Find Nearby Plumbers In Ann Arbor, Michigan

This contractor shows significant inconsistency in service delivery. Two recent reviews (2024, 2018) praise quick response, professional installation, and skilled workmanship, while a 2017 review documents severe failures in emergency responsiveness, communication, and follow-through on a $7,000 project. Professionalism scores are dragged down by the documented weekend closure communication failure and lack of callback accountability. Pricing appears fair based on limited mentions, but the value proposition is undermined by poor service recovery. Project completion is mixed—successful installations offset by abandonment during emergency situations.

• FAKE REVIEW DETECTED: Review dated 2018-02-23 appears to be written by an employee, not a customer. Uses insider language ('we are family owned'), defends against 'fake reviews' unprompted, and makes sweeping claims about company practices. This review should be heavily discounted.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two of four reviews are from 2017-2018 (6-7 years old). Only one review from past 12 months. Historical data may not reflect current operations.
• CRITICAL SERVICE FAILURE: 2017 review documents multi-day emergency response failure on major purchase ($7,000), with company blaming customer for calling on weekends. This is a severe professionalism and project completion failure.
• CONFLICTING NARRATIVES: Employee review claims company 'never leaves someone waiting with a leak' directly contradicts documented 2017 leak emergency where customer waited 4+ days.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited review volume (4 total), presence of a likely fake employee review, and significant age of 50% of data. The documented emergency service failure is credible and serious, but overall assessment is based on insufficient recent independent customer feedback to establish reliable confidence in current performance.

Fortified Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews. Two highly positive reviews (2024, 2023) praise professionalism, communication, technical knowledge, and thorough project completion, with one describing exceptional service on a complex drain replacement. However, two negative reviews (2023, 2022) document serious failures: missed appointments with no communication, inability to diagnose problems correctly, and a costly misdiagnosis where an unnecessary $825 pump was installed due to failure to identify an electrical issue. The pattern suggests either inconsistent service quality or variable crew performance. Pricing concerns emerge from both negative reviews, with customers feeling overcharged for failed or unnecessary work.

• CRITICAL: Two 1-star reviews document severe service failures including no-show appointments, failed communication, and a major diagnostic error ($825 unnecessary pump installation). These are not minor complaints but represent fundamental business failures.
• Inconsistency flag: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews and damning 1-star reviews suggests either highly variable service quality depending on crew assignment, or that different customers have vastly different experiences with this company.
• Diagnostic competency concern: 2022 review shows technician misidentified electrical problem as pump failure, resulting in customer paying $825 for unnecessary equipment. This raises questions about technical vetting and quality control.
• Communication failures documented: 2023 review explicitly states late arrival with no phone call and complete no-show on scheduled callback with no contact. This is a pattern issue, not isolated incident.
• Recency note: Most recent review (2024) is positive, but negative reviews span 2022-2023, suggesting ongoing issues may or may not have been addressed.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to extreme polarization in reviews (two 5-stars, two 1-stars) and small sample size (n=4). The score of 62.8 reflects genuine service quality concerns documented in negative reviews, but the MODERATE overall confidence reflects insufficient data volume and the possibility that service quality varies significantly by crew or job type. Prospective customers should carefully review the specific negative incidents before engaging this company.

Allied Plumbing & Sewer shows a mixed performance profile across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a serious unresolved callback failure (the 2016 leaking pipe review), a prolonged dispute over post-job cleanup (the 2015 backyard leveling review), and a detailed 2013 complaint alleging overcharging, refusal to provide an itemized invoice, and possible theft of materials — all of which represent serious integrity concerns. Pricing receives a below-average score due to the 2013 review alleging unjustifiable material charges totaling $600 with no documentation provided, though some other reviewers noted reasonable or upfront pricing. Project completion is penalized because at least two reviews describe work that was either not fully resolved (ongoing leak after $300+ spent) or follow-through obligations that were disputed and delayed. Experience scores moderately positively, as several reviewers praised the technical approach including camera diagnostics and thorough explanations, and at least one reviewer confirmed the repair ultimately solved a long-standing basement flooding problem.

• Two reviews contain only the word 'unknown' with 5-star ratings and no review text — these provide no usable data and were excluded from scoring.
• The 2013 review (Mary Seraphinoff) alleges potential theft of a purchased fixture, refusal to provide itemized invoices or proof of insurance, and unjustifiable material charges. This is a serious integrity flag.
• The 2016 review describes a failed repair costing $300+ with the contractor going weeks without returning a callback — a significant project completion and professionalism failure.
• The 2015 review describes a post-job dispute where the owner initially refused to return to level excavated dirt without additional payment, contradicting a verbal promise made at time of service.
• Most reviews are dated between 2013 and 2017, with no reviews from the past several years. The score should be treated with caution as it does not reflect recent performance.
• The oldest review (2006) is over 18 years old and was given minimal weight in scoring due to extreme age.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the two 'unknown' blank reviews with 5-star ratings are suspicious and were excluded.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a reasonable mention count across dimensions, but should be interpreted cautiously given the age of all reviews (none within the past 7+ years), two uninformative blank reviews, and multiple serious complaints involving alleged overcharging, non-responsiveness, and a potential theft allegation that meaningfully lower confidence in this contractor's integrity.

On Hand Mechanical shows genuine capability when they follow through — positive reviews highlight timely scheduling, quality workmanship, and polite technicians. However, two reviews (one from 2022, one from 2021) describe serious follow-through failures: a customer paid $150 for an assessment and was then ghosted on a written quote and scheduling, while another waited days for a quote callback that never came. These are not minor complaints — they represent a pattern of communication breakdown and incomplete project follow-through that significantly drags down the professionalism and project completion scores. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) are more positive, which may suggest some improvement, but the small sample size limits confidence in that trend.

• Two reviews explicitly describe being ghosted or ignored after initial contact — one customer paid $150 and never received a written quote or scheduled install (2022), another made multiple calls and received no response after an estimate visit (2021). This is a significant reliability concern.
• Review volume is very low (6 total). Scores and the WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully representative of consistent service quality.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months. Only 2 of 6 reviews are from the past 12 months (2023–2024). Recency weighting limits confidence in current performance.
• No reviews mention pricing in detail except one (fair price noted). Pricing score is based on very limited data and should not be heavily relied upon.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to a small review pool of only 6 reviews, a documented pattern of follow-through failures in older reviews, and the majority of data being more than 12 months old — prospective customers should seek additional references before hiring.

Mr. Root Out shows a mixed performance profile across a very small review set. Three of four reviews praise timely arrival, effective diagnosis, and successful drain clearing, suggesting solid technical capability in routine drain work. However, one significant negative review describes poor workmanship resulting in sewer water left in a crawl space, with ownership refusing to take responsibility — a serious flag for both project completion and professionalism. Pricing was mentioned positively in two reviews, with one customer explicitly noting $160 as fair value. The single negative review meaningfully drags down scores, particularly in project completion and professionalism, and cannot be dismissed given the severity of the complaint.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score has very low statistical reliability and should be treated with caution.
• One review (2023-08-19) describes a serious workmanship failure involving sewer water left in a crawl space and ownership refusing accountability. This is a significant red flag that disproportionately impacts trustworthiness.
• Review spread spans 2020–2024; the two most recent reviews (2023 and 2024) are mixed — one positive, one strongly negative — suggesting performance may be inconsistent.
• No fake review patterns detected; reviews appear genuine with specific details and varied ratings.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews and should be considered highly unreliable — do not use it as a definitive assessment of this contractor without gathering significantly more customer feedback.

Mango Plumbing shows highly inconsistent performance across reviews spanning 2011–2021. While some customers report excellent long-term relationships and skilled plumbers (Russ, Frank, Will), multiple reviews document serious failures in professionalism (unresponsiveness, dismissive attitudes, lack of follow-through), pricing integrity (surprise upcharges, expensive estimates without site visits), and project completion (incomplete diagnostics, broken items not repaired, promised callbacks never made). The company appears to struggle with consistency, responsiveness, and accountability. Positive reviews tend to be older or from loyal repeat customers, while negative reviews cite recent incidents of poor communication and unethical practices.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2016–2021 (older end), while negative reviews span 2011–2020 with several recent complaints. This suggests potential service degradation over time or inconsistent quality.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Stark polarization between 5-star reviews praising specific plumbers (Russ, Frank, Will) and 1–2 star reviews citing unprofessional behavior, unresponsiveness, and billing disputes. Suggests quality depends heavily on which plumber is assigned.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAGS: Multiple independent reviews cite unresponsiveness (3-day callback delay, month-long estimate wait, no follow-up), dismissive attitudes, and refusal to take jobs. This is not isolated complaint.
• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERNS: At least two reviews document surprise charges or expensive estimates without proper site assessment. One customer was upcharged $100–150 due to alleged 'unexpected complications' on a standard pipe.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Reviews document incomplete work (faucet not repaired, leak not diagnosed), broken items not replaced (ring shield discarded), and promised corrections never delivered.
• LICENSING/TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: One review reports resistance to providing license information, raising compliance concerns.

This WW Score of 58.2 should be treated with caution due to high volatility in customer experiences and evidence of systemic professionalism and follow-through issues. The score reflects genuine data from 13 reviews, but the company's inconsistency means outcomes may vary significantly depending on which plumber is assigned and the complexity of the job. Customers should request specific plumbers (Russ, Frank, Will) if possible and verify licensing/insurance independently before engaging.