Find Nearby Plumbers In Baltimore, Maryland

Stilwell Plumbing demonstrates critically poor performance across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is severely compromised by rude and unprofessional staff, missed appointments without communication, technicians arriving intoxicated, and hostile interactions with customers. Project completion is consistently problematic, with multiple no-shows, incomplete work, abandoned jobs, and failure to follow through on callbacks. Pricing practices are deceptive, featuring hidden charges, inflated estimates, double-billing, and unnecessary upsells. While technical experience is occasionally mentioned positively (one 5-star review noted 40 years of expertise), the overwhelming majority of reviews document incompetence, lack of proper tools, and inability to diagnose or fix problems correctly. Only 2 of 26 reviews are positive; the remaining 24 are 1-star ratings documenting systemic failures.

• SEVERE PATTERN OF COMPLAINTS: 24 of 26 reviews are 1-star ratings with detailed, specific complaints—not generic criticism. This is not a fake review pattern but rather consistent documentation of genuine service failures.
• RECURRING THEMES ACROSS YEARS (2015–2023): No-shows, missed callbacks, rude staff, incomplete work, and overcharging appear repeatedly across an 8-year span, indicating systemic organizational problems rather than isolated incidents.
• INTOXICATED TECHNICIAN: One review (2019-12-16) documents a technician arriving intoxicated and smelling of liquor—a serious safety and professionalism violation.
• HOSTILE CUSTOMER SERVICE: Multiple reviews document staff hanging up on customers, refusing to provide names, screaming, and using hostile language. One manager (Chrissy Stillwell, per 2018-08-10 review) allegedly screamed at a customer and told them to 'make sure you put that in there.'
• DOUBLE-BILLING AND PRICE GOUGING: Multiple reviews document inflated pricing, unnecessary upsells, charging for 'code upgrades' that were not required, and charging twice for the same work.
• WORK NOT COMPLETED: Numerous reviews document jobs left unfinished, parts never ordered despite promises, technicians leaving mid-job, and customers being charged for incomplete work.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Consistent pattern of unreturned calls, missed appointments without notification, and failure to follow up on estimates or callbacks.
• TWO POSITIVE REVIEWS (2023-12-14, 2018-12-12): Both mention professional, courteous technicians and completed work. However, these are vastly outnumbered and do not offset the systemic pattern of failures documented in 24 other reviews.

This WW Score of 28.4 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 26 reviews with extensive, specific documentation of failures across all dimensions. The consistency of negative patterns over 8 years, combined with detailed accounts of no-shows, incomplete work, rude staff, and overcharging, provides overwhelming evidence of systemic service failure. The two positive reviews do not contradict this pattern but rather appear as exceptions. This company presents significant risk to customers.

Murray's Plumbing and Heating receives overwhelmingly negative reviews across all four scored dimensions, with a small but consistent cluster of positive experiences preventing scores from reaching the floor. Professionalism is severely damaged by repeated accounts of rude technicians, an owner who curses at and hangs up on customers, a dismissive receptionist, and technicians who appear to prioritize collecting the home warranty dispatch fee over performing actual work. Pricing is one of the most damning dimensions: numerous reviewers independently documented specific line-item markups — permits quoted at $150 when the county charges $35, expansion tanks at $300 when retail cost is $40 — constituting a clear and documented pattern of price gouging. Project completion is critically low, with many reviewers reporting that jobs were left unfinished, that problems worsened after service, that callbacks were ignored for months, and that work was deliberately misdiagnosed to avoid completion. Technical experience scores marginally higher only because a handful of reviewers (often citing specific technicians like Al, Jeremy, Ray Sr., or George on good days) reported competent and knowledgeable service, but this is far outweighed by accounts of misdiagnosis, improper repairs causing flooding, and technicians who lacked basic trade knowledge.

• STRONG FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: Several 5-star reviews share suspiciously similar structure — praising named technicians (Jeremy, Ray Sr., Al, Alan, Dontay) with enthusiastic but generic language, arriving in clusters around the same time periods. The ratio of detailed 1-star reviews to generic 5-star reviews is highly asymmetric.
• PATTERN OF PRICE GOUGING: At least 8 independent reviewers documented specific, verifiable price inflation on permits, parts, and labor — often 3x to 10x actual market cost. This is not isolated; it appears to be a systemic business practice.
• PATTERN OF DELIBERATE NON-COMPLETION: Multiple reviewers across different years describe technicians who appeared to intentionally misdiagnose or refuse to complete work in order to collect the home warranty dispatch fee and leave. This pattern is consistent and spans 2016–2024.
• OWNER CONDUCT: Multiple reviewers report the owner (Ray/Raymond) personally cursing at customers, hanging up on them, sending threatening texts, and publicly disclosing personal information in review responses. This is a significant professionalism red flag at the leadership level.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE: Several reviewers report that Murray's technicians caused new damage during service calls — flooding basements, scratching toilets, breaking shower handles, loosening drain fittings — and the company refused to accept responsibility.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span 2016–2024. Negative patterns are consistent across all years with no clear improvement trend. The most recent reviews (2024) continue to document price gouging and incomplete work, suggesting no meaningful operational reform.
• REVIEW DATE RANGE: All 72 reviews were analyzed. Reviews from the past 12 months (late 2023–2024) account for approximately 12 reviews and are consistent in tone with older reviews — no recency improvement detected.

This WW Score of 28.1 is based on 72 reviews with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, and should be considered a reliable and conservative representation of this contractor's performance — the score may even be slightly inflated due to a suspected minority of fake or incentivized 5-star reviews.

The reviews paint a predominantly negative picture of Melroy's reliability and follow-through. Three of four reviews describe serious failures in professionalism — including a dismissive attitude when canceling a confirmed appointment, failure to return calls after promising to do so, and abandoning a second job mid-visit without follow-up. Project completion is a major concern, with multiple reviewers describing jobs that were left unfinished or estimates that were never delivered. The one positive review is a genuine bright spot, praising honest diagnosis and skilled problem-solving, but it is insufficient to offset the pattern of failures across the other three reviews.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and low-reliability.
• Three of four reviews describe a pattern of poor follow-through: no callbacks, canceled appointments, and abandoned jobs. This is a consistent and credible negative signal.
• The single 5-star review is detailed and specific, suggesting it is genuine, but it is outnumbered 3-to-1 by negative experiences.
• One review is from 2015, which is significantly older than the others. It has been considered but given reduced weight due to age.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in tone, detail, and rating, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning 8 years and should be treated as a limited-confidence signal; the score directionally reflects real concerns but cannot be considered statistically reliable.

Abbott Brothers receives overwhelmingly negative feedback across nearly all dimensions. Professionalism is severely damaged by repeated no-show appointments with no communication, a foreman described as intoxicated on the job and exhibiting misogynistic behavior, unanswered phone calls, and a pattern of going silent after collecting payment. Project completion is a critical failure point, with multiple reviewers describing abandoned or incomplete work, a $3,000 deposit never refunded, and a repair that failed catastrophically during the next rain event. Workmanship quality is consistently poor, with one reviewer forced to redo concrete work for improperly set drains and another suffering ongoing basement flooding traced directly to the company's faulty repair. The only positive signals come from two older reviews — one from 2016 and one from early 2024 — which describe courteous technicians and efficient work, but these are far outweighed by the volume and severity of negative accounts.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of negative reviews span 2020–2024, indicating persistent and ongoing problems rather than isolated historical incidents. The one positive 2024 review is a notable outlier against this trend.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The only fully positive review is from 2016 and is now over 8 years old. It should be treated as low-relevance to current business quality.
• PATTERN FLAG: Multiple reviews independently describe the same failure mode — collecting payment or a dispatch fee and then ceasing communication — which suggests a systemic business practice rather than isolated incidents.
• SERIOUS SAFETY/CONDUCT FLAG: One review credibly alleges a foreman arrived to perform repairs while smelling of alcohol. This is a significant safety and liability concern.
• FINANCIAL MISCONDUCT FLAG: One reviewer explicitly states they were not refunded a $3,000 deposit after work was deemed unnecessary, with no callbacks provided.
• NO FAKE REVIEW CONCERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary significantly in tone, detail, specificity, and rating. No suspicious patterns of coordinated or fabricated reviews were identified.

This WW Score carries MODERATE-to-HIGH reliability given that 7 reviews were analyzed, most dimensions have 5+ mentions, and the negative feedback is highly specific, consistent across multiple independent reviewers, and spans multiple years — however, the small total review count means a larger dataset could meaningfully shift this score.

The review set is extremely small (only 3 reviews spanning 2014–2015), making any score highly provisional. One strongly positive review praises honesty, speed, and reliable repairs over nearly 30 years, including responsive 24-hour service. However, two 1-star reviews describe serious concerns: one alleges significant price gouging on both labor and parts for an elderly customer with no transparency, and another describes a plumber who failed to diagnose a basic leak, caused unnecessary property damage by cutting drywall, and charged for unproductive work. The negative reviews drag all four dimensions down substantially, particularly pricing and project completion. All reviews are older than 9 years, which severely limits their relevance to current performance.

• ALL REVIEWS ARE OLDER THAN 9 YEARS (2014–2015): These scores reflect historical performance only and should not be treated as indicative of current service quality.
• VERY SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews total. No reliable conclusions can be drawn about consistent patterns.
• PRICING CONCERN: One review provides specific, detailed evidence of alleged overcharging — labor billed beyond actual time worked, and parts marked up significantly above distributor cost. Customer reported no pricing options were offered prior to work.
• POOR COMPLAINT RESOLUTION: When pricing concerns were raised, the company representative (Angelo) was reportedly dismissive, reducing confidence in professionalism and customer service.
• COMPETENCY CONCERN: One review describes a plumber who failed to identify a basic refrigerator ice-maker hose leak, instead cutting unnecessary drywall — suggesting a possible diagnostic failure.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews are varied in tone, detail level, and rating, suggesting authentic authorship.

This WW Score carries very low reliability due to only 3 reviews, all of which are over 9 years old, providing an insufficient and outdated basis for assessing current contractor performance.

Catons Plumbing receives overwhelmingly negative reviews across all four dimensions, with pricing being the single most consistent and severe complaint across the entire review set. Dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges they characterize as outrageous, deceptive, or far above market rate, including extreme material markups, hourly rates exceeding $250-$375, and flat fees for trivial work. Project completion is deeply problematic, with numerous accounts of unfinished jobs, repeat visits that failed to resolve the original issue, work that created new damage, and abandoned or ignored callbacks. Professionalism scores are dragged down by widespread reports of rude technicians and managers, no-show appointments without notice, poor communication, and a pattern of management being unresponsive to complaints. Experience scores reflect a recurring pattern of misdiagnosis, incorrect repairs, damage caused during service calls, and dispatching of unqualified or inexperienced technicians to jobs beyond their skill level. The small number of positive reviews (approximately 10 out of 75) praise individual technicians by name and tend to be older or describe straightforward jobs, but they are vastly outnumbered by detailed, specific negative accounts.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN — LOW RISK: The positive reviews (approximately 10) are spread across multiple years, reference specific technician names, and contain varied language. They do not appear to be coordinated fake reviews. However, the ratio of positive to negative is extreme (~13% positive), and the positive reviews are notably brief and generic compared to the highly detailed negative ones.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews span 2010–2024, with the most recent negative reviews dated October 2024 and September 2024, indicating the problems described are ongoing and not historical. Reviews from the past 12 months (2024) are consistently negative, suggesting no meaningful improvement in service quality.
• PATTERN FLAG — PRICING DECEPTION: A statistically significant number of reviewers (20+) independently describe a pattern of prices being withheld until a technician is on-site, followed by charges they describe as far exceeding market rates. This is corroborated by a 2015 review explicitly documenting that customer service representatives are company-policy-blocked from disclosing hourly rates in advance.
• PATTERN FLAG — DAMAGE CAUSED BY TECHNICIANS: Multiple independent reviews describe new damage caused during service calls (drilled drain lines, pierced radiant heat pipes, broken toilet couplings, damaged ceilings, broken shower covers) with the company subsequently refusing to accept responsibility or provide compensation.
• PATTERN FLAG — INCOMPLETE WORK AND REPEAT VISITS: At least 10 reviews describe jobs requiring 3–8 return visits without resolution, suggesting a systemic issue with technician skill level and quality control rather than isolated incidents.
• PATTERN FLAG — MANAGEMENT UNRESPONSIVENESS: At least 8 reviews independently describe leaving multiple voicemails or emails for the general manager with no response, suggesting a deliberate or systemic failure in complaint escalation.
• OWNERSHIP NOTE: Multiple reviewers note that Catons is affiliated with or owned by Roto-Rooter, which may be relevant context for consumers researching the company.

This WW Score is based on 75 reviews spanning 2010–2024, with strong representation from the past 24 months, and carries HIGH confidence — the volume, specificity, and consistency of negative feedback across all four dimensions makes this score a reliable indicator of poor overall contractor performance.