Find Nearby Plumbers In Louisville/Jefferson County, Kentucky

Precision Plumbing draws a large volume of strongly positive reviews praising individual technicians by name for professionalism, punctuality, clear communication, and technical skill — these positives are consistent and span many years and locations. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews (roughly 15–18% of substantive reviews) describe serious issues including no-shows, scheduling failures, poor communication, alleged price gouging, overcharging, warranty disputes, substandard workmanship, and in at least two cases regulatory investigations by the Nevada State Contractors Board. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers call pricing fair or reasonable, a notable cluster of negative reviewers describe charges they considered grossly excessive (e.g., $528/hour, $750 for a $1.99 fix, $1,400 for a 20-minute job, $650 for a cartridge replacement). Project completion is moderately strong but is dragged down by multiple documented no-shows, abandoned jobs, and at least one case of work left incomplete for weeks. Experience scores well overall given the volume of praise for diagnostic skill and quality workmanship, but is tempered by a handful of reviews describing incompetent diagnosis or dangerous substandard work.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Numerous reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., multiple identical 'Fast, affordable, friendly, and super reliable' reviews on 2018-02-22; identical 'Great family business' reviews on 2022-09-08; identical 'Will hire again' reviews on 2022-09-12; identical 'Great and quick service' and 'Excellent customer service' reviews on 2022-09-06; identical 'He did a good job and was nice to work with' reviews on 2022-10-20; identical 'Friendly service, great job' reviews on 2022-10-01; identical 'Kieth was very easy to work with' reviews on 2022-10-22; identical 'Very high quality work promp service' reviews on 2023-01-24; identical 'The young man did an expert job' reviews on 2022-12-16; identical 'Precision Plumbimg is a great Company' reviews on 2020-10-24 and 2020-10-25). This pattern strongly suggests review manipulation or system duplication and reduces confidence in the raw positive review count.
• REGULATORY FLAG: At least two reviews (dated August 2024) allege that Precision Plumbing (dba aaa Precision Plumbing, Las Vegas) was under investigation by the Nevada State Board of Contractors for substandard work, failed city inspection, a life-threatening gas leak, and deceptive practices. These are serious allegations that, if accurate, represent significant safety and integrity concerns.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to reference multiple distinct businesses operating under the 'Precision Plumbing' name across different geographic markets (Las Vegas NV, Bay Area CA, Michigan, South Carolina, California Central Valley, etc.) as well as references to 'Plumbing Squad' and 'Budget Water Heaters.' Scores may reflect an aggregation of different companies rather than a single contractor, which limits the reliability of any single composite score.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS PATTERN: A recurring pattern of pricing complaints exists across multiple reviewers and years — including allegations of price gouging against elderly or disabled customers, charges not matching quotes, refusal to provide itemized receipts, and hourly rates described as $600+ per hour for simple jobs. This is not isolated and depresses the pricing score significantly.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: Multiple independent reviewers across different time periods describe no-shows, missed appointment windows without notification, and failure to return calls. This is a consistent pattern affecting the project completion score.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are from 2019 through mid-2025, with the most recent cluster from May–June 2025. Reviews from 2025 are predominantly positive and recent, which is a positive signal, but the negative regulatory and safety reviews from mid-2024 are also recent and carry significant weight.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 40–50 reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules, but their volume inflates the apparent star average.

This WW Score of 72.1 carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate reviews suggesting possible manipulation, multi-entity ambiguity across geographic markets, serious unresolved regulatory allegations from 2024, and a consistent minority pattern of pricing, scheduling, and workmanship complaints that cannot be dismissed as outliers.

Roger's Plumbing scores strongly on professionalism and experience, with the vast majority of reviewers praising courteous, knowledgeable technicians — particularly Orlando, Jim, Marcus, Eddie, and Chris — who communicate clearly, arrive on time, and go above and beyond on the job. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension in this dataset: a substantial and consistent pattern of negative reviews explicitly calls out charges that reviewers describe as 2–4x competitor rates, surprise fees, upselling of unnecessary work, and in one case an unauthorized membership charge. Project completion is generally solid but is meaningfully dragged down by multiple reviews citing no-shows, missed appointments without callbacks, and at least one case of work that had to be redone. The combination of excellent field technicians and a problematic pricing model creates a bifurcated reputation that is clearly reflected across hundreds of reviews spanning over a decade.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two nearly identical reviews from the same reviewer (dated 2024-09-09 and 2024-08-22) describing the same rental property experience with the $53 drain special and hydro-jetting comparison. These appear to be the same person posting twice. Only counted once for scoring purposes.
• GENERIC/THIN REVIEWS: Approximately 18 reviews consist solely of a star rating with no text, and several others contain only 2–4 words (e.g., 'Professional. Detailed. Polite.' appearing twice on different dates with identical wording — possible duplicate or templated review). These were excluded from dimension scoring.
• IDENTICAL PHRASING FLAG: The review 'Professional. Detailed. Polite.' appears on both 2025-06-05 and 2025-06-02 with identical text and 5-star ratings. This is suspicious and may indicate a fake or duplicated review.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are from 2024–2025, which is positive for recency weighting. However, a meaningful cluster of negative pricing reviews spans 2010–2024, suggesting the overpricing concern is a long-standing and persistent issue rather than an isolated incident.
• PRICING CONCERN IS SYSTEMIC: At least 15 distinct reviews across multiple years explicitly cite overcharging, price gouging, or quotes 2–4x competitor rates. This is not noise — it is a consistent pattern that materially suppresses the pricing score.
• NO-SHOW / SCHEDULING FAILURES: At least 5 reviews describe technicians who never arrived, did not call, or failed to reschedule appropriately. One review describes 7 return visits for the same unresolved dripping faucet issue, raising a project completion concern.
• OLDER REVIEWS (pre-2020): A significant number of reviews date back to 2010–2019. These were given reduced weight in scoring relative to 2023–2025 reviews, per recency rules.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning 15+ years with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; the score is considered reliable, and the pricing dimension in particular reflects a well-documented and persistent pattern that prospective customers should weigh carefully before engaging this contractor.

Kinman Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent mentions of punctuality, friendliness, and reliability across multiple reviews. Project completion is solid, with customers reporting jobs finished smoothly and on time. Technical competence is evident through descriptions of thorough, efficient work. Pricing feedback is limited but generally positive, described as fair and good value. The primary concern is review age—most reviews are 9+ years old (2011–2015), with only one from 2020, limiting confidence in current service standards.

• RECENCY ISSUE: 8 of 10 reviews are older than 9 years (2011–2015). Only 1 review from past 12 months. Current service quality cannot be reliably assessed.
• UNUSABLE REVIEW: One review contains only '/' with a 2.0 rating and no substantive content—excluded from analysis.
• LIMITED PRICING DATA: Only 3 reviews mention pricing. Confidence in pricing dimension is constrained.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to severe recency bias; the overwhelming majority of reviews predate 2016, making it unclear whether current service matches historical performance.

This plumbing company demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent mentions of punctuality, friendly communication, and courteous behavior across multiple reviews. Project completion is generally reliable with callbacks honored and work finished promptly. However, a severe negative review from April 2024 raises serious concerns about pricing practices and technical honesty—specifically allegations of misdiagnosis, overcharging ($400 for a $0.02 seal), and dishonest explanations. Pricing data is limited but suggests potential overcharging issues. Experience scores are mixed, with quality workmanship noted in positive reviews but contradicted by the detailed account of poor diagnostics and lazy work in the negative review.

• CRITICAL: One detailed 1-star review (April 2024) alleges dishonesty, misdiagnosis, and severe overcharging. Customer claims technician Josh lied about cartridge installation and quoted $400 for work requiring only a $0.02 seal. This is recent and specific with verifiable details, not generic criticism.
• Pricing dimension based on only 2 mentions—one positive ('reasonable price') and one highly negative ($400 overcharge allegation). Score heavily discounted due to LIMITED confidence.
• Four of five reviews are 5-star ratings with positive language, but the single negative review is exceptionally detailed and credible, suggesting it may represent a real service failure rather than a fake review.
• Recency concern: Two reviews are from 2022-2023 (older than 12 months). The most recent negative review (April 2024) is within the past year and should be weighted heavily.

This score should be treated with caution. While the company shows strong professionalism and project completion in most reviews, the detailed April 2024 complaint about dishonesty and overcharging significantly undermines trust. The WW Score of 82.1 masks a serious credibility issue that warrants direct investigation before hiring. Recommend requesting references and detailed written quotes before engaging this company.

Louisville Mechanical demonstrates strong professionalism with responsive communication, punctuality, and courteous service across multiple reviews. Project completion is generally solid with timely work and follow-through on callbacks, though one review alleges incomplete work and warranty billing disputes. Pricing presents a significant concern: while one review praises competitive pricing, another explicitly accuses the company of dishonest billing practices and overcharging. Technical skill and problem-solving ability are evident in successful HVAC repairs and diagnostics. The conflicting pricing narratives and one strongly negative review substantially lower overall confidence.

• CRITICAL: Conflicting pricing narratives — one review praises 'best price' while another accuses company of being 'scam artists' who charge double competitors and bill for incomplete work. This is a major red flag requiring investigation.
• One review (2022-06-29) is significantly older (2+ years) and contains serious allegations of dishonest billing and warranty work overcharging. This negative review substantially impacts scoring.
• Limited sample size (5 reviews total) reduces statistical reliability. Scoring is based on small mention counts across all dimensions.
• Three of five reviews are from 2021 or earlier; only two reviews from 2023. Recency is limited.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to small sample size, conflicting accounts of pricing practices, and presence of serious allegations in older reviews. The score of 78.3 reflects genuine strengths in professionalism and project completion, but the pricing conflict and one damaging review create substantial uncertainty about overall trustworthiness.

This contractor demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for politeness, punctuality, and courteous technicians across multiple reviews. Technical competence is evident in successful problem-solving and quality workmanship. However, pricing is a significant concern—multiple reviews cite high charges relative to work performed, with one customer paying $209 for a 10-minute visit and another $890 for a water heater that underperformed. Project completion shows mixed results: while most jobs are finished satisfactorily, one review documents a failure requiring a callback, and another describes incomplete follow-through on a gas line issue. The older review dates (most pre-2015) and presence of several low-quality/placeholder reviews reduce overall confidence.

• Six reviews contain minimal or no substantive content ('unknown', '.', or single generic phrases), suggesting data quality issues or placeholder entries that reduce reliability
• Most reviews are older than 5 years (2006–2014); only 3 reviews from 2020–2021 provide recent performance data
• Significant pricing complaints: $209 for 10-minute diagnostic, $174 for 25 minutes, and $890 water heater installation with poor performance and inadequate follow-up
• One documented project failure requiring callback (2009 review) and one incomplete service (2018 gas line issue with no return visit)
• One lengthy, detailed negative review (2014) describing poor communication, unmet promises, and lack of follow-up on a major purchase—this carries substantial weight despite being older
• Recency bias: recent reviews (2020–2021) are uniformly positive, but sample size is very small (3 reviews)

This score should be treated with caution due to data quality issues (6 placeholder reviews), heavy skew toward older reviews (14+ years old), and conflicting signals between recent positive feedback and documented historical failures in project completion and pricing transparency. The MODERATE overall confidence reflects insufficient recent data to confidently assess current performance.