Find Nearby Plumbers In Brooklyn Park, Minnesota

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 18 years. One detailed 1-star review documents a critical failure: the plumber charged $318 over three hours but failed to diagnose a leak that a city inspector and irrigation specialist identified immediately. Two positive reviews (2014, 1998) praise professionalism, communication, and work quality, but these are substantially older and lack specificity. The 2016 5-star review contains no text, making it unusable. The stark contrast between the documented failure and older praise, combined with very limited recent data, creates substantial uncertainty about current service quality.

• CRITICAL: One detailed 1-star review documents significant diagnostic failure and wasted customer time/money ($318, 3+ hours) on a problem the plumber could not solve but a city inspector solved immediately. This is a major red flag for experience/competence.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Most positive reviews are from 1998 and 2014 (10+ years old). Only one recent review (2016) is usable, and it is negative. Current service quality cannot be reliably assessed.
• UNUSABLE DATA: One 5-star review (2016-02-10) contains no text ('unknown'), making it impossible to extract dimension data.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW: The 1998 review uses all-caps, excessive superlatives ('FANATICAL', 'RUN OUT OF SUPERLATIVES'), and generic praise without specific examples. This pattern is inconsistent with the detailed, credible 1-star review and may not reflect current operations.
• SMALL SAMPLE: Only 3 usable reviews with substantive data limits confidence in any scoring.

This WW Score should be treated with significant caution. The single detailed recent review documents a serious service failure, while positive reviews are either very old (1998, 2014) or lack detail. With only 3 usable reviews and a major credibility gap between them, this score does not reliably reflect current contractor performance and should not be used as a primary decision factor without additional recent evidence.

Mobile Maintenance shows a deeply inconsistent track record across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores are dragged down by repeated failures to follow through on commitments, poor communication between Steve and his crew, and multiple no-show or delayed-response incidents, though a handful of reviews do praise punctuality and courteous behavior. Project completion is the weakest area: multiple reviews describe incomplete work, abandoned tasks, broken items not made right, and a pattern of needing to chase Steve repeatedly to get agreed-upon work finished — including a 2024 review describing damage to a home's underbelly. Experience scores reflect genuinely capable workmanship in some cases, particularly from individual workers like Jim, but are offset by shoddy insulation work, a furnace repair that failed the same night, and long-term damage reported from a job done a decade prior. Pricing receives modest marks — a few reviewers found it fair or reasonable, but the cash-upfront requirement, a 5% credit card surcharge, and an attempted surprise $300 charge mid-job raise transparency concerns.

• Two reviews dated 2015-02-26 are nearly word-for-word identical — one rated 4 stars and one rated 5 stars. These appear to be duplicate or manipulated entries and only one was counted for scoring purposes.
• One review contains only the word 'unknown' with a 2-star rating and no usable content — excluded from dimension scoring.
• Several older positive reviews (2011–2013) are very brief and generic with no specific detail, which limits their evidentiary value.
• The majority of reviews are older than 1 year; only one review (August 2024) is within the past 12 months, and it is strongly negative, describing property damage and a charge of $249 for ruining the underbelly of a home.
• Recency weighting applied: the 2024 negative review and the 2023 negative review were given elevated weight as the most current signals of business quality.
• Cash-upfront payment requirement noted across multiple reviews — this is a risk factor for consumers and was factored into pricing transparency score.

This WW Score is based on 19 usable reviews spanning 2001–2024, with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but reliability is moderated by the age of most positive reviews, a suspected duplicate review, and a clear pattern of project completion failures that persists into the most recent reviews.

Paul Bunyan Plumbing receives overwhelmingly negative feedback across nearly all dimensions, with pricing being the single most damaging area. A large majority of reviewers explicitly describe the company as overpriced, with multiple customers reporting they obtained the same work done elsewhere for 50–75% less cost, and several describing what they characterize as deceptive or manipulative sales tactics from technicians. Professionalism is deeply mixed: a handful of named technicians (Jacob, Serghei, Todd, Joe) received genuine praise for communication and courtesy, but these positives are heavily outweighed by accounts of condescending behavior, ghosting, unapproved work, and a failure to return calls. Project completion is a serious concern, with at least one customer reporting an unresolved clogged drain after three visits, another describing work performed that was later deemed unnecessary by a second plumber, and another reporting unapproved work with no follow-up. Experience scores slightly higher due to a few reviewers acknowledging technical knowledge, but this is undercut by instances where technicians failed to check warranty status, misdiagnosed issues, or provided wildly inconsistent diagnoses across visits. The positive reviews are largely older (2019–2020) and the more recent reviews (2022–2024) trend strongly negative, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent reviews (2022–2024) are predominantly negative (1–2 stars), while the positive reviews are concentrated in 2019–2020. This suggests a meaningful decline in service quality or a shift in business practices over time. More weight has been given to recent reviews.
• DECEPTIVE PRICING PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different dates describe a consistent pattern of inflated quotes, upselling unnecessary replacements, and failure to disclose warranty options or lower-cost alternatives. This is a systemic concern, not isolated incidents.
• INTEGRITY FLAG: One reviewer explicitly states the company offered a credit to their account in exchange for removing a negative Google review, which is an unethical practice and a serious trust concern.
• UNAPPROVED WORK: At least one reviewer states work was performed without their approval and the company refused to respond to follow-up calls.
• FAKE REVIEW AWARENESS: The five-star reviews (2019–2020) are specific enough in naming technicians and describing situations to appear genuine. No strong fake review pattern detected, but the stark contrast between older positive and newer negative reviews warrants caution.

This WW Score is based on 17 reviews with strong dimension coverage across all four categories, yielding HIGH confidence in the score, but the overall picture is strongly negative and the score of 38.2 should be treated as a reliable warning signal against engaging this contractor without significant due diligence.

DeVine Plumbing receives a critically low WW Score of 32.8, driven by severe and consistent failures across professionalism and project completion. Twelve reviews explicitly document unprofessional behavior including rudeness, disrespect, failure to return calls, and poor attitude toward customers—particularly those using home warranty services. Eight reviews detail incomplete or failed project work: no-shows without notice, work not completed on first visit, incorrect soldering requiring redos, 14-day delays without accountability, and jobs abandoned mid-process. While two early positive reviews (2017, 2019) mention fair pricing and good workmanship, they are vastly outweighed by nine one-star reviews documenting systemic failures. The contractor appears to have a pattern of dismissing warranty-covered calls as inconvenient, resulting in customer frustration and complaints to insurance companies and the Better Business Bureau.

• CRITICAL: Nine of thirteen reviews are one-star ratings with detailed, specific complaints—not generic criticism. This is not a fake review pattern but rather a genuine pattern of service failures.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2017–2019 (4+ years old). However, the pattern of complaints is consistent across years and specific enough to indicate systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.
• BUSINESS MODEL CONFLICT: Multiple reviews indicate the contractor was dispatched through home warranty companies (HSA, American Home Shield). Reviews suggest frustration with warranty-covered calls, which may indicate a business model mismatch rather than isolated bad days.
• PATTERN DETECTED: At least four separate customers report identical issues—no return calls, rudeness when finally contacted, and refusal to complete work or schedule appointments. This consistency across unrelated customers suggests systemic operational failure.
• ACCOUNTABILITY ABSENT: No reviews mention apologies, follow-up, or attempts to resolve complaints. Negative reviews describe dismissive and defensive behavior when confronted.

This WW Score of 32.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on thirteen detailed reviews with consistent patterns of failure across professionalism and project completion, supported by HIGH confidence across the two most heavily weighted dimensions. The contractor presents significant risk to customers.

Dean's Professional Plumbing, Heating, Air & Drain receives a critically low WW Score of 24.8, driven by overwhelming evidence of predatory pricing practices, manipulative sales tactics, and systemic failures in project completion and customer service. Across 120 reviews, the company is consistently described as engaging in bait-and-switch pricing (quoting 50-300% above market rates), fabricating emergencies to justify unnecessary replacements, and refusing to provide itemized receipts or transparent pricing. While individual technicians occasionally demonstrate competence and professionalism, the company's business model prioritizes aggressive upselling and financial extraction over customer welfare. Multiple reviews document instances of red-tagging equipment without cause, misdiagnosing problems, abandoning jobs mid-completion, and failing to honor callbacks or warranty commitments.

• SYSTEMIC PRICING FRAUD: 95 reviews explicitly mention predatory, inflated, or deceptive pricing. Documented markups of 50-300% above competitor quotes are routine. Multiple reviews cite identical manipulation tactics (initial high quote, 'manager discount' offered if customer signs immediately, final price still 2-4x market rate).
• FABRICATED EMERGENCIES & MISDIAGNOSIS: At least 18 reviews document technicians (particularly 'Jeff B' and others) falsely claiming heat exchangers are cracked, carbon monoxide levels are dangerous, or equipment is 'red tagged' when independent inspections reveal no issues. One review explicitly states a technician unplugged a wire to make a unit appear broken.
• BAIT-AND-SWITCH MEMBERSHIP: Multiple reviews report the 'Dean's Club' membership is auto-renewed without clear notice, charges appear as recurring fees despite promises of one-time payment, and the membership provides minimal actual coverage (diagnostics only, not repairs).
• ABANDONED WORK & INCOMPLETE JOBS: 52 reviews document incomplete installations, jobs abandoned mid-project when additional charges are demanded, failure to return for promised callbacks, and rescheduling appointments repeatedly without explanation.
• REFUSAL OF TRANSPARENCY: Numerous reviews report the company refuses to provide itemized receipts, hourly rates, or pricing breakdowns over the phone. This appears intentional to prevent price comparison.
• PATTERN OF TARGETING VULNERABLE POPULATIONS: Multiple reviews explicitly note the company appears to target elderly customers, single women, and first-time homeowners with aggressive sales tactics and scare tactics.
• POTENTIAL ILLEGAL PRACTICES: One review mentions the company was allegedly offered money to remove negative Google reviews. Another references the Dean's Club auto-renewal as 'probably illegal.' Multiple reviews reference credit card fraud and unauthorized charges.
• FAKE REVIEW AWARENESS: The company has a 4.7 rating on Google but 1.5 on Yelp—a massive discrepancy suggesting curated or fake positive reviews. One reviewer noted the company offers discounts for 5-star online reviews at time of service, creating incentive for artificial ratings.
• QUALITY CONTROL FAILURE: Multiple reviews document poor workmanship (incorrect installations, damaged property, code violations on new installations), yet management characterizes problematic technicians as merely 'pushy' rather than addressing systemic issues.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE HOSTILITY: Numerous reviews describe rude, condescending, or evasive customer service representatives. One review documents the company hanging up when the customer identified themselves.

This WW Score of 24.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 120 detailed reviews spanning 2015–2024, with exceptionally high mention counts across all dimensions (48–95 mentions per dimension). The overwhelming consistency of complaints across independent reviewers, the specificity of documented pricing schemes, the corroboration of identical manipulation tactics across multiple reviews, and the stark contrast between Google and Yelp ratings all point to systemic, intentional misconduct rather than isolated incidents. This company should be considered high-risk for consumers.

Two of the three reviews are scathing 1-star accounts describing serious failures across nearly every dimension. In the first negative review, Larry installed a water hammer arrester without the customer's consent, failed to resolve the issue across two visits, refused any refund, and dismissed the customer's concerns. In the second negative review, Larry arrived unprepared, reneged on a written quote, and complained about the customer's chosen hardware brand — behavior explicitly described as unprofessional. The sole positive review praises responsiveness, fair pricing, and clean workmanship, but it is outnumbered two-to-one by detailed negative accounts. The result is a very low WW Score reflecting a contractor with significant documented reliability and professionalism problems.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated with caution.
• Two of three reviews are 1-star with specific, detailed complaints; the single 5-star review is positive but cannot offset the weight of two serious negative experiences.
• The positive review (2018-07-18) and one negative review (2018-07-23) are dated within days of each other, which is a minor anomaly worth noting but not conclusive of manipulation.
• All three reviews are from 2018–2021, meaning no reviews exist from the past 12 months. Current performance of this contractor is unknown.
• Larry's pattern of refusing refunds, reneging on written quotes, and performing unauthorized work are serious red flags that go beyond ordinary service complaints.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all more than 3 years old, and should be considered LOW reliability — the score directionally reflects serious documented problems, but more recent and numerous reviews would be needed to assess this contractor with confidence.