minimum service fees. Project completion is hampered by delayed callbacks, unfinished work, and lack of accountability. The company demonstrates technical competence in HVAC and plumbing work when engaged, but operational execution and customer service reliability are major weaknesses.

• PATTERN ALERT: Chronic communication failures documented across 13 reviews spanning 2013-2024, including missed callbacks, no follow-up after site visits, and unresponsiveness to voicemails. This is the most consistent negative pattern.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (2018-2024) cite aggressive minimum service charges ($102-$400+ for brief assessments), lack of transparency in quotes, and charges that don't match promised pricing.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Reviews explicitly state 'hit and miss' service quality depending on which technician is assigned. Some customers report excellent work; others report shoddy installations and incomplete problem resolution.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative patterns persist through 2024 (most recent review 2024-04-19), indicating issues are ongoing, not historical. However, some positive reviews also appear in recent years (2023-2024), suggesting inconsistency rather than systemic decline.
• ACCOUNTABILITY GAP: Multiple reviews document lack of apologies, refusal to correct mistakes, and dismissal of customer complaints. One review notes company only responded after negative review was posted.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: At least 4 reviews explicitly mention lack of callback after initial service visit or quote, with one customer waiting 8+ days for promised follow-up.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE confidence due to high variability in customer experiences and the presence of both strong positive and severe negative reviews. The score of 62.8 reflects genuine operational inconsistency rather than a company in clear decline or ascent; customers appear to receive either good or poor service depending on circumstances, timing, and assigned personnel. The chronic communication failures and pricing concerns are well-documented across multiple independent reviews and represent material risks for prospective customers.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency in service quality. Professionalism scores are dragged down by multiple reports of poor communication, unresponsiveness, and rude staff behavior, though some reviews praise friendliness and quick response. Project completion is severely compromised by documented cases of incomplete work, unresolved issues, and broken callbacks—most critically, a well pump replacement that contaminated the water system and a tank replacement that left a worse leak than the original problem. Pricing concerns emerge from one review citing a $1,200 overcharge (quoted $3k, charged $4,200). Technical competence appears adequate in successful jobs but questionable given the quality failures. The wide variance between 5-star and 1-star reviews suggests either inconsistent execution or significant service deterioration over time.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Two of the three most recent reviews (2024-09-18, 2024-03-27) are 1-star with serious complaints. The most positive reviews are from 2023 and earlier (2017, 2020), suggesting possible service decline.
• CRITICAL QUALITY FAILURES: Multiple reviews document incomplete or failed work—well pump replacement that contaminated water system with no resolution, tank replacement that worsened the leak, and broken callback promises. These are not minor issues.
• RESPONSIVENESS PATTERN: Two separate reviews explicitly mention non-responsiveness and poor communication until threats were made or escalation occurred. This is a systemic concern.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY: One review documents significant overcharge ($3k quote → $4,200 actual). Insufficient data to assess if this is pattern, but flagged.
• LONG-TERM CUSTOMER LOSS: Two reviews mention 10+ year customer relationships that ended due to service failures, indicating serious trust breach.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence due to small sample size (6 reviews) and extreme polarization (three 1-stars, three 5-stars), but the recent negative trajectory and documented service failures (contaminated water, unresolved leaks, broken promises) are concerning and suggest real quality issues rather than random variation. The WW Score of 62.8 reflects genuine inconsistency and should not be interpreted as 'average'—this contractor appears to have serious execution and accountability problems that warrant careful consideration.

All three reviews touch on professionalism, but the picture is mixed: two older positive reviews praise timely, courteous, and diligent service, while a recent 2024 review flags a complete failure to respond to customer inquiries — a significant professionalism concern. Project completion is supported by two reviews describing jobs that were seen through to the end, including going above and beyond on seeding, but the unresponsiveness in the most recent review raises questions about current follow-through. No pricing information was mentioned in any review, so that dimension cannot be scored. The overall score is pulled down meaningfully by the recency of the negative review and the very small sample size.

• Very small sample size (only 3 reviews) — WW Score should be treated as highly provisional and not representative of consistent performance.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The two positive reviews are from 2021 and 2016 respectively, making them 3 and 8+ years old. The most recent review (October 2024) is negative, suggesting possible decline in responsiveness or service quality.
• The 2024 negative review specifically cites failure to respond to two separate inquiries — a direct professionalism failure that carries elevated weight due to its recency.
• Pricing dimension has zero data — 15% of the WW Score formula is entirely absent, reducing reliability of the composite score.

This WW Score carries very low reliability due to only 3 reviews spanning 8 years, a complete absence of pricing data, and a recent negative review that contradicts the older positive feedback — prospective customers should seek additional references before making a hiring decision.