Find Nearby Plumbers In Livonia, Michigan

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews. Two highly positive reviews (5-star) praise punctuality, responsiveness, fair pricing, and quality workmanship. However, one 1-star review from June 2019 reports severe communication failures, extended delays beyond quoted timelines, and unresponsiveness to multiple contact attempts. The professionalism score is pulled down by documented communication and responsiveness issues despite positive feedback on other occasions. Project completion is particularly concerning due to the explicit complaint about missed deadlines and lack of follow-through on scheduling.

• RECENCY CONCERN: All three reviews are from 2019 (4-5 years old). No recent data available to assess current performance.
• EXTREME POLARIZATION: One 1-star vs. two 5-star reviews suggests either inconsistent service delivery or potential data quality issues. The positive reviews use somewhat generic language ('nice to meet a contractor that knows his craft') while the negative review is highly specific about failures.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews total. Score reliability is inherently limited and should not be treated as representative of typical performance.

This WW Score should be treated with significant caution due to the very small sample size (3 reviews), extreme age of all data (2019), and stark polarization between reviews. The score does not reliably represent current contractor performance and should not be used as a primary decision factor without seeking more recent customer feedback.

Patrick's Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across all dimensions. On the positive side, a handful of older reviews (2018–2022) describe professional communication, careful workmanship, and fair pricing. However, three significant negative reviews — including a 2024 complaint about abandoning a water heater they installed, a 2023 no-show with hostile phone behavior, and a 2022 case of failed repair work that caused flood damage — drag scores down substantially. The most recent reviews skew negative, which is weighted more heavily under recency rules. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with multiple explicit failures to finish or stand behind work.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The two most recent reviews (2023 and 2024) are both 1-star and describe serious failures in professionalism and follow-through. This is a negative trend that outweighs older positive reviews.
• PROJECT ABANDONMENT: The 2024 review explicitly states the company refused to service a water heater they installed, which is a direct project completion and warranty failure.
• NO-SHOW + HOSTILE BEHAVIOR: The 2023 review describes a confirmed appointment missed with no explanation, repeated hang-ups, and no returned messages — a severe professionalism failure.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURE: The 2022 review describes a paid repair that was not fixed, left a toxic mess, and resulted in flood damage and insurance claims — a critical experience and project completion failure.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 7 reviews total. Scores are based on limited data and should be treated with caution. The WW Score is directionally useful but not statistically robust.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS ARE OLDER: All 4 positive reviews date from 2018–2022. No positive reviews exist in the past 24 months, which significantly undermines confidence in current service quality.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to only 7 reviews, a clear negative trend in the most recent reviews, and serious documented failures in core service dimensions; prospective customers should treat this score as a warning signal rather than a balanced assessment.

Thornton & Grooms receives a critically low WW Score of 28.4, driven by overwhelmingly negative feedback across all dimensions. The company demonstrates severe deficiencies in professionalism (32/100), with widespread complaints about missed appointments, poor communication, rescheduling failures, and disorganized office operations. Pricing is the most damaging dimension (18/100), with customers consistently reporting aggressive upselling, bait-and-switch tactics (e.g., $99 drain cleaning leading to $1,900+ charges), lack of transparent cost breakdowns, and charges 2-10x higher than competitors. Project completion scores critically low (25/100) due to incomplete work, jobs requiring multiple visits, technicians leaving work unfinished, and failure to honor service plans. Experience is marginally better (35/100) but still poor, with reports of shoddy workmanship, incorrect diagnoses, and technicians lacking proper problem-solving skills. The single 5-star review praising Brandon's professionalism and fair pricing stands in stark contrast to the pattern of 1-star reviews, suggesting inconsistent service quality. Most reviews are from 2015–2024, with recent reviews (2024) confirming the pattern persists.

• SEVERE PATTERN OF NEGATIVE REVIEWS: 21 of 28 reviews are 1-star ratings. This is not random variation but a consistent, systemic problem.
• BAIT-AND-SWITCH TACTICS DOCUMENTED: Multiple reviews describe the $99 drain cleaning 'coupon' leading to charges of $300–$1,925. This appears to be a deliberate business practice, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING MANIPULATION: Customers report being charged 2–10x market rates, with refusals to itemize parts vs. labor costs. One customer paid $13,000 for a furnace on Christmas Eve; another paid $20,000 for a $10,000 job.
• CHRONIC NO-SHOWS AND RESCHEDULING: At least 8 reviews explicitly mention missed appointments, failure to show up within promised windows, or repeated rescheduling. This is a core operational failure.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Multiple reviews report jobs left unfinished, requiring second visits that are themselves rescheduled or incomplete.
• AGGRESSIVE UPSELLING: Customers report being pressured into unnecessary repairs (e.g., water heater replacement based on false age information, sewer line lining for $1,500–$15,000 when simple unclogging solved the problem).
• SINGLE POSITIVE REVIEW ANOMALY: The 5-star review from Brandon (2024-09-11) is the only positive review in a sea of 1-star ratings. While not necessarily fake, it is statistically anomalous and may represent an outlier or a different service tier.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE FAILURES: Reviews mention rude staff, refusal to honor service plans, poor communication, and a manager stating 'talking to the customer is not my problem.'
• RECENCY: Recent reviews (2024) confirm the pattern persists, indicating this is not a historical problem that has been resolved.

This WW Score of 28.4 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 28 reviews with consistent, detailed evidence across all four dimensions. The overwhelming majority of reviews (75%) are 1-star ratings with specific, corroborated complaints about pricing manipulation, missed appointments, incomplete work, and poor professionalism. The pattern is too consistent and too detailed to be noise or fake reviews; rather, it reflects systemic operational and ethical failures. Customers should avoid this company.

The review set is extremely small (3 reviews) and spans nearly a decade, making reliable scoring very difficult. The single positive review (2023) praises responsiveness, helpfulness, and efficiency, but it is heavily outweighed by two negative reviews describing overcharging on basic repairs and seriously shoddy workmanship that required multiple costly corrections by subsequent plumbers. The project completion dimension is particularly concerning, as one reviewer describes three separate corrective jobs needed after a bathroom re-plumb, with ceiling and wall cuts required to fix the original work. Pricing is flagged as a problem area based on a $165 charge for a 5-minute visit. Overall, the negative reviews carry significant weight due to their specificity and severity, despite their age.

• VERY LOW REVIEW COUNT: Only 3 reviews total — WW Score cannot be considered reliable and should be treated as indicative only.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two of the three reviews are from 2014 and 2015, making them 9–10+ years old. Only one review is recent (2023). Score may not reflect current performance.
• SEVERE WORKMANSHIP COMPLAINT: One reviewer explicitly describes repeated corrective work by other plumbers following a bathroom re-plumb, indicating potentially serious quality issues on at least one job.
• PRICING CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly describes being overcharged, including a $165 fee for a 5-minute visit, suggesting possible lack of pricing transparency.
• SPLIT SIGNAL: The 2023 review is strongly positive while both older reviews are strongly negative — it is unclear whether quality has genuinely improved or whether the sample is too small to draw conclusions.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning nearly 10 years and should be considered highly unreliable — prospective customers are strongly advised to seek additional references and recent reviews before making a hiring decision.

Murphy Brothers Plumbing scores very poorly across nearly all dimensions based on the available reviews. Professionalism is the most heavily documented dimension and is catastrophically low — five of six reviews describe missed appointments without notification, unreturned calls, rude or dismissive staff, and a complete lack of accountability. Project completion is similarly poor, with multiple accounts of unfinished work, broken fixtures left unreplaced, and jobs requiring callbacks that were never honored. On the experience dimension, one review praised the owner's technical knowledge on tankless water heaters, but this is heavily offset by a serious misdiagnosis that would have cost a customer $2,500 more than necessary, and multiple instances of incorrect fittings and improper pipe cuts causing water damage. Pricing received a moderate-negative score due to complaints about a second service call charge for an incomplete job and generally unfavorable pricing comments, though one reviewer noted the company did not upsell unnecessarily.

• RECENCY WARNING: All six reviews are dated between 2013 and 2017. No reviews from the past 7+ years are present. This score may not reflect the contractor's current performance and should be treated with caution.
• PATTERN NOTE: The single positive review (4-star, 2014) is notably more detailed and specific than a typical fake review, and its praise is partially contradicted by other reviews from the same period — it is likely genuine but represents an outlier experience.
• SERIOUS CONCERN: One review documents a potential misdiagnosis that would have resulted in a $3,000 unnecessary repair versus a $500 actual fix confirmed by a second opinion. This raises significant concerns about technical integrity or upselling practices.
• SERIOUS CONCERN: Multiple reviews independently describe the same pattern — missed appointments with no notification, unreturned calls, and no apology — suggesting a systemic operational failure rather than isolated incidents.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 6 reviews are available. While enough to calculate a WW Score, the sample size is small and confidence in the score's precision is limited.

This WW Score is based on only 6 reviews, all more than 7 years old, and should be considered a historical snapshot only — it cannot reliably represent the contractor's current quality, and prospective customers are strongly advised to seek recent references before hiring.

Pritchard Wilson's reviews paint an overwhelmingly negative picture across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is severely damaged by pervasive reports of unanswered calls, missed appointments without notice, rude staff and managers, a theft incident by an employee, and dismissive attitudes toward customer complaints. Project completion is the weakest area, with repeated accounts of unfinished installations, failed inspections, no permits pulled, abandoned follow-up work, and jobs left incomplete for months. Experience scores marginally higher only because a small number of positive reviews exist, but these are heavily outweighed by accounts of shoddy workmanship, incorrect diagnoses, crushed filters used anyway, damaged floors and walls, and faulty installations that failed within months. Pricing receives a slightly higher score due to two reviewers explicitly praising competitive quotes, though multiple others describe overcharging, billing for work not performed, and a suspected $900 rebate misappropriation.

• Two reviews (dated 2015-03-28 and 2015-06-12) are near-identical in wording ('Prompt and courteous the 2 times I had to schedule service calls. Called around to get quotes once I had to replace my furnace, and Pritchard had the best pricing. Would highly recommend') — this is a likely duplicate or fake review and has been treated as a single data point for scoring purposes.
• Two reviews (dated 2015-02-25 and 2015-06-12) are also near-identical in wording regarding the gas leak inspection report — treated as a single data point.
• The vast majority of reviews are older than 5 years (most from 2013–2017), with only one review from 2020. Recency is very poor and the company may have changed ownership or gone out of business, as multiple reviewers explicitly state the company closed or went out of business.
• Multiple reviewers independently report the company going out of business, which raises serious concerns about the contractor's current operational status.
• A confirmed employee theft of controlled medical substances was reported in one review, representing a serious safety and integrity flag.
• Pattern of no-permit installations reported by at least two independent reviewers, suggesting a systemic compliance issue.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews (22 total) with high mention counts across all dimensions, making the score statistically reliable; however, the extreme age of most reviews (2013–2017) and multiple reports that the company has gone out of business significantly limit the real-world applicability of this score to any currently operating entity using this name.