Find Nearby Plumbers In Davenport, Iowa

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 14 years. Professionalism scores well based on punctuality, communication, and responsiveness mentioned in 4 reviews. However, project completion is severely compromised by one detailed 2017 review documenting multiple critical failures: unglued vent lines causing leaks, improperly sloped freeze-less hose bibs, undersized water lines, and cobbled connections requiring a second contractor to fix. Pricing concerns emerge from the same review regarding double-billing and lack of credit for removed materials. The oldest reviews lack specificity and may not reflect current operations. The stark contrast between positive recent reviews and the detailed 2017 failure suggests either significant past problems or inconsistent quality.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 9+ years old (2009, 2012, 2014). The most detailed review is from 2017 and documents severe workmanship failures.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Extreme variance between glowing testimonials and one highly specific negative review detailing multiple installation errors and billing disputes.
• INCOMPLETE FOLLOW-UP: One review explicitly states contractor did not return calls for quotes, suggesting responsiveness issues despite other claims of quick response.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES: 2017 review documents unglued connections, improper slope installation, undersized materials, and improper water line routing—all requiring remediation by another contractor.
• BILLING DISPUTE: Evidence of double-billing and failure to credit removed materials in 2017 review raises pricing transparency concerns.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited recent data, extreme review variance, and one highly credible detailed negative review documenting multiple professional failures that contradict positive testimonials from much older dates.

Flick's exhibits a stark performance divide: early reviews (2019 and earlier) show strong professionalism and quality workmanship, but recent reviews reveal severe deterioration in project completion, communication, and customer service. Chronic delays, false delivery promises, poor quality materials misrepresented as custom work, and hostile customer interactions dominate recent feedback. While technical skill and product knowledge remain evident in positive reviews, the company's inability to deliver on timelines, manage customer expectations, and handle complaints professionally has severely damaged its reputation. The shift from 'Flicks of old' to current operations suggests significant operational or management changes.

• TEMPORAL PATTERN DETECTED: All 5-star reviews are from 2019 or earlier (2022, 2019, 2019). All 1-star reviews span 2013–2019 with clustering in 2016–2019, suggesting a decline in service quality over time rather than fake reviews.
• CONSISTENCY ACROSS NEGATIVE REVIEWS: Multiple independent reviewers report identical issues (false delivery promises, delays, lying about shipment status, poor communication) across different years, indicating systemic operational problems rather than isolated incidents.
• CREDIBILITY MARKERS: Negative reviews contain specific details (wrong knobs, warped doors, cabinet company loading dock discovery, $3000 upfront demand), while positive reviews are more generic. This pattern is opposite to typical fake review behavior and suggests negative reviews are authentic.
• COMPANY IDENTITY SHIFT: Two reviews explicitly state 'This is NOT the Flicks of old' and reference Ed buying the name, indicating potential ownership/management change that correlates with quality decline.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent review is from April 2022 (positive), but the bulk of negative feedback is from 2013–2019. Current performance status is unclear; score may not reflect present-day operations.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence due to temporal clustering of reviews and apparent operational changes. The negative trend is credible and consistent across multiple independent sources, but the most recent positive review (2022) suggests possible improvement; current performance cannot be reliably assessed from this dataset.

Ewert Plumbing's WW Score is severely dragged down by an overwhelming pattern of pricing complaints spanning multiple years and continuing into 2024. The pricing dimension is the weakest area, with 18 reviews explicitly citing non-transparent billing, inflated labor charges, drive time billed as labor, delayed invoices with finance charges, and bills significantly exceeding quoted amounts — this is the most consistently documented problem across the entire review set. Professionalism scores are mixed: individual technicians (Chris, Jacob, Bryan, Justin) are frequently praised for friendliness and skill, but office staff and ownership behavior — including alleged racial insults, dismissive responses, refusal to engage with complaints, and threats of legal action — pull the score down sharply. Project completion is moderate; most jobs appear to have been physically completed, but several reviews cite faulty workmanship (bad pipe welds causing flooding, improperly capped sewage pipe) and at least one instance of a no-show. Experience scores are the strongest dimension, with multiple reviews praising technical competence, but negative workmanship outcomes in several reviews prevent a high score.

• BILLING PATTERN FLAG: An unusually high number of reviews (at least 12) independently describe the same billing issues — delayed invoices, drive time billed as labor, charges exceeding quotes, and finance charges on late bills. This is a systemic business practice concern, not isolated incidents.
• RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ALLEGATION: One detailed review (2023-12-14) alleges a racially discriminatory comment by office staff ('Tyrone' assumption) and claims the owner and office manager refused to address or apologize for the incident. The business response described in the review appears dismissive. This is a serious flag.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURE FLAG: At least two reviews describe post-service property damage — a pipe weld failure causing $4,000 in floor damage (2023-09-09) and an improperly capped sewage pipe causing basement sewage backup (2023-07-10). These represent significant quality control failures.
• NO-SHOW BILLING FLAG: One review (2021-09-24) alleges the company attempted to charge a trip fee for a service call where the technician never arrived.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024) continue to document the same pricing transparency and billing issues seen in reviews dating back to 2017-2018, suggesting no meaningful improvement over time. Reviews from the past 12 months (Oct 2024, Apr-May 2024) are weighted more heavily and all are 1-star.
• POSITIVE REVIEW PATTERN: The 5-star reviews tend to be brief, generic, and lack specific detail (e.g., 'Always the best service!', 'Great service, professional, responsive'). While not conclusively fake, the contrast in detail level between negative and positive reviews warrants caution. Positive reviews may underrepresent actual customer experience.
• OWNER CONDUCT FLAG: Multiple reviews describe the owner ('Skip') as unresponsive to billing disputes, rude when contacted, and in one case threatening legal action against a customer. This pattern across multiple independent reviews is a significant concern.

This WW Score is based on 24 reviews with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions and should be considered a reliable reflection of this contractor's performance, with the low scores — particularly in pricing and professionalism — supported by consistent, specific, and independently corroborated evidence across multiple years.

Erickson's Plumbing shows severe and consistent deficiencies in professionalism and project completion. Four of seven reviews explicitly cite failure to follow up, broken promises, missed appointments, or abandonment of work—patterns that directly undermine reliability. While three reviews praise fair pricing and two highlight quality workmanship when work is completed, these positives are heavily outweighed by a dominant pattern of non-responsiveness and unreliability. The company demonstrates capability when engaged (evidenced by emergency response and quality work in isolated cases), but systematic failures in communication and commitment to timelines create a fundamentally untrustworthy service record.

• CRITICAL: Strong pattern of non-completion and abandonment across multiple reviews spanning 2016–2023. Three reviews explicitly describe failure to follow up after initial contact or quote requests.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are 2–7 years old (2016, 2022, 2023), but the most recent review (2023) also reports failure to follow up, suggesting the problem persists.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between 1-star reviews (4 of 7) citing unprofessionalism/abandonment and 5-star reviews (3 of 7) praising quality and pricing. This suggests highly variable service delivery or possible staff-dependent performance.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: Multiple reviews cite rudeness, broken promises, and evasive communication from named staff members (Brian, Dustin). Office staff noted as 'good' in one review, suggesting internal inconsistency.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to recency spread and small sample size, but the HIGH-confidence pattern of professionalism and completion failures across multiple independent reviews over 7 years suggests genuine systemic reliability issues that warrant serious consideration before engaging this contractor.

Crawford's reviews present a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. On the positive side, individual technicians like Brad McDermott and Brock received specific praise for punctuality, communication, and professional demeanor, and the 2016 boiler installation was described as clean and timely. However, these positives are significantly offset by serious failures: a water heater installation based on bad professional advice that resulted in floor damage with no remediation offered, and a subcontracted renovation job that produced poor workmanship from an unqualified worker at premium prices. The company's role as a project manager and prime contractor introduces risk beyond individual plumber quality, and the pattern of charging full price without accountability for failures is a notable concern. Scores are conservative given the small review pool and the severity of the negative experiences reported.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score has very low statistical reliability and should be treated with caution.
• Two of the four reviews are from 2016 and 2017, making them 7–8 years old. Only two reviews are from 2023, which are the most relevant for current performance assessment.
• The negative review from 2023 (Jeanne, Buffalo IA) describes a serious failure: bad professional advice leading to property damage, no apology, and no corrective action — this is a significant accountability red flag.
• The 2016 negative review highlights a systemic issue with Crawford's use of unqualified subcontractors on non-plumbing work, suggesting project management weaknesses that may persist.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific names, dates, job types, and varied sentiment, indicating authenticity.
• Pricing concern flagged: one reviewer explicitly noted 'expert prices with amateur results,' and another was charged for a replacement water heater after a failure attributed to Crawford's own advice — both suggest poor value transparency or accountability.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning 7 years, with half the data being significantly outdated, making it a LOW-reliability indicator of current contractor performance — prospective customers should seek additional recent references before hiring.

The review set is small (5 reviews) and spans a wide date range (2011–2024), which significantly limits reliability. Professionalism is mixed: two positive reviews praise responsiveness and accommodation, but one reviewer was stood up twice with no follow-through, and another was left with an unresolved AC problem. Pricing is a serious concern, with three of five reviews explicitly calling out excessive charges — one citing a $954 bill for unclear repairs, another flagging a $145.50 charge for a $3 part, and a third describing charges as 'highway robbery.' Project completion is similarly troubled, with at least two reviews describing incomplete or unresolved work, and one no-show incident. The two positive reviews (2018 and 2019) do describe competent, thorough work, but they are now 5–6 years old and are outweighed by more recent and more specific negative experiences.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The two positive reviews are from 2018 and 2019 — both over 5 years old. The most recent review (2024) is a 1-star complaint about unresolved HVAC work and excessive billing.
• PRICING PATTERN: Three separate reviews across different years independently flag overcharging and lack of pricing transparency. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not an isolated complaint.
• NO-SHOW INCIDENT: One reviewer explicitly describes being stood up twice — wrong date recorded, no callback, no follow-through — indicating a reliability issue.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews total. While confidence factors are calculated accordingly, no broad conclusions should be drawn from this dataset alone.
• NO SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: The positive reviews contain specific details (1920s home, multiple days of work, lighting options discussed) and do not appear to be fabricated. No fake review flag warranted.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning 13 years, with the most credible and recent data pointing toward significant concerns in pricing and project completion — treat this score as a preliminary signal only, and seek additional references before hiring.