Find Nearby Plumbers In Lima, Ohio

QPH receives strong praise across multiple reviews for respectful, polite, and communicative technicians, with several reviewers specifically calling out individual workers by name for going above and beyond. Project completion is generally solid — jobs were finished on time, cleanly, and as promised — but one notable negative review describes a technician who failed to perform the requested diagnostic work and charged for it anyway, which meaningfully drags down both professionalism and project completion scores. Experience scores are supported by detailed accounts of skilled technical work including complex repiping, HVAC conversion, and problem-solving under difficult conditions, though the bolt-in-pipe incident and the mask compliance complaint introduce credible negative signals. Pricing is mentioned positively in a handful of reviews with references to fair quotes and affordability, but the sample is too small to treat as fully reliable. The overall score is tempered by the age of most reviews — the majority predate 2022, with several from 2015–2018, reducing confidence in how well this reflects current performance.

• Two reviews contain only the text 'unknown' with 5-star ratings and no usable content — these were excluded from scoring as they provide no verifiable information.
• One review is dated 1999 and another 1997 — these are over 20 years old and were given minimal weight as they cannot reflect current business practices.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months (most from 2015–2022), with only one review from the past 12 months (September 2022). Current performance cannot be reliably assessed.
• One review (1-star, 2021) specifically cites employees refusing to wear masks when asked — this is a direct professionalism and conduct concern and was weighted accordingly.
• One review (1-star, 2018) describes a technician named 'Tayler' who failed to perform the requested camera inspection, charged $150 for incomplete work, and required a second visit to resolve what should have been caught initially — this is a significant project completion and professionalism failure.
• No strong fake review patterns detected, though several 5-star reviews are brief and generic. The presence of specific names, dates, and detailed narratives in the majority of reviews suggests authenticity.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability — the review base is small (14 total, 13 usable), most reviews are more than one year old, and two reviews contained no usable data, meaning current performance may differ significantly from what this score reflects.

All three reviews consistently praise punctuality, communication, and professionalism, driving a strong professionalism score. Project completion is well-supported, with all reviewers confirming their issues were resolved successfully and in a timely manner. Experience is noted in two reviews — one highlights that this plumber solved a problem two prior plumbers could not, which is a meaningful signal of technical skill. Pricing is mentioned in only one review, where the customer noted the bill was less than expected, yielding a conservative but positive score. Overall, the scores are encouraging but must be treated cautiously given the very small review pool.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated with significant caution.
• One review (2019-07-10) is over 5 years old and was given reduced weight relative to the two more recent reviews.
• All three reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback. While the reviews contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformly perfect ratings across a small sample warrant mild caution.
• No reviews mention any negative experiences, delays, or unresolved issues — this may reflect genuine quality or simply an insufficient sample to surface problems.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, placing it at the bare minimum for calculation — the score should be considered a preliminary indicator only and not a reliable representation of consistent contractor performance.

The reviews present a mixed but overall cautiously positive picture. Two detailed positive reviews highlight strong technical knowledge, thorough explanations, and efficient work on complex plumbing and HVAC systems, which drives the experience and project completion scores upward. However, a significant negative review explicitly calls out an inability to reach the company due to a perpetually full answering machine, which meaningfully drags down the professionalism score — communication and responsiveness are core components of that dimension. Pricing was not mentioned in any review, so no score can be assigned there. With only 3 reviews total and one dating back to 2015, the dataset is extremely thin and the scores should be treated with considerable caution.

• Only 3 reviews total — this is the minimum threshold for a WW Score calculation and reliability is very low.
• One review is from 2015 (approximately 9-10 years old) and may not reflect current service quality.
• The remaining two positive reviews are from 2020, meaning no recent reviews within the past 12 months are present — recency is a concern across the entire dataset.
• No pricing information was mentioned in any review — the pricing dimension cannot be scored.
• The unanswered phone/full voicemail complaint is a notable professionalism red flag that should be weighted seriously despite being outnumbered by positive reviews.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, none of which are recent, making it a very low-reliability signal — prospective customers should seek additional current references before making a hiring decision.

Doug's Plumbing & Heating shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 10+ years. Professionalism scores are heavily polarized: highly praised in older reviews (2013-2022) for punctuality and courtesy, but severely criticized in recent negative reviews (2023, 2022) for unavailability and unprofessional conduct. Pricing is a major weakness, with explicit complaints about overcharging (6x market rate, $150/hour deemed excessive) and unprofessional price negotiation tactics. Project completion is undermined by a 2023 review alleging jobs are left unfinished for weeks. Technical skill appears solid based on positive feedback about workmanship and problem-solving, but this cannot overcome the service and pricing concerns.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 5-10+ years old (2013-2018). The two most recent reviews (2023, 2022) are both 1-star with serious complaints about professionalism and pricing. This suggests service quality may have declined significantly.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: Two reviews marked 'unknown' with 5-star ratings (2015, 2014) contain no usable detail and appear to be placeholder entries. These were excluded from scoring but suggest data quality issues.
• EXTREME POLARIZATION: Ratings are bimodal (1-star or 5-star with no middle ground), which is atypical and suggests either genuine service inconsistency or review manipulation.
• PRICING RED FLAG: Multiple explicit complaints about overcharging and unprofessional pricing behavior. One reviewer noted $150/hour is 'quite expensive' and the contractor overestimated hours significantly.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: 2023 review explicitly states jobs are not finished on time and employees are unavailable for weeks, contradicting older claims of promptness.

This score should be treated with caution due to extreme recency bias in negative reviews, significant service quality inconsistency over time, and limited mention counts across dimensions. The WW Score reflects a contractor in decline; recent reviews suggest current service does not match historical reputation.

Mr. Comfort's review record is heavily dominated by pricing complaints, which represent the single most consistent and damaging theme across the entire dataset. Numerous reviewers across multiple years describe being charged dramatically above-market rates for parts and labor, with several citing specific dollar comparisons that reveal markups of 200–500% on parts alone. Project completion is also a serious concern, with multiple reviews describing jobs left incomplete, technicians refusing to perform work after charging diagnostic fees, and at least two cases where agreed-upon scope was not delivered. Professionalism scores are mixed: individual technicians are frequently praised as friendly and courteous, but the company-level behavior — dismissing callbacks, pressuring vulnerable customers into contracts, and failing to honor commitments — drags the score down significantly. Experience scores are similarly split, with some technicians demonstrating clear competence while others misdiagnosed problems that a second plumber resolved quickly and cheaply.

• PRICING GOUGING PATTERN: At least 15 reviews across multiple years independently describe being charged far above market rate for parts and labor. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians charging diagnostic or service fees and then refusing to complete the job, or leaving work unfinished after full payment was received.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2021-02-03 are nearly identical (same story about manifold not installed), and two reviews dated 2021-11-14 describe the same snake job overcharge. These appear to be the same customer posting twice. Counted once each for scoring purposes.
• BLANK/CONTENT-FREE REVIEWS: At least 8 reviews contain no text whatsoever (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of positive reviews are from 2006–2017 (operating as ARS Service Express). The most recent reviews (2021–2024) skew heavily negative. The company's current performance appears significantly worse than its historical record suggests.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW LEVEL: Several older 5-star reviews contain only one or two generic sentences with no specifics ('Fast and friendly', 'Quick service', 'unknown', 'See above', 'Please see above comments'). These may be padding. Confidence is not materially reduced given the large volume of detailed reviews, but these were weighted minimally.
• CRISIS PRICING ALLEGATION: One reviewer explicitly alleges price gouging during the 2021 winter storm, charging $1,589 for a 2-hour job. The owner reportedly refused to discuss the billing.
• PREDATORY UPSELL ALLEGATION: One detailed 2024 review alleges a technician fabricated or exaggerated the scope of damage to push an $11,000 whole-home repipe, which was ultimately resolved for under $50 by the homeowner.
• OWNER/MANAGEMENT CONDUCT: Multiple reviews describe the owner or management refusing to engage with billing complaints, dismissing customers, or behaving dismissively. This is a company-level conduct issue beyond individual technician behavior.

This WW Score is based on 68 reviews spanning approximately 18 years and carries HIGH confidence due to the large volume of detailed, specific reviews; however, consumers should weight the 2019–2024 reviews most heavily, as they paint a substantially more negative picture than the older historical record, particularly regarding pricing transparency and project completion.

This contractor has a deeply polarized review profile, with two serious 1-star complaints pulling scores down significantly. The most damaging review describes a technician who failed to properly inspect a crawl space, spent three hours without diagnosing an obvious leak, and was followed by an owner who threatened legal action and hung up on the customer rather than resolving the dispute — a severe professionalism failure. A second 1-star review alleges property damage that was refused to be repaired, which is a critical project completion failure. On the positive side, three 5-star reviews praise responsiveness, timeliness, and quality of work, including an emergency late-night call handled well. However, the positive reviews are largely generic and lack specific technical detail, reducing their evidentiary weight. Pricing was not mentioned in any review, so that dimension cannot be scored.

• Two serious negative reviews allege significant failures: one involving an unresolved leak diagnosis and hostile owner communication, and one alleging property damage that was refused to be repaired. These are not minor complaints.
• The three 5-star reviews are relatively generic in language and light on specific technical detail, which slightly reduces their evidentiary weight, though they do not appear to be coordinated fake reviews.
• Review dates span from 2019 to 2023. Only one review (2023) falls within the past 12 months relative to the most recent date provided. The majority of reviews are 2+ years old, reducing confidence in current performance.
• Sample size is very small (5 reviews total). Scores and the WW Score should be treated as highly provisional and not representative of consistent performance.
• No pricing information was mentioned in any review; the pricing dimension cannot be scored and is excluded from the WW Score calculation.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning four years, includes two serious unresolved complaints, and should be considered highly unreliable as a representation of this contractor's consistent quality — prospective customers should seek additional references before hiring.