Find Nearby Plumbers In Milwaukee, Wisconsin

This contractor's review profile is dominated by serious, recurring failures in professionalism and project completion. Multiple reviewers across different years describe no-shows, failure to return calls or texts, and abandoned jobs after partial payment — patterns that are consistent and credible. Positive reviews do exist and highlight fair pricing, responsiveness, and knowledge, but they are outnumbered and outweighed by detailed negative accounts. Pricing receives a relatively higher score because the few reviewers who mentioned it were satisfied, though this is based on limited data. The experience dimension is mixed: one reviewer praised his knowledge while another explicitly disputed his claimed 20 years of experience based on poor workmanship.

• ABANDONED WORK: At least two reviewers (1-star 2020, 2-star 2019) explicitly describe Richard taking partial or full payment and failing to complete or return to finish the job — a serious red flag.
• REPEATED NO-SHOW PATTERN: Multiple reviews across different years (2024, 2022, 2019) describe Richard failing to show up for scheduled appointments without explanation or follow-up.
• NON-RESPONSIVENESS: Several reviewers report that calls and texts went unanswered after initial contact or after work began, suggesting a pattern of disengagement.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent review (February 2024) is negative. The majority of positive reviews are from 2021 or earlier, suggesting possible decline in service quality over time.
• REVIEW SPREAD: Reviews span 2019–2024 with no clustering of suspiciously identical language. Fake review risk appears LOW, but the contrast between detailed negative reviews and relatively generic positive ones is noted.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the review volume is small (8 reviews) but the negative patterns are specific, detailed, and consistent across multiple years, lending credibility to the low scores in professionalism and project completion.

Bohmann Plumbing has an extensive and deeply problematic review history dominated by pricing complaints, with dozens of reviewers describing charges they characterize as price gouging, hidden fees, and bait-and-switch tiered pricing structures. Project completion is a serious concern, with multiple reviewers explicitly stating that work was left unfinished, jobs were abandoned, or problems persisted after payment. Professionalism scores are severely dragged down by repeated accounts of the owner and technicians being rude, dismissive, and even hanging up on customers, though a minority of positive reviews do describe courteous and timely service. Experience scores reflect a mixed picture: some reviewers praise the quality of work, while others cite bad soldering noted by inspectors, improperly installed equipment causing safety hazards, and technicians unable to diagnose basic problems. The positive reviews, while genuine in some cases, are vastly outnumbered by detailed, specific negative accounts spanning over a decade.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: One reviewer explicitly alleges that Bohmann Plumbing purchased bot accounts on Facebook to leave 5-star reviews, with multiple fake accounts using similar wording about financial/investment advice unrelated to plumbing. This is a serious credibility flag.
• TWO BLANK REVIEWS with only a 5-star rating and no text were found (dates 2024-06-09 and 2022-06-10). These have been excluded from scoring as they provide no usable data.
• PATTERN OF FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: Several 5-star reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Bohmann Plumbing was very prompt and professional and would recommend to anyone who wants Plumbing services') with no specific details, which is consistent with inauthentic reviews.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews are present across the full date range from 2011 through 2025, including multiple highly detailed negative reviews within the past 12 months (2024-2025), indicating the problems described are not historical anomalies but ongoing patterns.
• SAFETY CONCERN: At least two reviews describe potential safety hazards — one citing a gas line not connected tightly after a heater install, and one citing bad soldering flagged by an inspector. These represent serious workmanship failures beyond ordinary dissatisfaction.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe paying in full and having work left unfinished or problems unresolved, suggesting a systemic business practice rather than isolated incidents.
• UPFRONT PAYMENT CONCERN: Multiple reviewers across many years note being required to pay in full before work begins or before seeing results, which several describe as enabling the company to leave without completing the job.
• OPERATING UNDER MULTIPLE NAMES: Several reviews and one detailed complaint note that Bohmann Plumbing appears to operate or has operated under multiple names including Cudahy Plumbing, Benjamin Franklin Plumbing, and Service Now, which may obscure the company's review history.

This WW Score is based on 43 reviews spanning 2011 to 2025 with a high volume of detailed, specific accounts across all dimensions, giving the score HIGH overall confidence; however, the score should be treated as a strong warning signal given the consistent, multi-year pattern of serious complaints about pricing, incomplete work, and unprofessional conduct from the owner.

This contractor's review profile is overwhelmingly negative, with 5 out of 7 reviews giving 1-star ratings and describing serious misconduct. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and scores extremely low, with multiple reviewers citing complete unresponsiveness to calls, no-shows, and deceptive behavior. Project completion is nearly as damaging, with multiple accounts of abandoned work, unfinished jobs, and refusal to return to fix faulty repairs. Pricing concerns are significant, including cash-only demands during a pandemic, false estimates used to extract money, and one allegation of billing for work never performed. The two positive reviews are outweighed heavily by the volume and specificity of the negative accounts, and one positive review appears generic with no specific detail.

• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAG: Multiple reviewers allege the contractor collected payment and then became completely unreachable, which may constitute fraud.
• UNLICENSED CONTRACTOR ALERT: One reviewer explicitly states Alan Barr is not a licensed plumber or contractor, and references a 2016 Fox 6 Contact 6 news segment about similar behavior.
• CASH-ONLY DEMAND FLAG: Reviewer notes contractor demanded cash only, raising concerns about accountability and record-keeping.
• FAKE ESTIMATE ALLEGATION: One reviewer alleges the contractor fabricated a dangerous/toxic chemical hazard to pressure the customer into paying cash outside the warranty process.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW: The third review (5-star, June 2021) uses generic, enthusiastic language with no specific names, dates, or verifiable details, and references a differently named company ('All Plumbing Sewer Drain and Restoration'), suggesting it may not be for the same contractor or may be fabricated.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent positive review is from February 2023, but it is a single data point against a strong pattern of negative reviews spanning 2020-2021. The negative pattern is well-documented and specific.
• GOOGLE LISTING FLAG: One reviewer notes the business appears as 'permanently closed' on Google, which the contractor dismisses by referencing a Yellow Pages listing — a potential indicator of an unstable or illegitimate operation.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall confidence due to a sufficient number of reviews with usable data, but the score should be treated as a serious warning signal — the pattern of specific, detailed negative allegations across multiple independent reviewers is highly credible and consistent, and the contractor should be avoided until licensing and conduct issues are resolved.

All three reviews are uniformly negative and paint a deeply concerning picture of Richard Hale's plumbing services across every dimension scored. Professionalism is severely damaged by documented no-shows, failure to communicate, yelling at a customer's wife, and alleged theft of plumbing supplies. Project completion is catastrophically poor — work was left unfinished, toilets were improperly installed causing water damage to rooms below, P-traps were mounted incorrectly, and a customer was only partially reimbursed despite only a third of the work being completed. Workmanship quality (experience) is consistently described as shoddy, requiring multiple costly corrections by other plumbers. Pricing concerns include a dishonest attempt to charge for a service that was available for free, and a refusal to provide fair reimbursement for incomplete and defective work.

• All three reviews are 1-star ratings with no positive reviews present — this may reflect a selection bias in the dataset, but the specificity and detail of each complaint strongly suggest genuine negative experiences rather than fake reviews.
• Reviews span from 2012 to 2022 — the most recent review (2022) is the most detailed and most damning; the 2012 review is over 10 years old and carries reduced recency weight.
• The 2018 review is also outside the 12-month recency window and should be weighted accordingly, though its content is corroborated by the more recent 2022 review.
• Alleged theft of customer-purchased plumbing supplies is reported in the 2022 review — this is a serious conduct flag beyond standard service quality concerns.
• Pattern of delegating work to an unqualified or unsupervised worker (son) noted in the 2022 review, suggesting a systemic quality control problem.
• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is calculated but should be treated with caution due to the small sample size.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning a decade, which limits statistical reliability, but the high specificity, corroborating details across reviews, and consistent pattern of failure across all dimensions make the extremely low score directionally trustworthy — this contractor should be approached with serious caution.

Analysis cannot proceed due to suspected fake review pattern. All 11 reviews are 5-star ratings with identical or near-identical generic praise (e.g., 'professional,' 'great,' 'wonderful,' 'dependable'). Multiple reviews share the same date (2023-01-06), and language is suspiciously repetitive without specific project details or substantive differentiation. This pattern is inconsistent with authentic customer feedback and violates the integrity requirements for WW Score calculation.

• CRITICAL: Suspected fake or manipulated review set. All 11 reviews are 5-star ratings.
• Multiple reviews posted on identical dates (2023-01-06: 5 reviews; 2023-01-04, 2022-12-28, 2023-02-13, 2023-05-22: 1 each).
• Repetitive generic language across reviews: 'professional,' 'great,' 'wonderful,' 'dependable,' 'friendly' appear in nearly every review with minimal variation.
• Lack of specific project details: Most reviews provide vague praise without describing actual work performed, materials used, or specific problems solved.
• Suspicious clustering: 5 reviews on a single date suggests batch posting rather than organic customer feedback.
• No negative or mixed feedback: 100% 5-star rating is statistically improbable for any service provider and inconsistent with authentic review patterns.

This review set cannot be used to calculate a reliable WW Score due to strong indicators of fake or artificially generated reviews. No confidence can be placed in any scoring derived from this data.

All four reviews are uniformly positive and date from 2022, with no recent feedback. Professionalism is consistently praised across all reviews (communication, politeness, cleanliness, responsiveness). Project completion is strong, with multiple examples of follow-through and additional work beyond scope. Pricing is mentioned favorably but only in 2 reviews. Experience is evident through quality workmanship and problem-solving. However, the sample size of 4 reviews is insufficient for reliable WW Score calculation, and the absence of any critical or mixed feedback raises concerns about review authenticity or representativeness.

• Only 4 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold of 5+ for reliable scoring
• All reviews are from 2022 (2+ years old) — no recent data available
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback — potential selection bias or incomplete review set
• Uniformly positive language and tone across all reviews with no specificity on pricing details (only 'competitive' and 'reasonable' mentioned) — suggests possible review curation
• No negative or mixed reviews present to validate balance

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume (4 reviews, minimum 5 required). Additionally, all reviews are from 2022 with no recent feedback, and the uniformly positive tone without critical balance raises concerns about representativeness. Any conclusions drawn from this data should be treated with significant caution.