Find Nearby Plumbers In Novi, Michigan

All three reviews speak positively about professionalism, with mentions of punctuality, responsiveness, clean worksite, and courteous communication — giving that dimension the most grounded score. Project completion is also consistently affirmed across all reviews, including follow-up service calls being honored and installs going smoothly. Pricing is mentioned favorably in two reviews as affordable and fair, though with only two mentions this carries limited confidence. Experience is implied through quality installation outcomes and accurate estimates, but is not described in technical depth, keeping that score conservative. Overall, the picture is positive but the very small and dated review set significantly limits reliability.

• All 3 reviews are dated between 2016 and 2018 — none are within the past 12 months. Scores may not reflect current service quality.
• Only 3 reviews total — this is the minimum threshold for a WW Score calculation. Results should be treated as preliminary and low confidence.
• No negative feedback present across any review, which is expected given the small sample but should not be interpreted as a strong signal of perfection.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all of which are over 6 years old, making it a low-confidence snapshot that should not be used as a definitive assessment of current contractor quality.

This facility exhibits a stark bifurcation in customer experience. Positive reviews (9 five-star ratings from 2018–2020) consistently praise staff friendliness, grooming quality, and facility cleanliness. However, 11 one-star reviews from 2019–2023 reveal severe professionalism failures: owner Lisa V. is repeatedly described as defensive, rude, abusive, and physically aggressive toward customers. Critical service gaps include false advertising (webcams advertised but removed; tours promised but denied), animal welfare concerns (dogs locked in cages, kennel cough outbreaks, stomach virus transmission, physical injuries), and poor complaint handling (hanging up on customers, refusing refunds despite documented harm). The dramatic shift in review sentiment after 2020 and the consistent pattern of owner misconduct across independent accounts suggest systemic operational and interpersonal problems that overshadow positive grooming and facility attributes.

• CRITICAL: Extreme polarization in reviews suggests two distinct operational periods or customer segments. Positive reviews cluster 2018–2020; negative reviews cluster 2019–2023 with escalating severity.
• CRITICAL: Multiple independent reviews document identical patterns of owner aggression, phone disconnections, and refusal to address complaints. This is not isolated—it is systemic.
• CRITICAL: Animal welfare allegations are serious and specific: dogs confined to cages for extended periods without bathroom breaks, kennel cough outbreaks, stomach virus transmission, physical injuries (scabs, wounds), and alleged physical abuse. One review mentions police report filed.
• CRITICAL: Deceptive marketing practices documented: webcams advertised on website but removed; owner denies advertising them despite customer screenshots; tours promised but denied citing 'insurance liability' (contradicted by competitor Camp Bow Wow offering tours).
• CRITICAL: Customer service failures are consistent: owner and manager hang up on customers, use profanity toward customers and animals, refuse compensation for documented harm, and become physically confrontational.
• MODERATE: Positive reviews (2018–2020) are generic and lack specificity compared to detailed negative reviews. Some positive reviews may reflect earlier management or different service lines (grooming vs. boarding/daycare).
• MODERATE: Recency bias: Most damaging reviews are from 2019–2023. Positive reviews are older (2018–2020). Current operational quality is likely worse than historical average.
• MODERATE: One positive review explicitly states 'new owner Lisa has put a lot of time and money into upgrading' (2019), suggesting ownership change coincided with service degradation.

This WW Score of 52.3 should be treated with CAUTION and interpreted as a STRONG WARNING rather than a balanced assessment. The score is artificially elevated by older positive reviews; current facility (2021–2023) appears substantially worse. The convergence of independent, detailed negative accounts documenting owner aggression, animal welfare failures, and deceptive practices—combined with police involvement and veterinary confirmation of harm—indicates serious operational and ethical problems that outweigh grooming quality. Prospective customers should prioritize the consistent pattern of professionalism failures and animal welfare concerns over the aggregate score.

This contractor's review profile is overwhelmingly negative across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is catastrophically low, with 14 of 18 reviews describing no-shows, ghosting, unanswered calls and texts, late arrivals, broken appointments, and outright rude or retaliatory behavior toward customers. Project completion is similarly dismal — multiple reviewers describe work that was never started, abandoned mid-job, or finished so poorly that customers had to complete or repair it themselves, including one case where a door still leaked after installation. Experience scores marginally higher only because a small number of positive reviews exist, but even some of those are dated and lack detail. Pricing received a moderate-confidence score due to limited mentions, with one reviewer noting an upfront deposit was taken and work never performed, which is a serious red flag. The three positive reviews (all 5-star) are sparse in detail and dated 2019–2022, while the overwhelming volume of detailed, specific negative reviews spans 2019–2024.

• SUSPECTED FAKE OR MISLEADING POSITIVE REVIEWS: The three 5-star reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Excellent Service - Workmanship. Had Wooden Porch Upgraded.. Very good experience.') with no specific details, while all negative reviews are highly detailed and specific. This pattern is consistent with artificially inflated ratings.
• PATTERN OF FRAUD RISK: Multiple reviewers independently allege that Kevin demands or accepts upfront payment and then fails to perform work, ignores contact attempts for weeks, and in one case was accused of being a scammer. This pattern across unrelated reviewers is a serious red flag.
• RETALIATORY BEHAVIOR DOCUMENTED: At least two reviewers explicitly state that Kevin contacted them personally after negative reviews were left, complained about the reviews, and in one case threatened to report a customer to the BBB and 'tattled' to her husband. This behavior is highly unprofessional and potentially coercive.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2023–2024) continue to show the same negative patterns as reviews from 2019–2021, indicating no improvement in business conduct over time.
• MOST REVIEWS ARE NEGATIVE: 15 out of 18 reviews are 1-star. The three 5-star reviews are all older (2019–2022) and lack substantive detail, further reducing their reliability.
• FALSE ADVERTISING NOTED: One reviewer explicitly called out the company's website claim 'There is no job too small' as false advertising after being dropped for a larger commercial job.

This WW Score is based on 18 reviews with a high volume of detailed, specific, and independently corroborating negative accounts spanning five years, making the score highly reliable and strongly indicative of a contractor that should be avoided.

This single review paints a deeply negative picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism suffered due to a dismissive 'oops' response to a serious mistake, no apology, and leaving multiple rooms in a mess. Pricing was flagged as unfair — the reviewer was billed twice for antifreeze that was never actually installed. Project completion was severely lacking: the initial pipe repair failed, the antifreeze was never replaced despite multiple promises and two payments, and the shower/tub installation left unresolved issues including a high-pitched noise and an unclosed drain pipe. Experience was called into question by the original patch job consisting of multiple tiny welded pieces rather than a single solid pipe, and the dangerous oversight of leaving a main drain pipe open after shutting off the house water.

• Only 1 review is available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Review is dated 2013-09-27, making it over 10 years old. This data is significantly outdated and should be weighted very low.
• All four dimension scores are based on a single mention each and carry LIMITED confidence only.
• The reviewer explicitly states they recommended this contractor to a friend, who also had to call someone else to fix the work — suggesting a pattern of poor workmanship beyond just this one job.
• No fake review concerns detected — the review is highly detailed, specific, and describes a clear sequence of events consistent with a genuine negative experience.

This score is based on a single review from 2013 and should not be considered a reliable representation of the contractor's current quality or practices.

Only one review was provided, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review explicitly criticizes professionalism, citing poor communication (no response to follow-up texts) and an indifferent attitude. No information was provided regarding pricing, project completion, or technical experience. The review is dated June 2020, making it over 3 years old.

• Insufficient review volume (n=1) — cannot calculate WW Score reliably
• Review is dated June 2020 — significantly outside the past 12 months, limiting recency relevance
• No data available for three of four dimensions (pricing, project completion, experience)

This analysis cannot be trusted as a reliable assessment of contractor quality; a minimum of 3 reviews is required, and this single dated review provides only limited insight into one dimension.