Find Nearby Plumbers In Lorain, Ohio

Raymond Plumbing has a long history of loyal customers and many positive mentions of punctuality, friendliness, and responsiveness — particularly for emergency calls. However, the review set contains several serious negative incidents that meaningfully drag down all dimensions: a faulty water heater installation that was abandoned mid-emergency, a no-show on two separate scheduled appointments, repeated failures to return calls, a flooded bathroom with denied responsibility, and a furnace installed improperly with the owner responding rudely when confronted. Pricing is generally viewed as fair or reasonable by satisfied customers, but at least two reviewers felt they were overcharged or not given transparent cost breakdowns. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with multiple reviews describing incomplete follow-through, abandoned callbacks, and refusal to stand behind faulty work. The overall picture is a company with genuine strengths in responsiveness and friendliness under normal conditions, but with a documented pattern of failure when things go wrong.

• 23 reviews contain only 'unknown' or single-word text (e.g., 'Great.', 'Extremely well.', '.') with no usable detail — these were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews.
• Many of the vague 5-star reviews cluster between 2014–2017 with no substantive content, which may indicate padding of the review profile.
• Recency concern: The only review from the past 12 months (2024) is positive, but the bulk of detailed reviews — both positive and negative — are from 2013–2019. The score is heavily influenced by older data.
• At least 3 reviews describe serious workmanship failures: a faulty water heater solder joint causing flooding, an improperly installed furnace that rusted out, and a bathroom floor damaged by a plumber with denied responsibility.
• At least 3 reviews describe serious responsiveness/callback failures: no-show on two consecutive appointments, 5-hour wait with no callback during a sewer emergency, and refusal to assist during an active plumbing emergency caused by their own work.
• One review (2008) describes the owner personally swearing at a customer — a significant professionalism red flag.
• One review (2014) describes a technician leaving a job site without explanation when met with minor confusion from staff — unprofessional behavior.

This WW Score is based on a large review set with sufficient detail to be moderately reliable, but should be interpreted cautiously given the volume of content-free reviews, the age of most substantive reviews, and a documented pattern of serious service failures that suggest inconsistent quality control.

This review set aggregates feedback across what appears to be multiple contractors and companies all operating under or associated with the 'ASAP Plumbing' name, which significantly complicates scoring. Positive reviews — many centered on individual plumbers named Bruce, Jerry, and Anthony — consistently praise punctuality, friendliness, fair pricing, and quality workmanship, driving scores upward across all dimensions. However, a substantial cluster of serious negative reviews describes abandoned work, dangerous code violations, dishonest upselling, rude behavior, and jobs left incomplete or improperly executed, pulling scores down considerably. The water heater installation failure described in two separate reviews (likely the same incident) is a particularly damaging data point for both project completion and experience. Overall, the score reflects a deeply mixed contractor profile where individual technician quality varies enormously and company-level accountability is a recurring concern.

• MULTIPLE ENTITIES WARNING: Reviews appear to reference several distinct contractors and possibly multiple separate businesses all using the 'ASAP Plumbing' name across different geographic regions (California, Kansas, Virginia, etc.). Scores should not be interpreted as reflecting a single unified business.
• BLANK/EMPTY REVIEWS: At least 7 reviews contained no text content (only a rating of 5.0). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews. Their uniformly positive ratings with zero detail raise concerns about authenticity.
• SUSPECTED FAKE OR LOW-QUALITY REVIEWS: Several reviews consist of only a period ('.'), 'unknown', or a single generic sentence with no specifics. These add no usable data and inflate the raw star average artificially.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2002 to 2024. A significant number of reviews predate 2020 and were given reduced weight. The most recent negative reviews (2023–2024) include a dangerous water heater installation failure and an abandoned job with no follow-up, which are weighted more heavily.
• SERIOUS SAFETY INCIDENT: One review (2002) describes a boiler flue installation that was not up to code, caused carbon monoxide leakage, triggered a fire department response, and was subsequently repaired improperly. Another (2024) describes an oversized water heater installed without a drip pan in a confined space, leading to unit failure within a month. These are significant safety and competence red flags.
• ABANDONED WORK PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe jobs that were started but never completed, with the company becoming unreachable afterward. This is a recurring pattern across different time periods and locations.
• PRICING CONCERN: At least two reviews describe charges of approximately $1,800 for water heater installations that resulted in immediate failure, followed by demands for an additional $580 without proper diagnosis. One review describes a $5,200 quote that a second plumber resolved for $160.
• HIDDEN FEES: One reviewer noted an undisclosed 3.5% credit card surcharge revealed only after work was completed.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but its reliability as a guide to any single contractor is LOW because the reviews almost certainly reflect multiple distinct businesses and individual plumbers operating under similar or identical trade names across different regions — consumers should verify which specific entity and technician they are hiring before relying on this score.

DM Plumbing has a deeply split record: a large body of older reviews (2008–2015) paints a picture of a reliable, professional, fairly priced local company, while a consistent pattern of serious negative reviews spanning 2011 through 2024 reveals critical failures in responsiveness, owner accountability, and technical competence. The most damaging reviews describe technicians unable to diagnose problems independently, work left incomplete or reversed across multiple visits, and an owner who repeatedly refuses to return calls or address complaints — a pattern that appears across at least five separate reviewers over a decade. The most recent review (September 2024) confirms these problems have not been resolved, and the 2021 review describing undiagnosed carbon monoxide drafting into a home for three years is a severe safety and competence red flag. Pricing scores are moderate — several reviewers found prices fair or competitive, but multiple others felt overcharged for poor or incomplete work, which significantly undermines the value proposition.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are from 2008–2015. Only one review exists from the past 12 months (September 2024), and it is a 1-star complaint. The most recent 4 years (2021–2024) contain only negative reviews.
• PATTERN OF OWNER NON-RESPONSIVENESS: At least 5 separate reviewers across different years (2011, 2014, 2015, 2021, 2024) explicitly state that the owner or management refused to return calls or respond to complaints. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SERIOUS SAFETY CONCERN: One detailed 2021 review describes DM Plumbing failing to diagnose carbon monoxide drafting into a home over three years of repeated visits, and allegedly turning off a boiler refill valve unsafely. A second company identified these issues in under an hour. This represents a significant technical competence and safety failure.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW GRADE: Several reviews consist only of 'unknown', '.', 'Fantastic', 'Excellent', or 'No problem' with 5-star ratings and no substantive detail. These reviews (approximately 8–10) provide no usable data and may inflate the overall star rating on external platforms. They were excluded from dimension scoring.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Multiple reviewers describe jobs that were not completed, required callbacks that were never honored, or required a second company to finish or correct DM's work. This is a recurring theme across at least 4 detailed negative reviews.
• TECHNICIAN SKILL INCONSISTENCY: At least 3 reviews describe sending inexperienced technicians who required guidance from the customer or remote instruction from supervisors, suggesting inconsistent staffing quality.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the volume of reviews, but the score should be interpreted cautiously — the contractor's performance appears to have materially declined over time, and recent evidence (2021–2024) strongly suggests the company is no longer operating at the standard reflected in its older positive reviews.

Affordable Plumbing presents a deeply split profile across its review history. On the positive side, individual technicians — particularly Colby, Josh, Jeff, and Edwin — receive consistent and specific praise for technical skill, thoroughness, and friendly communication, and pricing is frequently cited as a genuine strength relative to competitors. However, the owner Rick Ramsey is the subject of multiple serious, detailed negative reviews spanning from 2014 through 2025, describing yelling, hanging up on customers, refusing refunds for incomplete work, filling a hole against explicit customer instruction, and failing to honor employee commitments — a persistent pattern that significantly drags down the professionalism and project completion scores. Project completion is further undermined by credible accounts of work left unfinished, callbacks not honored, incorrect diagnoses, and at least one instance of toilets installed improperly causing thousands in water damage. The pricing dimension scores moderately well because many reviewers genuinely praise affordability, though several negative reviewers note inflated diagnostic quotes and bait-and-switch pricing concerns.

• Two reviews dated 2014-11-04 are near-identical in full text and rating — one appears to be a duplicate submission and was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• Two reviews dated 2020-08-07 are near-identical in full text describing a dangerous driver incident — treated as one unique incident for scoring.
• Several reviews contain only 'unknown', '.', or no substantive text and were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• A recurring pattern of owner Rick Ramsey responding aggressively to complaints appears across multiple independent, detailed reviews spanning 2015–2025, suggesting a systemic behavioral issue rather than isolated incidents.
• One negative reviewer (2019-10-02) alleges the technician 'appeared to be on drugs' — this is unverifiable but noted as a serious claim.
• One reviewer (2019-09-04) alleges work was paid for but not performed, and a refund was refused — a potential fraud/breach-of-contract concern.
• One reviewer (2019-04-22) alleges improperly installed toilets caused approximately $15,000 in property damage and the owner refused responsibility.
• One reviewer (2025-06-05) alleges the owner filled a hole in their driveway after being explicitly told not to, then sent a taunting text — corroborated by invoice documentation described in the review.
• Recency note: The most recent reviews (2024–2025) continue to show both strong positive technician reviews and serious negative owner-conduct reviews, indicating the split pattern has not resolved over time.
• Several 5-star reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Excellent.', 'Colby is Great. Five Star! Very knowledgeable!') with minimal specifics — minor fake review risk, though most positive reviews are sufficiently detailed to be credible.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over a decade and carries HIGH data confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously: the company's quality is highly dependent on which technician is assigned, and the owner's documented pattern of aggressive and unprofessional conduct toward dissatisfied customers represents a material risk that the numerical score alone does not fully capture.

This contractor demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism when engaged, with multiple reviews praising punctuality, knowledge, and fair pricing. However, the WW Score is significantly dragged down by serious project completion failures: multiple reviews document unresolved callbacks, abandoned work, failure to honor commitments, and lack of follow-up after installation issues. The most recent negative review (2023) describes repeated callback failures and equipment left on-site. While older positive reviews (2008–2013) suggest historical competence, the pattern of non-responsiveness and incomplete follow-through is a critical weakness that undermines overall reliability.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2023, 2020, 2014, 2010) document severe callback and follow-up failures — this is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• Recency concern: Most positive reviews are 8+ years old (2008–2013). The most recent substantive review (2023) is highly negative and describes ongoing callback problems.
• Three reviews contain minimal/placeholder text ('.' , 'unknown', 'see above', 'Please see above', 'It didn't, lucky for me') — these 5 reviews provide no usable data and were excluded from scoring.
• Contradiction in company reliability: Strong technical work and professionalism when present, but chronic failure to follow up or honor commitments suggests organizational/communication breakdown rather than individual technician issues.
• One 2023 review explicitly states the company failed to stand behind their work and left equipment on-site after 5 weeks of unanswered callback attempts.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-to-LOW confidence due to age of positive reviews and a clear pattern of project completion failures documented across multiple time periods, most critically in the most recent review from 2023. The contractor's technical ability appears sound, but responsiveness and follow-through are unreliable.

Geisel shows significant inconsistency across service quality. Professionalism scores moderately at 68 due to mixed experiences: several reviews praise punctuality, communication, and courtesy (5 positive mentions), but multiple critical failures in responsiveness, follow-through, and accountability (9 negative mentions including no-shows, ignored callbacks, and poor customer service). Project completion is particularly weak at 58, with serious concerns about incomplete work, code violations, warranty issues, and failure to honor callbacks. Experience/workmanship averages 65, with skilled technicians noted in some jobs but significant technical failures (poor installations, incorrect diagnoses, lack of basic plumbing knowledge) in others. Pricing is problematic at 52, with complaints about unexpected price increases, inflated labor charges, and refusal to adjust bills for their own errors.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document serious safety and code violations—gas line installation failures, improper furnace work, and dangerous water shutoff situations that endangered customers.
• PATTERN: Repeated failures in project completion and follow-through—no-shows, ignored callbacks, abandoned work, and unresponsiveness to customer contact across multiple years (2014–2024).
• ACCOUNTABILITY ISSUE: Company initially refused to acknowledge errors (gas line code violations, labor overcharges) and only adjusted after public review complaints; dispatcher and office staff frequently dismissive of customer concerns.
• QUALITY CONTROL: Inconsistent technician performance suggests inadequate training or oversight—same company has both highly praised technicians (Tim, Joel, Michael, Frank) and severely criticized ones (Pete, unnamed technicians).
• RECENCY: Recent reviews (2024, 2023) show continued serious problems (gas leak from poor installation, illegal permit practices, unresponsiveness), indicating issues are not historical but ongoing.
• WARRANTY/CLAIMS: Multiple reviews document false reporting to warranty companies, warranty claim denials due to company error, and refusal to honor 30-day warranties.

This WW Score of 62.8 should be treated with caution but is directionally accurate: Geisel demonstrates capability in professionalism and technical knowledge with certain technicians, but is severely undermined by chronic project completion failures, safety/code violations, poor accountability, and inconsistent service quality that has persisted across a decade of reviews. The score reflects a company with high variance—capable of excellent work but unreliable execution and customer service recovery.