Find Nearby Plumbers In Omaha, Nebraska

Acorn Plumbing's review record is dominated by serious, recurring complaints that heavily drag down all dimensions. Professionalism is severely impacted by multiple documented instances of no-shows, unanswered calls, ignored warranty requests, hanging up on customers, and rude behavior — with only a small number of older positive reviews offering any counterbalance. Project completion is similarly damaged by multiple explicit accounts of incomplete work, abandoned jobs, and refusal to honor 90-day warranties, including at least two cases that escalated to small claims court. Experience scores are mixed: a handful of older reviews praise clean, competent work, but more recent reviews describe botched repairs and incomplete installations. Pricing receives a modest score due to one positive mention of fair and competitive pricing, offset by a complaint about paying $89 for only a fraction of the work performed. The overwhelming weight of negative evidence, particularly from more recent years, makes this a contractor profile with serious reliability concerns.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are from 2006–2018, while the most recent reviews (2018–2019) are almost exclusively 1-star with serious complaints. The contractor's performance appears to have deteriorated significantly over time.
• WARRANTY VIOLATIONS: At least three separate reviewers explicitly state the contractor refused to honor his own 90-day warranty, which is a critical pattern of bad faith business practice.
• LEGAL ESCALATION: At least one reviewer reports winning a small claims court case against this contractor, and multiple reviewers mention filing or intending to file BBB complaints.
• ONE USELESS REVIEW: The review dated 2014-02-13 contains only a period ('.') with a 5-star rating and was excluded from scoring as it contains no usable data.
• POSSIBLE FAKE/INFLATED POSITIVE REVIEWS: Several older 5-star reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Everything went smoothly and he did an excellent job') with no specific details, which may inflate the positive side of the record.
• DEBT/FINANCIAL THREAT REVIEW: The 1-star review from 2019-12-30 appears to reference a financial dispute unrelated to plumbing services and may not reflect a standard customer experience, though it does indicate unresolved financial conflicts with the business owner.
• PATTERN OF IGNORING COMMUNICATIONS: At least five separate reviewers explicitly mention being unable to reach the contractor by phone or text after work was completed, suggesting a systemic pattern of post-service abandonment.

This WW Score is based on 15 reviews with usable data spanning 2006–2019, with HIGH confidence on the most heavily weighted dimensions; however, the score should be treated with caution given the stark negative trend in recent years and multiple documented legal and ethical violations that suggest the contractor's current service quality is likely worse than the blended score indicates.

This contractor has a deeply mixed record across only 4 reviews, with a critical negative review describing an incomplete job, a hidden problem not communicated to the customer, and a charge of over $300 for unresolved work. The positive reviews are largely generic and lack specific detail, which reduces their evidentiary weight. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, as the negative review explicitly describes abandoned or incomplete work and a repeat failure pattern. The positive reviews are all dated 2016–2017, making them over 7 years old, while the negative review is from 2021 and is the most recent data point available. Given the recency weighting rules, the 2021 negative review carries the most relevance to current performance.

• RECENCY WARNING: Three of four reviews are from 2016–2017 (7+ years old). The only recent review (2021) is a 1-star complaint describing incomplete work and poor communication. Current performance is likely better represented by the 2021 review.
• SUSPECTED GENERIC REVIEWS: Two 5-star reviews were posted on the exact same date and time (2017-01-13), within minutes of each other, with nearly identical vague praise and no specific details. This pattern is consistent with potentially inauthentic or coordinated reviews.
• REPEAT FAILURE PATTERN: The 1-star reviewer explicitly states this was the second time they had issues with this company, suggesting a possible systemic problem rather than an isolated incident.
• HIDDEN DEFECT / COMMUNICATION FAILURE: The technician identified a possible line break but did not inform the customer, which is a serious professionalism and project completion concern.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 4 reviews total. Scores carry very low statistical reliability and should be treated with significant caution.

This WW Score has very low reliability due to the extremely small review sample (4 reviews), the suspicious same-day duplicate positive reviews, the age of the positive reviews (2016–2017), and the fact that the most recent review describes a serious failure in both communication and job completion.

The review set is deeply polarized, with two highly detailed negative reviews from 2019 describing serious misconduct including abandoned work, structural defects, fraudulent checks, unpaid subcontractors, and erroneous charges. These negative reviews are specific, credible, and corroborated by an independent subcontractor account. The two positive reviews are brief, lack specific detail, and are older (2017 and 2024), with the 2024 review being the only recent data point. The weight of credible negative evidence across all four dimensions drives scores significantly downward. The subcontractor review independently corroborates the financial misconduct described in the homeowner negative review, lending additional credibility to the complaints.

• Two of the four reviews are highly detailed negative accounts describing abandoned projects, structural failures, fraudulent payment practices, and litigation — these are credible and specific.
• The subcontractor review (David L. LeRette Jr., Master Blaster Inc.) independently corroborates financial misconduct by the owner, including a returned check and admitted pattern of non-payment.
• The two positive reviews are vague and lack specific detail about the work performed, which reduces their evidentiary weight relative to the detailed negative reviews.
• Three of the four reviews are older than 12 months; only one review (2024) falls within the past 12 months. The 2017 positive review is over 7 years old and carries minimal weight.
• The 1-star reviews describe potential legal and financial misconduct (liens, lawsuits, returned checks) that go beyond typical service complaints and represent serious risk indicators for prospective customers.
• Total review count is only 4, which is insufficient for high-confidence scoring. All dimension scores should be treated with caution.

This WW Score has LOW reliability due to only 4 total reviews, a heavily polarized split between vague praise and highly specific misconduct allegations, and the majority of reviews being more than 12 months old — prospective customers should treat this score as a serious warning signal rather than a balanced assessment.

This contractor receives a critically low WW Score of 32.8, driven by three recent 1-star reviews (2024, 2021, 2017) documenting severe failures across all dimensions: missed appointments, bait-and-switch pricing, poor communication, unprofessional behavior, and substandard workmanship. Two older 5-star reviews (2015, 2014) praise fair pricing and professionalism, but these are substantially outweighed by the volume and recency of negative feedback. The pattern of complaints—repeated no-shows, price discrepancies, dismissive attitudes, and lack of accountability—suggests systemic operational problems rather than isolated incidents.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Three of five reviews are from 2024, 2021, and 2017 (older data). The two positive reviews are from 2015 and 2014, suggesting significant deterioration in service quality over time.
• PATTERN ALERT: Multiple reviews cite identical failure modes (no-shows, pricing discrepancies, poor communication, unprofessional responses to complaints), indicating systemic issues rather than one-off problems.
• CREDIBILITY ISSUE: The two 5-star reviews lack specificity and detail (generic praise: 'best', 'quality work', 'fair price') compared to the detailed, specific complaints in negative reviews. The positive reviews may not reflect current operations.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews total limits confidence in overall assessment, though the consistency of negative patterns is concerning.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (n=5), but the consistency and specificity of recent negative reviews, combined with the absence of recent positive feedback, suggests genuine operational problems. The score is conservative and likely reflects actual performance decline.

Dr. Fixit scores critically low across all dimensions, driven primarily by severe failures in project completion and professionalism. Four of five reviews report incomplete work, missed deadlines, broken promises, and poor communication—with projects stretching months beyond agreed timelines. Professionalism is undermined by repeated lying, vague non-answers, unresponsiveness, and lack of follow-through on callbacks. While one 2019 review praises fair pricing and quality work, it is heavily outweighed by four damaging reviews (2017–2021) documenting poor workmanship, unlicensed work, damaged customer property, and failure to honor guarantees. The company appears to have chronic capacity and management issues.

• CRITICAL: Four of five reviews are 1-star ratings with detailed, specific complaints spanning 2017–2021, indicating systemic and persistent problems rather than isolated incidents.
• LICENSING CONCERN: One review explicitly states the contractor is not licensed for plumbing or electrical work but performs it anyway—potential legal/safety violation.
• PATTERN OF DECEPTION: Multiple reviews document repeated lying about ordering materials, false promises about completion dates, and vague non-answers to direct questions.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE: One review documents unauthorized and damaging 'repair' to an antique mirror using hot glue without permission.
• RECENCY: Most negative reviews are 3+ years old (2017–2018), but the most recent review (2021) also reports severe project completion failures, suggesting ongoing issues.
• SINGLE POSITIVE REVIEW: The one 5-star review (2019) is generic in praise but lacks specificity about scope or complexity; it does not offset the weight of detailed negative accounts.

This score is reliable and should be trusted. It is based on five reviews with consistent, detailed, and specific evidence of failure across all dimensions. The preponderance of 1-star reviews with corroborating details about incomplete work, missed deadlines, poor communication, and property damage creates a clear and credible pattern of poor contractor performance.

This contractor's reviews paint a deeply concerning picture across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is severely damaged by reports of unreturned calls, billing disputes, poor communication, and even reckless driving by company vehicles. Project completion is the most alarming dimension, with one detailed review describing abandoned work, uncapped drain pipes causing sewer gas leaks, cracked concrete, and unresolved invoices sent to collections — with a second unfinished job also mentioned at a separate property. Pricing and billing practices drew explicit complaints including a confusing 'Past Due' notice and refusal to discount for incomplete work. The one positive review provides a modest offset on experience and professionalism, but it is a single voice against four negative accounts and is also among the oldest reviews in the set.

• 4 out of 5 reviews are rated 1-star, indicating a strong pattern of negative customer experiences.
• All reviews are older than 12 months; the most recent is from May 2022 and the majority are from 2015–2017. Recency is poor and current performance cannot be reliably assessed.
• The single 5-star review (2016) uses somewhat generic praise and lacks specific detail compared to the highly detailed negative reviews. It cannot be confirmed as fake but carries limited weight.
• One review explicitly describes abandoned work, health hazards (sewer gas), and collections activity — this is a serious red flag for project completion and customer relations.
• Small sample size of only 5 reviews limits statistical reliability of all dimension scores.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small review sample (5 reviews), the age of all reviews (none within the past 12 months as of 2025), and a heavily skewed negative pattern that may not reflect the contractor's current operational state.