Find Nearby Plumbers In Madison, Wisconsin

This contractor shows highly inconsistent performance across a small sample of reviews. Two reviews praise technical skill and politeness, but one severely negative review documents complete failure in responsiveness and follow-through—the customer reached out 3 times with no callback despite writing concerns on the invoice. Project completion is undermined by the 1-star review where a repair failed within 20 minutes and was never properly addressed. With only 3 reviews spanning 2019–2021 and conflicting evidence, confidence in this score is limited. The business demonstrates capability but serious gaps in customer service and accountability.

• Only 3 reviews total — sample size is very small and limits reliability
• Reviews span 2019–2021; all are older than 12 months, limiting recency relevance
• Extreme polarity: one 1-star with documented service failure vs. two 5-star reviews with minimal detail
• The 5-star reviews lack specificity (e.g., 'everything was great,' 'excellent job') while the 1-star provides concrete evidence of non-responsiveness
• No pricing information provided in any review
• Possible inconsistency in service quality or staff performance (positive reviews mention 'Nick' specifically; negative review does not name technician)

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size (3 reviews), age of data (all pre-2022), and extreme rating variance; the score reflects conflicting evidence and cannot be considered reliable for decision-making without additional recent reviews.

This contractor shows severe professionalism deficits, with multiple reviews documenting rude, abusive, and dismissive behavior from ownership and staff (Mark, Deb, Rita). Project completion is compromised by poor communication, missed deadlines, failure to follow up, and refusal to take responsibility for damages caused. Pricing receives moderate marks where mentioned, with fair rates noted in some reviews. Technical experience appears adequate when work is actually performed, but systemic operational failures and hostile customer interactions severely undermine overall trustworthiness. The pattern of complaints spans multiple years (2015–2020), indicating persistent cultural issues.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document verbally abusive behavior from ownership (Mark, Deb) and staff (Rita), including screaming, swearing, and insulting customers. This is a serious red flag for business culture and customer treatment.
• ACCOUNTABILITY FAILURE: Owner Mark refused to take responsibility for property damage caused by the company truck, despite photographic evidence and insurance industry knowledge from the customer. This suggests either lack of insurance or unwillingness to honor claims.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Consistent pattern across reviews of poor follow-up, missed callbacks, failure to send invoices, and lack of notification about service completion. One customer had to follow up multiple times to get state health department records updated.
• SCHEDULING ISSUES: Multiple reviews cite vague scheduling ('sometime in early July'), no advance notice of arrival, and failure to complete jobs in one visit (truck too full, had to return).
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE: One review praises quick, patient responses; others document rudeness and annoyance when customers call. Suggests inconsistent staff behavior or selective service quality.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews are from 2015–2020. Only one recent review (2020-10-23) is positive but lacks detail. Cannot assess current operational status with confidence.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-to-HIGH caution. While the data is based on 8 reviews with consistent themes, the oldest reviews are 5+ years old and may not reflect current operations. The overwhelmingly negative pattern regarding professionalism and project completion is credible and corroborated across multiple independent reviewers, but the single recent positive review suggests possible improvement. Recommend contacting recent customers directly before engaging this contractor.

Dr. Rooter 911 demonstrates severe deficiencies across professionalism, pricing, and project completion. Multiple reviews document chronic non-responsiveness, missed appointments, failure to complete promised work, and lack of follow-through on callbacks spanning over a decade. Pricing complaints are consistent, with customers reporting charges significantly exceeding quotes and feeling overcharged for minimal work. While the one positive review and several others acknowledge competent technical work when completed, this is severely undermined by incomplete job delivery, poor communication, and apparent abandonment of customers mid-project. The contractor's willingness to perform initial work but then become unresponsive to completion requests is a critical pattern.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document complete non-responsiveness and abandonment after initial service. The 2022 review details $525 paid for incomplete video inspection and sewer line location with zero follow-up for months despite repeated contact attempts.
• CRITICAL: Pattern of incomplete project completion across multiple reviews (2020, 2022 reviews show 75% completion, unfilled holes, no cleanup, no video documentation despite payment).
• CRITICAL: Significant pricing discrepancies documented. Review from 2018 shows $99 quote charged as $280; 2012 review cites $190 for 15 minutes work; multiple reviews describe overcharging and lack of transparency.
• CRITICAL: Chronic communication failure. Multiple reviews (2017, 2018, 2020, 2022) document voicemail boxes full, no callbacks for weeks, text messages ignored, and excuses rather than follow-through.
• CRITICAL: Legal history noted in 2022 review citing 24 Wisconsin Circuit Court cases involving John Werkmeister operating under multiple business names (T Rooter Plumbing, Tropical Rooter, Doctor Rooter, Doctor Rooter 911) with cases involving nonpayment of unemployment compensation.
• Review dates span 2011-2022 with consistent negative patterns throughout, indicating systemic rather than isolated issues.
• One positive 2019 review appears anomalous given overwhelming pattern of complaints; however, it is genuine and factored into experience score.

This WW Score of 32.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 8 reviews with consistent, detailed documentation of failures across all major dimensions, spanning 11 years with no evidence of improvement. The contractor demonstrates systematic problems with responsiveness, completion, and pricing that represent serious risk to any customer.

Ryan Heating and Plumbing demonstrates severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Critical safety violations (improper venting causing carbon monoxide exposure), unprofessional behavior (rudeness, dismissiveness), billing fraud (repeated incorrect invoices, unresponsiveness to payment disputes), and incomplete project work create a pattern of systemic failure. One positive review citing competence and fair pricing is substantially outweighed by three highly detailed negative reviews documenting serious professional, financial, and safety breaches. The company's refusal to engage with customers or resolve disputes compounds these issues.

• CRITICAL SAFETY ISSUE: 2019 review documents improper hot water heater venting installation that created carbon monoxide hazard in home — potentially life-threatening violation of building code
• BILLING FRAUD PATTERN: 2012 review documents systematic billing errors, false payment claims, repeated incorrect invoices, and complete non-responsiveness from ownership despite BBB complaint filed
• UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT: 2013 review documents rude greeting, hostile attitude, refusal to complete diagnostic work, and abandonment of service call
• INCOMPLETE WORK: 2012 review explicitly states work started in May remained unfinished with no owner communication
• NON-RESPONSIVENESS: Multiple reviews document owner refusing to engage or respond to customer concerns
• RECENCY NOTE: Most reviews are 5-11 years old (2012-2019); only one positive review from 2019 is recent, but it lacks specificity and cannot offset documented safety/billing violations

This score should be trusted with moderate-to-high confidence. While based on only 4 reviews, the negative reviews are exceptionally detailed with documented evidence (invoices, bank records, phone records, BBB complaint), describe objective failures (code violations, billing errors, incomplete work), and are corroborated across multiple independent incidents. The single positive review lacks specificity and cannot credibly offset documented safety hazards and systematic billing fraud.

The review set is dominated by severely negative experiences across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most heavily criticized area, with multiple reviewers describing rude, dismissive, and retaliatory behavior from staff — including being hung up on, threatened with legal action for leaving a review, and told 'you're just trying to get something for nothing.' Pricing drew serious complaints in four of five reviews, including undisclosed charges, billing manipulation, and charging for a worker who sat in a truck the entire time. Project completion is deeply problematic, with two reviews describing equipment left inside customer pipes, work abandoned, and customers referred elsewhere to fix damage caused by Right Choice. Technical experience scores marginally higher only because one positive review describes a prompt and effective resolution, but this is heavily outweighed by reviews describing broken equipment left in sewer lines, false claims of crushed pipes, and work that had to be redone by a competitor for a fraction of the cost.

• Four out of five reviews are 1-star with highly specific, detailed complaints — this pattern is consistent with genuine negative experiences rather than fake reviews.
• The single 5-star review (2019) is enthusiastic but lacks the specificity seen in the negative reviews; however, it does reference a concrete scenario (water softener drain clog) and is not flagged as fake.
• One reviewer explicitly alleges that the company filters or removes negative Yelp reviews, which if true would suggest the available review pool may be artificially skewed toward positivity on other platforms.
• The company allegedly threatened a customer with a slander lawsuit for leaving a factual negative review — a significant red flag regarding business ethics and professionalism.
• Three of the five reviews are older than 5 years (2013, 2016, 2017), with only two reviews from 2019. Recency is limited and the score may not reflect current business practices, but the pattern of complaints is consistent across all time periods.
• One reviewer describes a competitor (Phil's Electric Drain Service) completing the same job for $275 after Right Choice charged $1,496.25 and left equipment in the pipe — a stark and specific data point supporting both the pricing and project completion scores.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning 6 years, but the consistency and specificity of the negative feedback across all dimensions gives the low scores moderate-to-high reliability; the overall picture strongly suggests a pattern of poor service, opaque pricing, and unprofessional conduct.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 4 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 usable reviews required for a reliable WW Score calculation. While the reviews are positive and mention punctuality, budget adherence, and project completion, the sample size is too small to produce a trustworthy overall score. Additionally, all reviews are older than 12 months (oldest from 2006), limiting recency relevance.

• CRITICAL: All 4 reviews are older than 12 months; most are 10+ years old (2006–2013). No recent data available to assess current performance.
• Sample size of 4 reviews is below the recommended minimum for reliable scoring.
• Experience dimension has zero mentions across all reviews — no data on skill level or technical quality.
• One review uses all-caps formatting, which may indicate strong emotion but does not constitute fake review pattern with only 4 total reviews.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (4 reviews) and critically outdated data (all reviews pre-2014). Any score derived would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.