Find Nearby Plumbers In Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Nels Anderson has a mixed but generally positive track record across the four reviews analyzed. Three of the four reviews are strongly positive, praising responsiveness, speed, cleanliness, technical knowledge, and fair pricing. However, the most recent review (July 2024) is a significant negative data point from a customer who felt she was overcharged — specifically, that she was billed for two plumbers to connect a washing machine when her neighbor (a plumber) indicated this was unnecessary. This single negative review meaningfully drags down scores across all dimensions, particularly project completion and professionalism, as it raises concerns about billing transparency and value. The positive reviews are older (2019–2021), meaning the most recent signal in the dataset is a complaint, which per recency weighting carries elevated importance.

• RECENCY WARNING: Three of four positive reviews are from 2019–2021, making them 3–5 years old. The only review from the past 12 months (July 2024) is a 1-star complaint. This recency imbalance is a meaningful concern and the negative review was weighted more heavily.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 4 reviews total. This is above the minimum threshold of 3 but still insufficient for high-confidence scoring. All dimension scores should be treated as preliminary estimates only.
• PRICING CONCERN: The 1-star reviewer explicitly states she was charged for two plumbers to connect a washing machine, which her plumber neighbor flagged as unnecessary. This is a potential overcharging or upselling concern that warrants caution.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: The positive reviews contain specific details (garbage disposal clog, septic pump failure, well pump repair, named technician Ryan) that suggest authenticity. No suspicious repetitive phrasing was identified.

This WW Score has LIMITED-to-MODERATE reliability due to the very small review sample (4 reviews), the age of the positive reviews (2019–2021), and the fact that the sole recent review is a negative complaint about potential overcharging — prospective customers should seek additional references before hiring.

Rasmussen Plumbing shows genuine strengths in pricing and technical competence, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting costs came in well under expectations and that the work itself was completed correctly. However, punctuality and communication are a recurring and significant concern — two of four reviews describe late or missed appointments without proactive notification, and one review documents a complete no-call/no-show on two separate occasions. Project completion is mixed: jobs were ultimately resolved, but delays and a lack of follow-through on callbacks drag the score down. The overall picture is a contractor with solid skills and fair pricing but inconsistent reliability in scheduling and communication.

• Small sample size of only 4 reviews — all scores should be treated with caution and are not statistically reliable.
• Three of the four reviews are from 2015–2017, making them 7–9 years old. Only one review (2020) is relatively recent. Current performance may differ significantly from what these reviews reflect.
• The 1-star review describes two separate no-call/no-show incidents, which is a serious professionalism flag and was weighted heavily in the professionalism score.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in rating, detail level, and writing style, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, the majority of which are over 5 years old, making it LOW reliability — treat as a preliminary signal only and seek more recent references before hiring.

Mike Ingrilli Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across a large review base spanning over a decade. Professionalism is the most heavily flagged dimension, with numerous credible complaints about rude behavior from the owner and office staff, failure to return calls or show up for appointments, and dismissive responses to legitimate customer concerns — though many positive reviews praise individual plumbers as courteous, prompt, and thorough. Pricing is the single most damaging dimension: a consistent and recurring pattern of complaints about overbilling, undisclosed dispatch and travel fees, charging for incorrectly installed work, and at least one instance of litigation over a disputed invoice significantly drags this score down. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are completed well and on time, but there are credible accounts of abandoned work, failure to honor warranties, and jobs requiring multiple return visits to fix errors. Experience scores moderately well, with many reviewers praising technical skill and problem-solving, though several reviews describe work that had to be redone by other plumbers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 3 sets of near-identical or fully identical reviews were found (e.g., two reviews dated 2024-07-29 and 2024-08-13 with nearly identical text, two identical 1-star reviews dated 2018-01-17, and two identical 5-star reviews dated 2022-06-10 about basement blockage). These may represent the same reviewer posting multiple times or coordinated review activity. Scores were not double-counted for these duplicates.
• RECENCY WARNING: A significant portion of positive reviews are from 2012–2016 and may not reflect current service quality. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) skew more negative, with multiple serious complaints about overbilling, refusal to honor warranties, rude owner behavior, and abandoned work.
• PATTERN OF BILLING COMPLAINTS: Overcharging and hidden fees (dispatch fees, travel time, tool maintenance charges) are mentioned in at least 10 separate reviews across multiple years, suggesting a systemic billing practice issue rather than isolated incidents.
• PATTERN OF RESPONSIVENESS FAILURES: At least 7 reviews describe the company failing to return calls, missing appointments without notice, or ignoring estimate requests — a recurring operational issue.
• ABANDONED/UNWARRANTED WORK: Multiple reviews (2024) describe the company refusing to return to fix incorrectly installed work and demanding payment for warranty repairs, which is a serious project completion concern.
• 14 reviews contained no text (rating only) and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• OWNER CONDUCT: Multiple reviews specifically call out the owner, Mike Ingrilli, as rude, unprofessional, or retaliatory (e.g., declining a job after a negative review, suing a customer over a disputed invoice). This is a significant reputational risk factor.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (136 reviews) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but should be interpreted cautiously given the strong recency trend toward negative experiences, a documented pattern of billing disputes, and at least three instances of duplicate reviews that suggest possible review manipulation.

Action Heating and Cooling has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores are dragged down by multiple credible complaints about late arrivals, missed appointments without communication, rude office staff (particularly a VP and owner named Tonia/Tanya), and technicians who left without completing work — though many positive reviews do praise individual techs as courteous and professional. Pricing is a significant concern, with multiple reviewers citing overcharges, hidden fees, and charges for visits where nothing was fixed, while a smaller number of reviewers praised fair or reasonable pricing. Project completion is the most damaging dimension: recurring issues include improperly installed furnaces causing water damage, A/C units that never worked reliably after installation, warranty denials, abandoned jobs, and repeated callbacks that failed to resolve problems — though some customers report smooth, complete installations. Experience scores reflect a split between genuinely skilled technicians praised in individual reviews and a troubling pattern of misdiagnosis, pushing unnecessary full replacements, and failing to identify root causes that customers or other companies later resolved easily.

• BLANK/NEAR-BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 18 reviews contain no text at all (just a rating, often 5 stars). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence. This pattern is suspicious and may indicate rating inflation.
• SUSPECTED FAKE OR PADDED REVIEWS: A cluster of reviews dated 2016-03-16 through 2016-03-23 and 2015-10-27 through 2015-11-06 consist entirely of single characters ('.', 'unknown') with 5-star ratings. These are almost certainly not genuine customer reviews and inflate the star average.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) include three serious 1-star complaints about misdiagnosis and pushing unnecessary replacements, alongside positive reviews. The negative pattern in recent reviews is consistent with older complaints, suggesting systemic issues have not been resolved.
• WARRANTY DENIAL PATTERN: Multiple reviews across different years (2022, 2023, 2024) describe Action refusing to honor warranties or denying records of prior service. This is a recurring and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: At least three independent reviews (2025-02-09, 2025-01-10, 2025-01-10) describe technicians failing to diagnose furnace problems correctly and pushing full replacements, with customers later fixing the issue cheaply themselves. This is a significant red flag for the Experience dimension.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW: Two reviews from 2021-06-10 and 2021-06-08 are nearly identical in text and appear to be the same reviewer posting twice. Only one was counted per dimension.
• OLDER REVIEWS: A substantial portion of reviews date from 2006–2016, some as far back as 2000. These were given reduced weight in scoring relative to reviews from 2021–2025.

This WW Score of 62.4 is based on a large volume of reviews spanning over two decades, with HIGH confidence across all dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given a clear pattern of fake or content-free 5-star reviews inflating the raw star average, a recurring and credible pattern of misdiagnosis, warranty denial, and poor communication that spans multiple years including the most recent reviews.

Blau Sudden Service presents a deeply polarized review profile. Recent reviews (2025, primarily within the past 12 months) are overwhelmingly positive, praising individual technicians like Dave, Cass, Scott, Kyle, Jeff, and Isaac for professionalism, punctuality, and technical competence. However, a substantial body of older reviews (2009–2024) consistently and credibly describes predatory pricing practices, scare tactics, upselling, incomplete or botched work, and poor customer service resolution. Pricing is the most critically damaged dimension, with dozens of independent reviewers across many years citing charges of $600–$2,400 per hour equivalent for simple jobs, hidden fees, and refusal to quote upfront. Project completion is moderately scored because while many recent jobs were finished satisfactorily, multiple older reviews describe abandoned work, unresolved problems requiring callbacks to competitors, and at least one instance of a gas leak left unchecked after installation. The stark contrast between recent and older reviews raises a concern about review recency bias and possible reputation management efforts.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two sets of reviews appear to be exact duplicates posted on different dates within days of each other (e.g., the pipe burst review and the emergency shower review each appear verbatim twice in June 2025). This is a strong indicator of fake or artificially boosted reviews and reduces confidence in the recent positive review cluster.
• RECENCY BIAS WARNING: The majority of positive reviews are clustered in 2025 (especially April–June 2025), while the majority of negative reviews span 2009–2024. This pattern may reflect active reputation management rather than a genuine improvement in service quality.
• PRICING PATTERN — SYSTEMIC CONCERN: Negative pricing complaints are not isolated incidents. They span over a decade (2009–2025), involve multiple different technicians, and describe consistent patterns: no upfront quotes, high flat-rate charges, diagnostic fees layered on top of service fees, and aggressive upselling. This is a structural business practice concern, not individual technician error.
• SCARE TACTICS AND UPSELLING: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe technicians using scare tactics (carbon monoxide threats, code violations, permit requirements) to pressure customers into expensive unnecessary work. At least one review describes a $10,000 quote resolved with $4 of caulk.
• INCOMPLETE WORK AND CALLBACKS: Several older reviews describe work that was not completed correctly, requiring competitors to fix Blau's errors. One review describes a gas leak left after water heater installation. Another describes a boiler repair requiring five visits with no resolution.
• VULNERABLE CUSTOMER EXPLOITATION: Two independent reviews describe elderly customers (one with dementia) being charged extremely high prices for simple work without informed consent or disclosure of alternatives. This is a serious ethical flag.
• 29 REVIEWS HAD NO TEXT: A significant number of reviews contained only a star rating with no written content and were excluded from dimension scoring. These cannot be used as evidence for any dimension.
• COMMISSION-BASED SALES STRUCTURE ALLEGED: Multiple reviewers allege that Blau technicians work on commission, incentivizing upselling. One reviewer claims this was confirmed by a subsequent plumber. This structural allegation is consistent with the pricing complaint pattern across many years.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate reviews, a decade-long pattern of credible pricing complaints, and a suspicious clustering of generic positive reviews in the most recent months that may reflect reputation management activity.

Alpine Plumbing presents a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. On the positive side, a substantial number of reviewers praised individual technicians — particularly Rafal, Jerry, Brad, Emmanuel, and Bob — for being professional, timely, knowledgeable, and friendly, with many repeat customers expressing strong loyalty. However, a significant cluster of negative reviews raises serious concerns: multiple customers reported work that failed shortly after completion with no warranty follow-through, technicians arriving unprepared or abandoning jobs mid-project, and owners responding to complaints with hostility or refusal to return. Pricing complaints are notable, including hidden trip charges, after-hours rate disputes, charges exceeding quotes by 50%, and billing for work that was not completed satisfactorily. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with documented cases of dishwashers still flooding after a 'fix,' pipes re-leaking within weeks, incomplete drain cleaning, and no-shows on multiple scheduled appointments. The overall picture is of a company with capable individual technicians but inconsistent quality control, poor complaint resolution, and recurring communication failures.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two pairs of near-identical reviews appear in the dataset — the Alpine dryer vent complaint (2024-06-09 with timestamp vs. 2024-06-09 without) and the copper-to-galvanized pipe complaint (2019-08-05 and 2020-06-10) and the dishwasher flooding complaint (2020-06-10 and 2020-04-27). These appear to be the same reviewer posting twice, possibly on different platforms. Duplicate entries were counted once for scoring purposes.
• SUSPECTED COORDINATED NEGATIVE REVIEWS: Three reviews posted on 2020-03-29 within minutes of each other (13:13, 13:23, 13:29) all describe the same leaking pipe incident involving owner 'Bob' and use escalating hostile language. These appear to be from the same household or coordinated group and were treated as a single incident for scoring weight.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 12 reviews contained no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEW: One 1-star review (2025-05-10) describes a road rage incident involving a company vehicle driver on the interstate. This is not a service review and was excluded from all dimension scoring, though it is noted as a professionalism flag.
• RECENCY NOTE: A significant portion of reviews date from 2021 and earlier, including many from 2018–2019. Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) are fewer in number and show a continued mixed pattern. Scores were weighted toward more recent reviews where dates were available.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews reference multiple distinct named individuals (Bob/Bob Nolan, Rafal/Rafa, Jerry, Brad, Emmanuel, Pat, Mike, Adam, Vince, Artavian) and appear to span at least two or three distinct business entities or locations (Alpine Plumbing in Lake Arrowhead/CA, Alpine Plumbing in Milwaukee/WI area, and Lakeview Plumbing in Truckee/Tahoe area). Scores reflect the aggregate record but consumers should be aware this may not represent a single unified business.
• WARRANTY AND CALLBACK FAILURES: Multiple independent reviewers explicitly describe work failing within days to months and the company refusing to return or remedy the situation — a serious pattern affecting project completion and experience scores.
• GENERIC POSITIVE REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews contain only 1–2 generic sentences with no specifics (e.g., 'Great Plumbers, I recommend them,' 'Excellent and timely service,' 'Very Reliable and experienced!'). These were scored conservatively and given low individual weight.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (125 total, 107 with usable data) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in terms of volume, but reliability is meaningfully reduced by the presence of duplicate reviews, suspected multi-entity conflation across different business locations, coordinated negative reviews, and a wide variance in technician quality — consumers should treat this score as a general indicator of inconsistency rather than a reliable predictor of any single service experience.