Find Nearby Plumbers In Ann Arbor, Michigan

ABC Plumbing shows a genuinely mixed track record across all dimensions. Professionalism is significantly dragged down by two serious no-show incidents (one customer rescheduled twice and Frank never appeared either time) and one reviewer noting mask compliance issues, despite many others praising Frank's friendliness and responsiveness. Pricing is mostly positive — multiple reviewers called it fair or reasonable, and one explicitly noted it was far less than Roto-Rooter — but one reviewer was quoted $1,061 for a job a competitor did for ~$300, which is a serious outlier that cannot be ignored. Project completion suffers from one confirmed failure (charged full price for a problem he could not fix) and the two no-show appointments, though the majority of jobs described were completed successfully and often quickly. Experience scores moderately well given multiple reviewers praised Frank's competence and technical knowledge, but the one instance of failing to resolve the problem while still charging full price tempers that score.

• Two separate no-show incidents reported by one reviewer (Review dated 2020-01-31) — Frank missed a scheduled appointment twice, causing a customer's husband to lose a day of work. This is a significant reliability concern.
• One reviewer (2020-12-09) explicitly states the problem was NOT fixed but Frank still charged full price — a direct project completion and professionalism failure.
• Extreme pricing outlier: one reviewer (2023-12-20) was quoted $1,061 for a toilet wax ring reset that a competitor quoted at ~$300. This is a 3x markup and may indicate inconsistent or opportunistic pricing practices.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months. Only one review (2023-12-20) falls within the past 12 months from a typical 2024 evaluation date, and that review is the most negative one. The bulk of positive reviews are from 2019–2021, meaning recent performance may be worse than the historical average suggests.
• No strong fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, detail, and sentiment, which supports authenticity.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to 13 reviews with usable signals across all four dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given that the most recent review is strongly negative, the majority of positive reviews are 3–5 years old, and there are documented failures in both reliability and job completion.

Edwards Plumbing & Heating demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism from individual technicians, with many reviews praising specific plumbers by name for their knowledge, courtesy, and work quality. However, the company is significantly undermined by pervasive pricing complaints—appearing in over 30% of reviews—with customers consistently reporting charges 2-3x higher than competitors for identical work. Project completion shows mixed results with recurring scheduling failures, no-shows, and follow-up issues. The company exhibits a stark quality variance: excellent individual technician performance contrasts sharply with systemic office/management problems including poor communication, billing disputes, and unresponsiveness to customer concerns.

• PRICING CRISIS: Overwhelming pattern of overcharging complaints across all time periods. Customers report being charged $200-$400 for 15-30 minute jobs, $700+ for simple repairs, and systematic price increases after initial quotes. This is the single largest driver of negative reviews.
• SCHEDULING & COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Systematic pattern of missed appointments, no-call/no-shows, vague time windows, and poor office communication. Multiple reviews describe waiting 2-5+ hours beyond promised windows or being rescheduled multiple times.
• BILLING OPACITY: Recurring complaints about lack of itemized receipts, unclear cost breakdowns, and charges appearing without prior estimates or customer agreement. Several reviews mention being charged for work never authorized.
• MANAGEMENT RESPONSIVENESS: Multiple reviews report difficulty reaching management, unresolved complaints, promised callbacks never received, and dismissive attitudes toward customer concerns.
• QUALITY VARIANCE: Stark inconsistency—some technicians (David D., Mark, Adam, Blake, Connor, etc.) receive glowing praise; others are described as unprofessional, unprepared, or incompetent. This suggests inconsistent hiring/training.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe incomplete work, promised return visits never happening, and customers left with non-functional repairs or unfinished projects.
• POTENTIAL PREDATORY PRACTICES: Several reviews suggest targeting vulnerable customers (elderly women, emergency situations, time-pressured customers) with inflated quotes. One review explicitly mentions 'cash grab' attempts.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Cluster of extremely generic 5-star reviews with minimal detail (e.g., 'Good job', 'Great job', 'Excellent service', single-word reviews) from 2019-2017 period. However, majority of reviews contain specific details and negative reviews are substantive, so overall fake review risk is limited rather than high.

This WW Score of 68.2 is reliable and conservative. The HIGH confidence across all dimensions is based on 142-187 mentions per category from 500 reviews spanning 25+ years. However, this score masks a deeply problematic company: while individual technician skill is genuinely strong (78.5 experience score), systematic failures in pricing transparency, scheduling, and management create a high-risk customer experience. The score reflects the mathematical average of strong technical work undermined by poor business practices. Customers should expect quality workmanship but should be prepared for significant cost overruns, scheduling frustration, and difficulty resolving disputes.

AJ Danboise presents a deeply split profile across its review history. Professionalism scores moderately well because a large number of reviewers explicitly praise individual technicians as courteous, friendly, punctual, and communicative — however, this is significantly offset by a meaningful cluster of reviews citing rude office staff, missed or cancelled appointments, and poor scheduling follow-through. Pricing is the single most damaging dimension: an overwhelming volume of reviews across many years explicitly describe prices as far above market rate, with numerous customers reporting they completed the same work themselves or through competitors for a fraction of the quoted cost; non-itemized invoices and a mandatory service call fee compound this perception. Project completion scores moderately, as most jobs described were ultimately finished, but there are notable exceptions including incomplete work, a callback required due to a faulty installation, and at least one case of abandoned or improperly completed work. Experience scores similarly to professionalism — many reviewers praise individual technicians as knowledgeable and skilled, but a recurring pattern of misdiagnosis, upselling unnecessary replacements, and at least one confirmed improper installation (AAV not to code) prevents a higher score.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH SEVERITY: Pricing is the most consistently and explicitly criticized dimension across the entire review history spanning 2006–2025. Dozens of independent reviewers across different years describe prices as 2x to 10x competitor quotes for identical work. This is not a matter of a few outliers; it is a systemic pattern.
• MISDIAGNOSIS / UPSELL PATTERN: Multiple reviews across different years describe technicians recommending unnecessary full replacements (furnaces, AC units, boilers, sump pumps) when simpler and cheaper fixes were available. At least two reviews describe confirmed false diagnoses (boiler carbon monoxide claim, shower valve misidentification). This pattern is concerning and recurring.
• SCHEDULING / NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 8 reviews explicitly describe missed appointments, late arrivals without notice, or cancelled appointments with no apology or compensation. This is a recurring operational issue.
• NON-ITEMIZED INVOICING: Multiple reviews across many years note that AJ Danboise refuses to provide itemized invoices breaking out parts vs. labor. This practice is cited as a specific concern enabling overcharging and is mentioned independently by many reviewers.
• PREDATORY PRICING TOWARD VULNERABLE CUSTOMERS: At least 3 reviews explicitly allege that technicians targeted elderly customers or women with inflated quotes, including one review about an 87-year-old mother quoted $5,800 for a system another company installed for $3,900.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A significant number of reviews contain no text (only a star rating of 5.0), and several contain only 'unknown' as text. These blank/placeholder reviews are not usable for scoring but inflate the raw review count. Additionally, a cluster of 5-star reviews dated 2006-03-23 are written in all-caps with very generic praise and no specifics, suggesting possible bulk submission. These were excluded from scoring confidence calculations.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews from 2025 and 2024 are predominantly positive (4–5 stars), while the bulk of negative reviews span 2011–2022. This may indicate genuine service improvement in recent years, but the volume of older negative reviews — particularly on pricing — is too large to ignore and is still relevant to the overall score.
• LEGAL / ETHICAL FLAG: One review (2021-12-30) describes an $8,000 system sold for the wrong application (city water system for a well property) with a threatened lien and active legal proceedings. This is a serious allegation that, if accurate, represents significant ethical and legal risk.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over 15 years with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; the score of 62.4 should be considered a reliable representation of the contractor's mixed track record, with particular caution warranted around pricing transparency and the upsell/misdiagnosis pattern documented across many independent reviewers.

Associated Plumbing has a loyal long-term customer base and many reviewers praise individual technicians like Mark, James, and Jim for being skilled, courteous, and efficient. However, a significant and recurring pattern of serious complaints drags down every dimension: multiple reviewers describe being charged service call fees ($133–$150) with no work performed, receiving no follow-up estimates after promised callbacks, and experiencing price changes without prior approval. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple explicit complaints about hidden charges, price gouging, and quotes that doubled without customer consent. Project completion is also notably impacted by several reviews describing abandoned assessments and unkept promises to deliver estimates. Professionalism scores moderately due to a split between genuinely positive technician interactions and documented failures in communication, responsiveness, and business integrity at the management level.

• 5 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a 5-star rating. These blank reviews provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring. Their presence slightly inflates the perceived star average.
• Several reviews share the exact same date of 2024-06-09 and 2023-06-10 and 2021-06-10, which may indicate batch imports or review migration rather than organic submission. This does not confirm fraud but warrants caution.
• A recurring and specific complaint pattern exists across multiple independent reviews spanning 2012–2024: customers charged $74–$150 service call fees with no work done and no follow-up estimate ever delivered. This is a systemic operational issue, not isolated incidents.
• One review (2023, drain cleaning) explicitly describes a price being changed from $250 to $454 without customer approval and technicians refusing to leave until paid — a serious business conduct concern.
• The most recent negative reviews (2024–2025) suggest the responsiveness and follow-through issues have not been resolved over time, reducing confidence that older positive reviews reflect current service quality.
• Several older reviews (pre-2020) are given reduced weight per recency rules. The majority of detailed negative reviews span 2018–2024, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.

This WW Score is based on 43 reviews with usable content spanning over a decade and carries HIGH overall confidence due to mention volume, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given a well-documented and recurring pattern of billing disputes, failed follow-through, and unresolved customer complaints that appear across multiple years and multiple reviewers independently.

This contractor shows strong professionalism and fair pricing based on three reviews praising courtesy, promptness, and reasonable rates. However, a critical no-show incident with no follow-up severely impacts project completion reliability. Two positive reviews mention quick problem-solving and quality work, but the small sample size and presence of a major reliability failure create significant uncertainty. The WW Score of 68.8 reflects strong technical capability undermined by a serious accountability gap.

• CRITICAL: One review (2021-08-15) reports a no-show appointment with no callback—contractor did not honor commitment despite reconfirmation. This is a severe project completion failure.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Three of four reviews are from 2021 (over 2 years old). Only one review is from 2023. Limited recent data to assess current performance.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews total. Confidence in overall score is inherently limited.

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size, age of most reviews, and the presence of a critical no-show incident that directly contradicts the positive feedback on other dimensions. Recent performance data is needed to validate whether reliability issues have been addressed.

Fenton Mechanical shows significant inconsistency across reviews, with strong recent positive feedback on pricing and responsiveness offset by serious concerns about project completion and technical execution. Multiple reviews explicitly cite incomplete work, no-shows, and poor workmanship (frozen hoses, equipment failures, excessive time on site), while others praise affordability and owner responsiveness. The 2024 positive review and 2020 batch suggest recent improvement, but older negative reviews (2021-2022) document systemic issues with job follow-through and technician training. The business ethics concern (unpaid invoice) is unrelated to plumbing services but raises reputational questions.

• CRITICAL: One review (2024-04-30) alleges owner refused to pay for $800 business shirt order from local vendor—this is a business ethics/character issue unrelated to plumbing services but suggests potential integrity concerns.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews are 2-3+ years old (2021-2022); most recent reviews (2024, 2020) are positive. This suggests either genuine improvement or potential review manipulation.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Stark contrast between 5-star reviews praising speed/affordability and 1-3 star reviews documenting incomplete work, no-shows, and poor technician training. This pattern suggests inconsistent service delivery across jobs or technicians.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: Multiple explicit mentions of abandoned work, no-shows without communication, and jobs requiring multiple return trips due to poor planning (frozen hoses, missing equipment).
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERNS: Lead plumber described as lacking professional attitude; no-show with no communication; frozen equipment in winter suggests poor preparation and planning.

This score should be treated with caution due to high volatility in review quality and age disparity; the MODERATE overall confidence reflects conflicting signals between recent positive feedback and documented systemic issues in project completion and technician competency from 2-3 years ago. Recommend requesting recent references and clarifying service guarantees before engagement.