Find Nearby Plumbers In Livonia, Michigan

Benjamin Franklin Plumbing receives consistently strong marks for professionalism, punctuality, and technical competence from a large volume of reviewers, with many customers praising courteous, knowledgeable technicians who arrive on time and explain their work clearly. However, pricing is the single most dominant negative theme across thousands of reviews, with an extraordinary number of customers reporting charges that are two to five times higher than competing plumbers for identical work — a pattern so consistent and widespread it significantly drags down the overall score. Project completion is mixed: while most jobs are finished correctly, a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, warranty disputes, no-shows, and situations where problems were not resolved on the first visit. Experience scores are moderate-to-good, with many technicians demonstrating genuine expertise, but offset by recurring reports of misdiagnosis, unnecessary upselling, and technicians who appeared to lack knowledge for the specific job at hand.

• PRICING CONCERN — Extreme and consistent overpricing is the single most reported issue across this review set, spanning thousands of individual reviews across multiple years and franchise locations. Customers routinely report paying 2x–5x the market rate for standard jobs. This is not isolated; it appears to be a systemic franchise pricing model.
• UPSELLING PATTERN — A very large number of reviews describe aggressive or misleading upselling tactics, including recommending unnecessary full replacements instead of repairs, inflated estimates that drop significantly when the customer pushes back, and high-pressure sales pitches for service contracts.
• FRANCHISE INCONSISTENCY — Reviews span many different franchise locations operating under the Benjamin Franklin Plumbing brand. Quality, pricing, and professionalism vary significantly by location, making aggregate scores less reliable for any single location.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — A significant portion of reviews (estimated 15–20%) contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These blank 5-star reviews are a known pattern associated with review padding. Confidence in the positive score distribution is reduced accordingly.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED — Multiple reviews appear to be exact duplicates (identical text, same or adjacent dates), suggesting possible review manipulation or system errors in the data set.
• WARRANTY AND FOLLOW-THROUGH ISSUES — Dozens of reviews describe warranty disputes, failure to honor service agreements, no-call no-shows on scheduled return visits, and management that was unresponsive to complaints — indicating systemic customer service failures beyond individual technician performance.
• ELDERLY AND VULNERABLE CUSTOMER EXPLOITATION — Multiple reviews explicitly describe situations where elderly or vulnerable customers were quoted prices far above market rate, with some reviewers alleging deliberate targeting of people who lacked knowledge to push back.
• RECENCY NOTE — Reviews span from approximately 2004 to June 2025. The most recent reviews (2025) continue to show the same pricing complaints and mixed service quality as older reviews, suggesting no meaningful improvement over time.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review dataset and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy; however, the score should be interpreted with caution because it aggregates multiple franchise locations under one brand, a significant volume of blank 5-star reviews artificially inflates the raw rating, and the pricing dimension — which is overwhelmingly negative — is the most reliable and consistent signal in the entire dataset.

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.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews. Professionalism scores well (72.5) with multiple mentions of punctuality, courtesy, and responsiveness in recent positive reviews. However, project completion is severely compromised (45.0) due to documented instances of abandoned work, incomplete jobs, and failure to follow up on callbacks. Experience/workmanship is equally concerning (50.0), with multiple detailed complaints about poor quality work, shortcuts, and shoddy installation practices. Pricing appears unfair (40.0) based on limited mentions of overcharging and poor value relative to rework costs. The stark divide between 5-star and 1-star reviews suggests either significant quality variation or potential service inconsistency.

• CRITICAL: Severe polarization in reviews — 5 five-star reviews vs. 3 one-star reviews with 1 two-star review. This pattern suggests either inconsistent service delivery or potential fake positive reviews.
• Multiple detailed complaints (2022-2023) about poor workmanship, shortcuts, and incomplete work that required hiring other contractors to fix errors. These are specific and credible.
• Recency concern: Most positive reviews are from 2021 or earlier (3 of 5 five-star reviews). Negative reviews cluster in 2022-2023, suggesting possible service quality decline.
• One review (2019-10-26) explicitly documents incomplete project completion and poor follow-up after payment — a serious red flag for reliability.
• Potential licensing concern mentioned in one review ('pretty sure he isn't currently licensed').
• Name inconsistency: Reviews reference 'Thomas,' 'TJ,' 'Tom,' and 'Jeff' — unclear if this is one person or multiple team members, which affects score reliability.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While professionalism metrics appear solid, the documented pattern of incomplete work, poor craftsmanship, and customer dissatisfaction in recent years (2022-2023) is credible and specific. The WW Score of 58.2 reflects genuine service quality concerns that outweigh positive professionalism ratings. Recommend requesting references from work completed in the past 12 months before hiring.

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.

The reviews for Puckett Plumbing/Heating present a deeply divided picture. Positive reviews praise Chris as professional, knowledgeable, and fair in pricing, with satisfied customers citing successful boiler repairs, heat pump installations, and HVAC fixes. However, three significant negative reviews describe serious failures: overcharging relative to quotes, incomplete or botched repairs requiring multiple return visits, and in one case leaving a basement covered in sewage. The owner's reported conduct toward a dissatisfied customer — calling them a liar and threatening legal action over a negative review — is a serious professionalism concern that weighs heavily on the score. The mixed record across pricing, completion, and workmanship quality prevents any dimension from scoring above the midpoint when the full review set is considered.

• RECENCY WARNING: Only 2 of 7 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024 and 2019). Four reviews are from 2013–2017 and may not reflect current business practices. The most recent negative reviews are from 2015–2016.
• SERIOUS COMPLAINT — INCOMPLETE WORK: Multiple negative reviews explicitly describe jobs left unfinished or requiring repeat visits, including a sump pump installed incorrectly and a water heater that was never fixed after two paid visits.
• SERIOUS COMPLAINT — OVERCHARGING: Two separate negative reviewers allege being charged significantly more than quoted or more than the job warranted, with one reviewer stating other contractors confirmed they were overcharged.
• SERIOUS COMPLAINT — OWNER CONDUCT: One reviewer reports the owner called them a liar and threatened to sue them for leaving a negative review. This is a significant professionalism red flag.
• SEWAGE HAZARD REPORTED: One reviewer states the company left their basement covered in sewage and sewer water after failing to fix the problem, which represents a serious workmanship and liability concern.
• REVIEW VOLUME WARNING: Only 7 total reviews span approximately 11 years, which is a very low volume for a contractor. This limits statistical reliability of the WW Score.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to the small total review count of 7 spanning over a decade, but the pattern of serious, specific, and detailed negative complaints across multiple dimensions meaningfully anchors the lower scores and should be taken seriously by prospective customers.

DWG's review record is deeply mixed, with a clear divide between positive experiences involving specific technicians (Cole, Tyler, Ian) and serious failures in service delivery, communication, and professionalism. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by multiple credible accounts of rude behavior, including the owner Dan allegedly hanging up on a customer, refusing basic requests like shoe removal, and being described as combative — these are not isolated incidents. Project completion is a major liability: reviews describe abandoned work with water lines left leaking, a sewer pipe not connected to the main line, repeated failed repair attempts, and customers left without hot water for days. On the positive side, several reviewers praised specific technicians as knowledgeable, efficient, and thorough, which prevents the experience score from bottoming out. Pricing concerns are limited in mention count but notable — one customer was asked to pay $400 for a pickup run and another was quoted $500 for a pipe upgrade under disputed circumstances.

• Several positive reviews are older than 3 years (2019–2021) and may not reflect current service quality; the two most recent reviews (2022–2023) include one negative and one positive, offering limited recency signal.
• The oldest review (2013) describes an unethical project abandonment — sewer pipes not connected to the main line — which is a serious workmanship and ethics concern even if dated.
• Multiple negative reviews reference the owner 'Dan' by name with consistent descriptions of unprofessional and hostile behavior, suggesting a systemic leadership issue rather than isolated technician errors.
• One negative review (2022-12-26) describes the company providing false information about Rheem being closed for the holidays, which constitutes a deceptive practice and significantly impacts trustworthiness.
• Positive reviews tend to be generic in structure or focus on specific named technicians rather than the company as a whole, suggesting quality may be highly dependent on which technician is assigned.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the stark rating polarization (many 1-star and many 5-star with little middle ground) suggests inconsistent service delivery rather than review manipulation.

This WW Score is based on 12 reviews spanning a wide date range (2013–2023), with HIGH confidence on the most heavily weighted dimensions; however, the score should be treated with caution given the recency gap, the severity of documented failures, and the apparent inconsistency in service quality depending on which technician or manager is involved.