Find Nearby Plumbers In Baltimore, Maryland

This review set is deeply bifurcated between two distinct eras and possibly two distinct business identities. The majority of recent reviews (2025, all 5-star) praise technicians like Joe, John (Tech 101), Tyler, and Chris for professionalism, punctuality, knowledge, and thorough explanations. However, a significant cluster of older reviews (2021–2023) describes a pattern of serious misconduct under the name 'All Above Plumbing' operated by Ray Travers and Heather Kole, including fraud, double-billing, abandoned work, non-responsiveness, and unlicensed work. Pricing scores are heavily dragged down by multiple credible fraud allegations involving unauthorized charges and stolen deposits. Project completion is similarly penalized due to multiple reviews describing work that was never finished or done incorrectly.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2021–2023) describe serious fraud, theft, double-billing, and abandoned work attributed to 'Ray Travers' and 'Heather Kole' operating as 'All Above Plumbing.' These are not minor complaints — they include allegations of criminal conduct.
• POSSIBLE BUSINESS IDENTITY SPLIT: Recent 2025 reviews reference different technicians (Joe, John Tech 101, Tyler, Chris, Max, Tito) and appear to describe a different operational entity than the older negative reviews. It is unclear whether this is the same legal business under new management or a rebranded entity.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: The 2025 reviews show repetitive patterns including multiple reviewers calling the same technician 'the best plumber I ever had,' near-identical phrasing across reviews, and a cluster of 5-star reviews posted on the same dates (e.g., 2025-06-02 has 9 reviews, 2025-04-10 has 13 reviews). This volume clustering on single dates is a common indicator of review manipulation.
• 8 reviews contained no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: All negative reviews are from 2021–2023. All positive reviews are from 2025 (and a few from 2020). The gap in the record and the abrupt shift in tone warrants caution.
• One 1-star reviewer (2022) explicitly states the company 'does not have a valid license and is the subject of multiple lawsuits.' This has not been verified but is a serious flag.
• The WW Score should NOT be used in isolation for this contractor due to the unresolved fraud allegations and suspected review manipulation in the positive cluster.

This WW Score has LOW reliability as a standalone trust signal due to credible fraud allegations in older reviews, a suspicious clustering pattern in recent 5-star reviews suggesting possible manipulation, and an unresolved question about whether the current business is the same legal entity responsible for the prior misconduct.

The reviews present a deeply mixed picture of this contractor. Positive reviews highlight genuine strengths — Rick is described as personable, knowledgeable, and capable of quick diagnosis, and the company as a whole has been praised for professionalism, punctuality, and fair pricing across multiple service types. However, two serious negative reviews significantly drag down the scores: one describes an egregious act of pulling a fuse on an AC unit without notice, leaving a family with a small child in a dangerously hot home, and another describes a price quote that was dramatically higher than competitors followed by the owner hanging up on the customer. These incidents are not minor complaints — they reflect serious lapses in professionalism and ethical conduct that cannot be offset by generic praise. The project completion score is tempered by the fuse-pulling incident, which represents a deliberate act of service disruption rather than a completion failure, but still reflects poorly on follow-through and client treatment.

• SERIOUS CONDUCT FLAG: One review (2021-07-16) describes the owner deliberately pulling the AC fuse without notifying the homeowner, leaving a family with a small child in a 90-degree house all day until smoke detectors triggered. This is a significant safety and ethical concern that materially impacts professionalism and trust scores.
• PRICING CONCERN: One review (2023-01-18) reports a quote of $650 for a $125 part with ~30 minutes of labor, described as the highest of three quotes by far, followed by the owner hanging up when the price was questioned. This is a red flag for pricing transparency and customer service.
• RECENCY NOTE: The two most recent reviews (2023) are split — one is strongly positive, one is strongly negative. The three oldest reviews (2016–2018) are all 5-star. The most damaging behavioral incident occurred in 2021. Score weighting appropriately emphasizes more recent data.
• REVIEW VOLUME WARNING: Only 7 reviews total span approximately 7 years. This is a very thin dataset and limits the reliability of any score. Confidence is inherently constrained.
• POSSIBLE NAME INCONSISTENCY: Some reviews reference 'Rick' as the owner/operator, while one references 'Alex' as the technician. This may indicate multiple staff, which is consistent with the 2016 review describing a small company with multiple tradesmen. No fake review pattern detected, but the dataset is too small to rule out selective review submission.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — the dataset of 7 reviews spanning 7 years is thin, the reviews are highly polarized between strong praise and serious misconduct allegations, and the most concerning incidents are recent enough to be relevant to current service expectations.

This contractor has a deeply mixed record. Older reviews from 2011–2015 paint a picture of a skilled, courteous, and cost-effective plumber who communicated well and completed jobs thoroughly. However, two significant negative reviews — one from 2017 describing a complete no-show with no communication, and a serious 2023 review alleging a 4-day delay, unprofessional behavior, and highly offensive language from the owner — substantially drag down the professionalism and project completion scores. The 2023 negative review is the most recent and most heavily weighted, and it raises serious concerns about the current state of the business. The gap between the glowing older reviews and the recent negative experiences suggests a meaningful decline in service quality over time.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are from 2011–2015, making them 8–13 years old. Only one positive review exists from the past 12 months (September 2023), and it is extremely brief and generic with no specific details.
• POTENTIAL FAKE OR LOW-QUALITY REVIEW: The September 2023 5-star review ('Very hard worker, nice to see honest and genuine people. Definitely would recommend to anyone!') contains no specifics about the job, the plumber, or the work performed. It reads as generic filler and its credibility is low.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAG: The December 2023 1-star review alleges the owner arrived smelling of alcohol, used a racial slur on a phone call, and took 4 days to respond to a service call. If accurate, this represents a significant professionalism and conduct failure.
• NO-SHOW INCIDENT: The 2017 1-star review documents a complete appointment no-show with no call, no confirmation, and no reschedule — causing the customer financial loss. This is a direct project completion failure.
• BUSINESS TRAJECTORY CONCERN: The pattern of reviews suggests a business that may have been reliable years ago but has experienced serious decline. Prospective customers should treat recent reviews as the most relevant signal.

This WW Score has LIMITED overall reliability due to the heavy age skew of positive reviews, a credible recent misconduct allegation, and only 8 total reviews spanning 12 years — prospective customers should weight the 2023 negative review heavily when making a hiring decision.

Northeastern Supply receives mixed feedback across dimensions. Pricing is the most frequently mentioned dimension and is deeply polarized: some reviewers praise prices as significantly lower than competitors (including Amazon and Grainger), while others explicitly call out markups as excessive or prices as very high, pulling the pricing score well below average. Professionalism earns moderate marks, with specific praise for a knowledgeable and personable salesperson and a staff member (Rick) who was helpful, but no broader pattern of consistent service quality is established. Project completion is also mixed — one reviewer praised prompt follow-through on a callback and part availability, while another reported a defective product return taking a week and a delivery delay of over four weeks versus a promised 7–10 days. Experience scores modestly positive, with mentions of extensive selection, technical knowledge, and the ability to source obscure parts, though the sample is small.

• Very small review sample (7 reviews) spanning over 12 years (2006–2018); most reviews are older than 5 years and none are within the past 12 months, significantly limiting reliability.
• Recency concern: The most recent review is from August 2018. Business practices, staffing, pricing, and service quality may have changed substantially since then.
• No fake review patterns detected; reviews vary in tone, detail, and rating, suggesting authentic individual experiences.
• The 1-star reviews contain specific, credible complaints (defective product, delivery delays, pricing markups) that meaningfully drag down pricing and project completion scores.

This WW Score should be treated with low confidence due to the very small review sample, the wide date range spanning over a decade, and the absence of any reviews from the past several years — the score may not reflect the contractor's current performance.

Millersville Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently discussed dimension and is severely dragged down by multiple credible accounts of no-shows, no-call failures, unresponsive management, and poor communication — despite a meaningful number of positive reviews praising courtesy and responsiveness. Pricing is a significant liability: multiple detailed, specific complaints cite a $200/hour rate perceived as excessive, charges for travel time to get supplies, and a lack of upfront estimates, while some positive reviewers praise fair pricing, creating a polarized picture that lands well below average. Project completion is similarly troubled, with documented cases of incomplete contracted work, property damage left unaddressed, plumbing failures requiring callbacks, and a pattern of owners being unresponsive to follow-up concerns — though some reviewers report jobs completed quickly and cleanly. Experience scores modestly higher due to several credible accounts of skilled diagnostics and problem-solving, but is offset by reviews describing cut corners, accidental damage to HVAC wiring, and sloppy workmanship on larger jobs.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two reviews are near-identical word-for-word (the copper pipe contract complaint appearing under dates 2024-06-09 and 2024-01-30, and the $1000 billing complaint appearing under dates 2024-06-09 and 2023-12-18, and the 'cannot recommend enough' 5-star review appearing under dates 2021-06-10 and 2020-12-04, and the HVAC wire-cutting review appearing under dates 2022-06-10 and 2021-08-17). These duplicates were counted only once each for scoring purposes.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE SIDE: Multiple 5-star reviews from 2021-06-10 and 2022-06-10 contain zero review text (rating only). These blank reviews provide no usable data and inflate the star average without substance. They were excluded from dimension scoring.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE SIDE: Several older 5-star reviews use generic, non-specific praise with no job details (e.g., 'Very responsive and professional! Thank you'). While not conclusive, the pattern of vague praise clustered around certain dates warrants caution.
• RECENCY WARNING: The most recent reviews (2023–2025) skew heavily negative, with the majority of 1-star reviews concentrated in this period. Older reviews (2010–2020) are predominantly positive. This suggests a possible decline in service quality over time. Recent reviews were weighted more heavily in scoring.
• MANAGEMENT RESPONSIVENESS PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe the same behavior — owner Jack Pumphrey being unresponsive to complaints, refusing to address billing disputes, and hanging up on customers. This is a systemic flag, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: At least three separate reviewers explicitly describe being charged without prior estimates or being misled about scope and cost. One reviewer describes what appears to be a bait-and-switch on a garbage disposal replacement.

This WW Score is based on 53 reviews with usable data spanning over a decade, with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions due to mention volume; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given the strong negative trend in recent reviews (2023–2025), the presence of duplicate reviews, and multiple blank 5-star submissions that suggest possible artificial inflation of the overall star rating.

Benjamin Franklin Plumbing presents a deeply split picture across its review history. On professionalism, many recent reviews praise individual technicians — Josh, Kenny, Sam, Kevin — as punctual, polite, and communicative, but this is significantly offset by multiple older and some recent reviews describing rude attitudes, failed appointments, poor communication, and dismissive office staff. Pricing is the most consistently and severely criticized dimension: across multiple independent reviews spanning 2012 to 2025, customers describe quotes that are two to four times competitor prices, refusal to itemize labor and parts, hidden charges, and a service call fee charged even when no work is performed. Project completion is mixed — several reviews confirm jobs were finished well, but there are notable failures including a sewer repair that failed within 18 months, a well tank replacement that did not fix the problem, and an abandoned service call that cost a customer a full day of work. Experience scores moderately well based on recent reviews praising knowledgeable technicians, but is undermined by older accounts of technicians who appeared incompetent or unable to diagnose problems correctly.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: A cluster of 19 reviews all share the exact same date of 2025-05-10, all rated 5.0, many with minimal or no text content. This is a statistically anomalous pattern strongly suggestive of review manipulation or bulk submission. These reviews were counted but treated with reduced individual weight.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 8 reviews contained no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• RECENCY IMBALANCE: The majority of detailed negative reviews are from 2012–2022, while the majority of positive reviews are from 2025. This may reflect genuine improvement over time, or it may reflect the suspicious 2025-05-10 review cluster inflating recent sentiment.
• PRICING PATTERN — SYSTEMIC ISSUE: At least 10 independent reviews across a 13-year span (2012–2025) explicitly describe overcharging, refusal to itemize bills, and quotes far exceeding competitors. This is not isolated — it appears to be a structural business practice.
• ABANDONED SERVICE CALL: One review (2018) documents the company confirming an appointment, failing to show all day, then canceling at 3:45 PM — costing the customer a full day of work. This is a serious project completion failure.
• TECHNICIAN WALKOUT: One 2025 review documents a technician (Jerry) refusing to complete a job and threatening the customer for mentioning a review, which raises serious professionalism and ethical concerns.
• ITEMIZED BILLING REFUSAL: Multiple reviews across different years describe being explicitly refused an itemized breakdown of parts vs. labor costs, which is a recurring and documented business policy complaint.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the volume of reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence of a suspicious bulk-review event on 2025-05-10 and a long-documented pattern of pricing complaints that meaningfully drags down the overall trustworthiness of this contractor for cost-sensitive customers.