Find Nearby Plumbers In Ann Arbor, Michigan

Edwards Plumbing & Heating shows a deeply polarized customer base with significant quality and reliability issues. While technicians often demonstrate competence and professionalism (68.5/100), the company is severely hampered by egregious pricing practices (38.2/100) and chronic project completion failures (54.8/100). Customers consistently report being overcharged by 2-4x market rates, billed for incomplete work, and experiencing repeated no-shows and scheduling failures. The company's experience level is solid (71.3/100), but this is undermined by poor follow-through, lack of accountability, and management unresponsiveness. The overall WW Score of 52.3 reflects a company that cannot be reliably trusted despite occasional competent technicians.

• CRITICAL: Extreme pricing complaints dominate negative reviews—customers report charges of $3,000+ for water heaters retailing at $800-1,300, $500+ for simple toilet repairs, and systematic overcharging across all service categories.
• CRITICAL: Chronic project completion failures—numerous reviews document incomplete work, multiple no-shows, rescheduling delays spanning weeks or months, and abandoned jobs requiring customers to hire competitors.
• CRITICAL: Management accountability failure—repeated complaints of unanswered calls, broken promises to call back, supervisors refusing to engage, and owner unresponsiveness despite escalation attempts.
• HIGH: Deceptive billing practices—customers report being charged without prior estimates, hidden fees appearing on final bills, refusal to provide itemized invoices, and charges for work never performed.
• HIGH: Scheduling system dysfunction—consistent pattern of 3-4 hour appointment windows with late arrivals, no-call no-shows, and technicians arriving unprepared without necessary tools or parts.
• HIGH: Quality control issues—multiple reports of incorrect diagnoses leading to unnecessary expensive repairs, work that failed immediately after completion, and damage caused during service (broken windows, damaged pipes, flooded basements).
• MODERATE: Potential fake review pattern—cluster of 5-star reviews from June 2025 with generic praise and minimal detail, though balanced by substantial volume of detailed negative reviews across multiple years.
• MODERATE: Financing fraud allegations—customers report being charged 20% interest on zero-interest financing agreements and difficulty obtaining refunds on cancelled deposits.

This WW Score of 52.3 is highly reliable given the large sample size (500 reviews, 487 usable) and consistent patterns across all dimensions, but the score masks a company with severe structural problems in pricing transparency, project management, and customer accountability that make it unsuitable for most customers despite occasional competent technicians.

Practical Plumbing presents a deeply divided picture across all four dimensions. On the positive side, a substantial number of reviewers — many of them long-term customers — praise Jim's responsiveness, courteous demeanor, fair pricing, and solid workmanship on routine jobs. However, a serious and recurring pattern of negative reviews significantly drags down every dimension: multiple independent reviewers allege that Jim diagnosed expensive, unnecessary repairs (ranging from $2,000–$4,300) without using a camera, collected upfront deposits, and then either failed to return or refused refunds. Professionalism is further undermined by multiple accounts of Jim becoming aggressive, confrontational, and hanging up on customers when questioned about his work or billing. Project completion suffers from documented instances of abandoned jobs, repeated cancellations, and work left incomplete. On the experience dimension, at least two separate reviewers had second opinions confirm that Jim's diagnoses were entirely wrong, and one detailed review describes a hot water tank installation that blocked a drain and was left non-functional. The score reflects a contractor who may perform adequately on simple jobs but carries significant and well-documented risk on larger projects.

• SERIOUS FRAUD PATTERN: At least four independent reviewers across different time periods (2014, 2023, 2024) allege that Jim diagnosed costly unnecessary repairs ($2,000–$4,300) without camera inspection, collected upfront cash deposits, and then failed to return or refused refunds. This is a consistent and specific pattern, not isolated complaints.
• LICENSING CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly states Jim is unlicensed in Michigan; another states he is only a licensed apprentice who cannot pull permits. A third negative reviewer advises finding someone 'licensed and insured.' This is a significant red flag that was not rebutted in any positive review.
• AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR: Multiple reviewers independently describe Jim becoming confrontational, aggressive, or hanging up on customers when questioned about pricing or work quality. This is corroborated across at least three separate reviews.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with identical text (the Warren seniors scam review) appear with dates 2023-07-18 and 2023-07-19 — one slightly longer with the licensing note added. These appear to be the same reviewer posting twice and were counted as one unique incident for scoring purposes.
• BLANK/USELESS REVIEWS: Two reviews contained no text (only a 5-star rating) and one contained only a period. These were excluded from dimensional scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most serious fraud and misconduct allegations are concentrated in the most recent reviews (2023–2024), suggesting the situation may have worsened over time rather than improved. Older positive reviews (2012–2018) may not reflect current service quality.
• POSSIBLE NAME DISCREPANCY: One positive review references 'Tim at Practical Plumbing' and another references 'Chris and Practical Plumbing' and another references 'Todd' — it is unclear if these are different employees or if some reviews may belong to a different business entirely, which could artificially inflate positive scores.
• GEOGRAPHIC INCONSISTENCY: One review references Park Ridge/Northwest Chicago area, while the majority of reviews reference Metro Detroit/St. Clair Shores/Warren Michigan. This raises the possibility that some reviews may be for a different business with a similar name, contaminating the dataset.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to review volume, but the score itself should be treated with serious caution given the documented pattern of alleged fraud, licensing concerns, aggressive behavior, and the possibility that some positive reviews belong to a different business — prospective customers should exercise significant due diligence before hiring.

This contractor shows significant polarization in customer experience. Two reviews (2018-2019) describe serious professionalism issues including alleged discriminatory behavior, rudeness, and poor judgment, while two reviews (2018) praise punctuality, honesty, and work quality. The professionalism score is dragged down by explicit accounts of irate behavior and inappropriate questioning, though offset by positive interpersonal feedback in other reviews. Project completion data is sparse and mixed—one review suggests selective job rejection, while another indicates timely completion. Experience is rated moderately based on mentions of technical honesty and efficiency, but the small sample size limits confidence.

• CRITICAL: Review dated 2019-03-11 contains detailed allegations of discriminatory profiling and unprofessional conduct (raising voice, making snap judgments, insinuating customer cannot pay). This is a serious red flag for professionalism and potential bias.
• POLARIZATION DETECTED: Extreme rating variance (1-star and 5-star reviews with no middle ground) suggests either highly inconsistent service delivery or potential selection bias in review submission.
• SELECTIVE JOB REJECTION: Review dated 2018-08-14 indicates contractor frequently declined work ('I pass, I pass'), raising questions about reliability and willingness to serve customers.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are from 2018-2019 (5+ years old). No recent reviews available to assess current service quality or whether issues have been addressed.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews total limits statistical reliability. Scores should be treated as preliminary indicators rather than definitive assessments.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size, extreme polarization, serious professionalism allegations in one review, and age of reviews (5+ years). The MODERATE overall confidence reflects conflicting evidence and insufficient recent data to establish current service standards.

Pat's Sewer Cleaning has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most consistently problematic area. Multiple reviews describe the owner (Scott) as rude, dismissive, and prone to hanging up on customers or using abusive language, including one account of a manager calling a customer a profane name. Project completion is similarly troubled, with documented no-shows, cancelled appointments without notice, failed video inspections, and at least one instance of work left incomplete or potentially not performed at all. On the positive side, a subset of reviews — particularly older ones and those involving field technicians rather than the owner — describe courteous, skilled workers who arrived promptly and resolved issues effectively. Pricing feedback is split: some customers praised fair or competitive pricing and transparency, while others reported being charged for incomplete work or receiving inflated quotes that were dramatically undercut by competitors. The overall picture is of a company with capable field staff but serious and recurring issues at the ownership and management level.

• Several 5-star reviews lack specific detail and use generic praise (e.g., 'fast and nice,' 'always treated well'), which may indicate reviews from friends or family as one reviewer explicitly alleged.
• One review consists only of a period ('.') with a 4-star rating and provides no usable data — excluded from scoring.
• One review marked 'unknown' with a 5-star rating provides no usable data — excluded from scoring.
• The majority of reviews are older than 1 year relative to the most recent review date (2023-12-20); many are from 2009–2016, which significantly reduces their relevance to current business quality.
• The two most recent reviews (2023) are contradictory — one is highly positive and one is highly negative — suggesting inconsistent service quality persists to the present day.
• At least one reviewer explicitly accused the company of having friends and family write positive reviews, which aligns with the pattern of vague, undetailed 5-star reviews observed in this dataset.
• One review alleges that sewer snaking and scoping were documented as completed but may never have been performed, raising a potential fraud concern.

This WW Score is based on 24 reviews spanning approximately 17 years, with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but reliability is moderated by the age of most reviews, credible allegations of fake positive reviews, and a stark and consistent divide between owner/management behavior and field technician performance.

Booth Plumbing receives sharply divided feedback across all dimensions. Professionalism is a significant weak point: while two reviewers praise promptness and communication, three others cite slow call-backs, unauthorized repairs, hidden fees, and a refusal to stand behind their work. Pricing is the most consistently negative dimension, with five of six reviewers explicitly calling the company expensive, and one detailing labor costs nearly double what was quoted along with undisclosed charges. Project completion is mixed — the leak repair was completed, but one reviewer reports new problems created by the work and a refusal to honor a callback, which is a serious flag. Experience scores modestly positive, with two reviewers praising workmanship quality and code adherence, while one questions competence (charging to read installation instructions) and another reports recurring problems post-repair.

• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: One reviewer documented labor charges nearly double the quoted rate ($198/hr vs $100/hr quoted), plus undisclosed apprentice and service fees — this is a significant red flag for hidden charges.
• UNAUTHORIZED WORK: One reviewer reports Booth performed and billed for repairs that were never requested, and the owner refused to adjust the invoice — a serious professionalism and ethics concern.
• WARRANTY/CALLBACK REFUSAL: One reviewer explicitly states Booth refused to stand by their work when problems recurred after service — this heavily penalizes the project completion score.
• REVIEW AGE WARNING: All six reviews are dated between 2011 and 2016 — the most recent is from September 2016, meaning all reviews are more than 7 years old. This data may not reflect current business practices. Treat with caution.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 6 reviews are available. While the WW Score has been calculated, the small sample size limits reliability. Scores based on 4–5 mentions are treated as MODERATE confidence at best.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in tone, detail, rating, and writing style. Negative reviews contain specific dollar amounts and incident details. No artificial inflation suspected.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the small review pool of only 6 reviews and the fact that all reviews are over 7 years old, making it difficult to assess the contractor's current quality or practices.

The reviews present a deeply mixed picture of Ace Handyman Services. Professionalism scores moderately — punctuality and friendliness are consistently noted, but one review describes a deceptive signature practice and poor communication around job scope, dragging the score down significantly. Pricing is a clear weak point, with multiple reviewers independently describing costs as expensive or outrageous, including a $120/hour rate plus a $70 trip fee that drew strong criticism. Project completion is a serious concern: one reviewer explicitly states jobs were not finished and a refund was still pending, and another describes a faucet left actively leaking after the technician departed, requiring days to resolve. Experience is inconsistent — some technicians demonstrated solid problem-solving, while others left work in worse condition than they found it, including a sink debacle that required a supervisor to intervene and still only returned to the starting point.

• Only 4 reviews analyzed — sample size is too small for high-confidence conclusions; scores should be treated as directional only.
• Two of the four reviews are from 2021 and 2022, making them over 2 years old; the most recent negative review (June 2024) and most recent positive review (September 2024) are the most relevant data points.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary significantly in tone, detail, and rating, suggesting authentic responses.
• The 1-star review describes potential deceptive practices (signature obtained under misleading pretense, refund withheld for incomplete/poor work) — this is a serious flag beyond mere dissatisfaction.
• The 3-star review documents a job left in a worse state than found (actively leaking faucet) and a final charge exceeding the estimate by $100 — indicating both workmanship and pricing transparency issues.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning three years and should be considered LOW reliability — the score directionally suggests below-average performance on pricing and project completion, but a minimum of 10–15 recent reviews would be needed to draw confident conclusions.