Find Nearby Plumbers In Milwaukee, Wisconsin

USA Plumbing & Sewer exhibits severe and consistent deficiencies across professionalism, pricing, and project completion. While individual technicians (Daniel, Ricardo, Kevin, Jesus, Levon, Greg, Suarez) frequently demonstrate strong technical skills and courteous behavior, systemic failures plague the company: chronic no-shows and missed appointments, failure to honor callbacks, deceptive pricing practices, lack of written estimates, and poor follow-through on promised work. Pricing complaints are substantial, with customers reporting inflated estimates, hidden charges, and pressure to authorize unnecessary repairs. The company's supervisory and administrative staff are frequently described as rude, argumentative, and dismissive. Recent reviews (2024-2025) show persistent problems, suggesting these are not isolated incidents but operational failures.

• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews (at least 8) describe identical failure modes: scheduled appointments with no-shows, missed time windows (11am-3pm), lack of communication, and follow-up failures. This suggests systemic operational breakdown, not individual technician issues.
• PRICING DECEPTION: At least 6 reviews explicitly describe inflated estimates, pressure to authorize unnecessary work, hidden charges, and failure to provide written estimates as required by law (Illinois). One customer was quoted $5,000 for work another plumber completed for $1,500.
• SUPERVISOR/MANAGEMENT CONDUCT: Multiple reviews describe supervisors as rude, dismissive, argumentative, and manipulative (attempting to pressure customers into unauthorized charges, talking over customers, claiming superior knowledge). This suggests cultural/management problems.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: At least 5 reviews describe promised callbacks, estimates, or return visits that never materialized, with customers having to call repeatedly.
• QUALITY CONTROL: At least 3 reviews describe incomplete work, damaged property (cracked cartridge passed as good, pipe left on floor after installation, drywall cut and never repaired), and lack of accountability.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between highly positive reviews (mostly 5-star, often mentioning specific technicians like Daniel or Ricardo) and highly negative reviews (mostly 1-star, describing systemic failures). This suggests excellent individual technicians operating within a dysfunctional company system.
• RECENCY: Most negative reviews are from 2024-2025 (past 12 months), indicating ongoing problems. Older reviews (2019) are uniformly positive and reference 'Greg' or 'The Sewer Guy,' suggesting possible company acquisition or rebranding that coincided with operational deterioration.
• WARRANTY COMPANY PATTERN: Multiple reviews mention assignment via AHS (American Homeshield) or HWA (Home Warranty America). Several customers explicitly state they would not have chosen this company and recommend others request different contractors. This suggests the company may prioritize warranty work over quality service.

This WW Score of 52.3 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong warning signal. The score is based on 47 reviews with substantial mention counts across all dimensions, revealing a company with serious systemic problems in operations, customer service, and business ethics, despite having individual technicians who perform well technically. The stark polarization between positive and negative reviews, combined with consistent patterns of no-shows, deceptive pricing, and poor follow-through, indicates fundamental management and operational failures that affect most customers negatively.

Complete Handyman shows significant inconsistency across reviews. While two recent positive reviews (2021, 2019) praise fair pricing, responsiveness, and detailed communication, three older reviews (2017, 2022) document serious failures in professionalism, project completion, and follow-through. Critical issues include missed appointments without contact, incomplete work with no callback commitment, poor door installation with gaps and sticking, and communication ranked as 'D-'. The company demonstrates capability in specific tasks but struggles with reliability, accountability, and consistent execution. The WW Score reflects this volatility—strong on pricing when engaged, but weak on the dimensions that matter most: completing work and maintaining professional communication.

• Significant temporal pattern: Positive reviews are from 2019–2021; negative reviews are from 2017–2022. Most recent review (2022) is negative, suggesting ongoing issues.
• Inconsistency suggests either management/personnel changes or selective positive reviews. Two 5-star reviews are detailed and specific (not generic), but three 1–2 star reviews are equally detailed with concrete complaints (door gaps, texture splatter, no callbacks).
• Project completion dimension shows critical failures: incomplete grout work with no callback after 4 days and 3 contact attempts; drywall/door installation with improper plumbing and material substitution (pine instead of oak).
• Communication is a recurring complaint across multiple reviews: no proactive contact, texts at 6 AM instead of professional scheduling, no response to callbacks, excuses for delays.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (5 reviews) and high volatility between positive and negative feedback. The MODERATE overall confidence reflects conflicting evidence; however, the pattern of incomplete work and poor communication in multiple independent reviews suggests systemic issues that outweigh the positive experiences. Recent negative review (2022) is particularly concerning.

Discount Drain & Sewer shows highly inconsistent performance with significant professionalism and pricing concerns offsetting some positive technical work. While several reviews praise promptness, politeness, and technical competence (scoping, permitting, code compliance), multiple reviews document serious issues: rude behavior from owner Rick, unresponsive communication, incomplete work requiring callbacks, and aggressive upselling with hidden charges. The company's pricing practices are particularly problematic, with customers reporting unexpected charges and feeling overcharged. Project completion is mixed—some jobs are done well and promptly, but at least one major service (tree root removal) failed within 19 days and was inadequately addressed. The stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews and detailed 1-star complaints suggests inconsistent service quality or possible owner-dependent performance.

• INCONSISTENCY ALERT: Extreme polarization in reviews (four 1-star, two 5-star, two 4-star) with little middle ground suggests either highly variable service quality or potential review authenticity concerns. The 5-star reviews from 2014-2015 lack specific detail compared to detailed 1-star complaints.
• OWNER CONDUCT ISSUE: Multiple reviews (2015, 2019) document unprofessional behavior by owner 'Rick'—rudeness, swearing, raising voice in front of children, hanging up on customers. This is a serious red flag for professionalism.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY PROBLEM: At least two reviews (2017, 2014) document bait-and-switch pricing: initial quote of $200 raised to $300 with questionable add-on charges; another customer charged $200 for camera inspection after incomplete initial service.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: 2014 review documents failed service—tree roots inadequately cleared, requiring second company to complete job properly 19 days later. Company's response was dismissive ('We'll make note of it') and customer was hung up on.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most detailed negative reviews are from 2014-2019 (5-9 years old). Only one recent review (2019) is available, which is negative. Limited recent data makes current reliability assessment difficult.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: 2019 review documents unresponsive communication (phone turned off, no callback despite multiple messages). This contradicts other reviews praising promptness.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 8 reviews, the extreme polarization, documented owner misconduct, pricing transparency issues, and incomplete work on record significantly undermine confidence. The company appears to deliver inconsistent service quality, with owner behavior and pricing practices being major liabilities. Scores are conservative and weighted toward documented complaints. Recent data is limited (only one 2019 review), making current performance assessment uncertain.

This contractor shows severe inconsistency in service quality and professionalism. While two recent reviews (2024, 2020) praise timeliness, politeness, and fair pricing, four reviews document serious failures: incomplete repairs requiring rework, unprofessional workmanship (improper PVC installation), poor communication, defensive attitude toward customers, and failure to honor promised follow-up work. A $15,000 job left unfinished with arrogant customer service is particularly damaging. The contractor's skill level appears variable—some jobs are done well, others are fundamentally flawed. Pricing complaints and lack of accountability are consistent themes in negative reviews.

• RECENCY BIAS: Two positive reviews are recent (2024, 2020), but four negative reviews span 2019-2022. The most severe complaint ($15,000 incomplete job with poor follow-up) is from 2019, suggesting potential ongoing issues.
• PATTERN OF INCOMPLETE WORK: Multiple reviews cite unfinished repairs, failed fixes, and broken promises regarding callback work. This is a critical red flag for project completion reliability.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERNS: Owner (Gary Scott) described as 'easily offended,' 'arrogant,' and verbally abusive ('character flaw' comment). This suggests systemic customer service problems.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between glowing praise and detailed technical failures (flex couplings instead of proper PVC). Suggests either inconsistent execution or fake positive review.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW: The 2024 review contains generic hyperbole ('15 stars'), unusual tangent (jeep battery), and no specific plumbing details. Language differs markedly from other reviews. Treat with caution.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence due to small sample size (6 reviews) and significant recency gaps, but the pattern of incomplete work, poor follow-up, and documented technical failures is concerning and consistent across multiple independent complaints. The contractor's reliability appears unreliable.

This contractor has a deeply split review profile. The majority of positive reviews are 3 to 10+ years old, describing timely, professional, and fairly priced work. However, two recent 2024 reviews raise serious red flags: one alleges the owner collects deposits and abandons jobs, operates without a proper journeyman license, and previously ran a failed company under a different name; the other simply states the company does not show up. A revised comment within an older positive review also describes a failed repair and an unprofessional response from the owner's wife. The recency of the negative reviews significantly drags down scores across all dimensions, particularly professionalism and project completion, as these are the most recent data points available.

• SERIOUS FRAUD ALLEGATION: One 2024 reviewer alleges the owner collects down payments and abandons jobs, operates without a valid journeyman license, and previously shut down a company called Westview Plumbing under similar circumstances. This is an unverified but highly specific and credible-sounding claim that warrants serious caution.
• NO-SHOW ALLEGATION: A separate 2024 reviewer states the company does not show up for jobs, directly contradicting older positive reviews about punctuality.
• RECENCY CONCERN: All positive reviews are from 2013–2021, with the most recent positive review being over 3 years old. Both 2024 reviews are strongly negative. This trend suggests a possible decline in service quality or business integrity.
• REVISED REVIEW WARNING: One reviewer who originally gave 5 stars later revised their comment to describe a failed repair, an additional unexpected charge, and rude behavior from the owner's wife — indicating a pattern of post-job issues.
• ONE REVIEW MARKED UNUSABLE: The review with text 'unknown' and a 5-star rating from 2014 was excluded from scoring due to no usable content.
• POTENTIAL BUSINESS CONTINUITY CONCERN: The detailed 2024 allegation suggests this may not be the same operational entity as the one that received positive reviews years ago, which could make historical positive reviews misleading.

This WW Score should be treated with LOW trust — while the volume of reviews is sufficient for calculation, the two most recent reviews contain serious and specific allegations of fraud and non-performance that directly undermine the credibility of the older positive review base.

This contractor receives a below-average WW Score driven primarily by severe and consistent pricing complaints across 4 reviews. Three of four reviews explicitly detail overcharging, hidden fees, markup on products, and billing discrepancies—establishing a clear pattern of unfair pricing practices. Professionalism is compromised by late arrivals and failure to apply promised discounts without repeated reminders. While two reviews acknowledge competent technical work and one highlights responsive same-day service, these positives are substantially outweighed by the pricing and communication failures. The single 5-star review from 2015 lacks specificity and does not address pricing concerns.

• CRITICAL: Strong pattern of pricing complaints across 75% of reviews (3 of 4). Multiple detailed accounts of overcharging, misquoted rates, and hidden fees suggest systemic billing practices rather than isolated incidents.
• Professionalism concerns: Late arrival and failure to honor discounts without repeated requests indicate poor customer service standards.
• All negative reviews are from 2016 or earlier (oldest data: June 2015). No recent reviews provided to assess whether practices have improved.
• Single positive review (5-star, 2015) is generic and lacks detail about pricing or specific service quality metrics, making it difficult to weigh against detailed negative accounts.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence due to limited sample size (4 reviews), but the consistency and specificity of pricing complaints across multiple reviews suggests genuine customer dissatisfaction with billing practices. The absence of recent reviews (all from 2015-2016) limits ability to assess current performance.