Find Nearby Plumbers In Livonia, Michigan

This contractor's reviews paint an overwhelmingly negative picture across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is severely damaged by repeated missed appointments without notice, racial slurs directed at a customer, harassment via phone, and chronic non-responsiveness — with only one review (from 2019) offering any positive note about office management. Project completion is the weakest area: multiple reviews describe unresolved work, a city-rejected gas line installation that was never corrected over a year, a dryer repair that failed to fix the problem, and an HVAC company that repeatedly returned without resolving issues. Experience scores are similarly low, with explicit mentions of technicians lacking city code knowledge, inability to fix a sump pump around a radon system, and repeated misdiagnoses. Pricing received a marginally higher score only because one review cited a specific charge ($275 for 20 minutes) that felt exploitative, and another alleged double-charging for a service call — both negative but at least evidenced. The single positive review from 2019 is too isolated and generic to meaningfully offset the pattern of serious failures documented across the other four reviews.

• RECENCY WARNING: All reviews are from 2019–2021. No reviews from the past 12 months are present. Current performance cannot be assessed.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAG: One review explicitly alleges racial slurs and customer harassment by the owner. This is a significant red flag beyond normal service quality concerns.
• LEGAL/REGULATORY FLAG: One review describes a gas line installation that was rejected by the city inspector and never corrected over a 12-month period, suggesting potential code compliance failures.
• PATTERN FLAG: Multiple reviews independently describe the same behavioral pattern — missed appointments, no-call no-shows, and failure to follow up after incomplete work. This consistency across unrelated reviewers increases credibility of the complaints.
• SINGLE POSITIVE REVIEW: The only 5-star review is brief, generic, and lacks specific detail. While not definitively fake, it carries very low evidentiary weight and does not offset the volume of detailed negative accounts.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 5 reviews total. The WW Score should be treated as directional only, not definitive.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to the small review pool (5 reviews) and the age of all reviews (2019–2021), but the consistency and specificity of the negative accounts across multiple independent reviewers lend credibility to the low scores assigned.

This contractor received overwhelmingly negative reviews across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism was severely damaged by multiple accounts of no-shows without notice, rude and condescending owner behavior, and a deeply troubling account of how a long-term employee was treated during a medical emergency. Pricing was flagged repeatedly as dishonest — customers reported being quoted one rate and charged significantly more, with the company refusing to honor original quotes. Project completion suffered due to failed workmanship (a leaking spigot that failed within a year, cheap piping that rotted through within three years) and at least two instances of not showing up for scheduled appointments. Experience scores were marginally higher only because one reviewer noted the technician performed the install adequately, but this was undermined by another reviewer whose pump and piping failed prematurely due to substandard materials. The overall picture is one of a contractor with serious integrity, reliability, and quality concerns.

• All 7 reviews are 1- or 2-star ratings — no positive reviews exist in this dataset to balance the score.
• Most reviews are dated between 2011 and 2017, making all data older than 7 years. No recent reviews are present to assess current performance.
• Multiple reviewers independently report being quoted one price and charged a significantly higher amount, suggesting a systemic pattern of deceptive pricing practices.
• At least two reviewers report no-show appointments with no advance notice, indicating a recurring reliability problem.
• One reviewer reports workmanship failure (pump and piping) within 3.5 years, attributing it to substandard materials (cheap Chinese piping) used by the contractor.
• One reviewer reports a leaking spigot replacement failed within approximately one year of installation.
• The Facebook post shared in one review describes deeply troubling treatment of a long-term employee during a cardiac emergency, which reflects severely on the owner's character and business ethics.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews are varied in language, detail level, and specific complaints, suggesting authentic individual experiences.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall confidence due to the age of the reviews (all older than 7 years) and the relatively small sample size of 7 reviews, though the consistency and specificity of negative feedback across all dimensions makes the low score credible and unlikely to be an outlier.

Hartman & Sons demonstrates catastrophically poor performance across all measured dimensions. Project completion is the most severely impacted, with 13 reviews documenting no-shows, abandoned work, repeated failures, and unresolved issues spanning months. Professionalism is critically deficient, with 11 reviews citing rudeness, non-responsiveness, failure to answer phones, broken promises, and lack of communication. Technical experience is questionable, with multiple reports of missing standard equipment (snakes, plungers) and incorrect diagnoses. Pricing concerns emerge in 2 reviews, including undisclosed charges and disputed billing. All 14 reviews are recent (July 2023–November 2024) and consistently one-star, indicating systemic operational failure rather than isolated incidents.

• CRITICAL: 100% of reviews are 1-star ratings with uniformly negative content. This is not a fake review pattern (which would show artificial praise); rather, it indicates genuine, severe customer dissatisfaction across all interactions.
• All 14 reviews are from the past 14 months (July 2023–November 2024), indicating ongoing systemic problems with no improvement over time.
• Multiple reviews reference the same pattern: no-shows, failure to answer phones, broken appointment promises, and lack of follow-up communication.
• Several reviews document incomplete work, equipment failures (broken pipes), and repeated callbacks without resolution.
• Customers consistently report being sent through American Water Resources (AWR) and express frustration with both companies. This suggests potential systemic issues with the referral/dispatch relationship.
• One review documents a customer without water for 4 days due to non-appearance; another documents a basement flood that persisted for 7+ months with repeated failed repair attempts.
• No positive reviews exist in this dataset to provide counterbalance or context.

This WW Score of 8.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 14 recent, detailed reviews with consistent patterns of failure across all dimensions. The uniformity and specificity of complaints (no-shows, non-responsiveness, incomplete work, equipment shortages, rude behavior) across independent reviewers strongly indicates genuine systemic operational failure rather than isolated incidents or review manipulation.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. Both reviews are from 2021 (over 2 years old) and lack sufficient detail to reliably assess all dimensions. Professionalism is mentioned positively (on-time, professional demeanor, responsiveness), pricing is mentioned once as competitive, and experience is highlighted (top Navien dealer, warranty work). However, project completion is not explicitly addressed in either review, and the sample size is too small to calculate a reliable WW Score.

• Only 2 reviews provided — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring
• Both reviews are from 2021 (over 2 years old) — recency is a concern
• Review 2 is generic praise with minimal specifics — lacks concrete detail
• Project completion dimension has zero mentions — cannot assess timeliness or follow-through
• No negative feedback or balanced perspective — potential selection bias in provided reviews

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (only 2 reviews, minimum 3 required) and age of reviews (both from 2021). Any score calculated would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. Both reviews are positive and mention professionalism (punctuality, communication, cleanliness, responsiveness), with one mentioning fair pricing and one implying quality workmanship through thoroughness. However, no review explicitly addresses project completion, timeliness of job delivery, or follow-through on callbacks. The extreme age gap between reviews (2008 and 2024) and the very small sample size prevent reliable WW Score calculation.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 2 reviews provided. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• RECENCY CONCERN: One review is from 2008 (16 years old) and one from 2024. The 2008 review has minimal relevance to current service quality.
• GENERIC PRAISE: Both reviews lack specific project details, scope descriptions, or concrete examples of work performed. This limits ability to verify claims.
• MISSING CRITICAL DIMENSION: No review mentions project completion, job timeliness, or follow-through — a major gap for contractor evaluation.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews minimum required is 3) and extreme recency disparity. Any score calculated would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. Both reviews are highly positive and mention professionalism, punctuality, and project completion favorably. However, the sample size is too small to establish reliable patterns or confidence in the overall assessment.

• Only 2 reviews available — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring
• One review is from January 2022 (nearly 3 years old); only one review from past 12 months
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with generic positive language; limited specificity on technical quality or problem-solving
• Experience dimension has zero mentions — no data on skill level or technical knowledge
• Sample size too small to detect patterns or validate consistency

This assessment cannot be trusted as a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2). Collect at least 3 additional recent reviews before calculating a formal WW Score.