Find Nearby Plumbers In Toledo, Ohio

Sieb Plumbing shows significant inconsistency in service quality. While some customers report excellent workmanship and long-term satisfaction (20+ years), the majority of reviews document serious failures in professionalism, project completion, and pricing transparency. Critical issues include missed appointments without notification, failure to complete work correctly (water heater installation failures, shower installation defects), overbilling and hidden charges, and poor responsiveness to customer concerns. The company demonstrates technical competence when work is performed, but execution is undermined by poor communication, incomplete follow-through, and billing disputes that damage customer trust.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2014-2019; only 3 reviews from 2023-2024. Recent reviews (2024) show critical failures (water heater inspection failure, heating system malfunction). Cannot determine if company has improved or if negative pattern persists.
• PATTERN OF NO-SHOWS: Multiple reviews (2024, 2023, 2019) document scheduled appointments with no-show or late arrival without customer notification. This is a recurring systemic issue.
• BILLING DISPUTES: Consistent pattern across multiple reviews of unexpected charges, overbilling, charges for time not worked, and refusal to provide written estimates. Suggests poor billing practices.
• QUALITY CONTROL FAILURES: Multiple reviews document incomplete or incorrect installations (water heater, shower pan, caulking, drywall gaps, missing parts). Suggests inadequate quality assurance.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE DISMISSIVENESS: 2023 review documents service manager denying customer's account of taking time off work. Indicates poor conflict resolution and customer respect.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS ARE OLDER: The two 5-star reviews are from 2023 and 2015 (with one 2023 review showing initial poor service later partially remedied). Negative trend appears to be worsening over time.

This WW Score of 48.2 should be treated with MODERATE confidence due to recency concerns and inconsistent service patterns. The score reflects genuine customer harm documented across multiple dimensions, but the concentration of negative reviews in 2014-2019 with recent 2024 failures suggests either ongoing problems or a company in decline. Recommend treating this score as a warning signal requiring verification of current service standards before engagement.

Rooter Right presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism is severely undermined by multiple reviews describing no-shows, failure to return calls, and dishonest communication about damage caused — though a handful of reviews praise individual technicians as friendly and personable. Project completion is a major concern: two separate customers reported work that failed within 24 hours or was left incomplete, one customer was charged twice for the same ineffective fix, and another was told the company would not repair damage they admitted causing. Pricing drew explicit criticism for being above-market and non-transparent, with one customer describing a bait-and-switch from $450 to $300 with no guarantee. Experience scores are dragged down by accounts of incomplete drain clearing, a broken cleanout that was concealed, and recurring failures — partially offset by a few reviews praising skilled, knowledgeable technicians.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review beginning 'We were able to get our plumbing problem taken care of the same day' appears twice with identical text, rating, and date (2024-01-10), differing only by seconds in timestamp. This is likely a duplicate submission and was counted as one unique data point for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review beginning 'Miles was super nice, and fun to talk with' appears twice with identical text, rating, and timestamp (2020-01-05). This is likely a duplicate submission and was counted as one unique data point for scoring purposes.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are older than 12 months. Only 2 reviews are from 2024, 1 from 2022, and the remainder date from 2021 or earlier — with some as far back as 2014. The WW Score may not reflect current business performance.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN: Three separate reviews describe the company failing to follow up, not returning calls, or not showing up for scheduled appointments — suggesting a systemic reliability issue rather than isolated incidents.
• INTEGRITY CONCERN: One review explicitly states the company admitted to breaking a cleanout, concealed the damage from the customer, and then refused to repair it. This is a serious professional and ethical flag.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability due to a reasonable number of reviews, but is significantly limited by the age of most reviews, two confirmed duplicate submissions, and a wide variance between strongly positive and strongly negative accounts that suggests inconsistent service quality.

Whitney Services demonstrates severe and systemic deficiencies across all four dimensions. The company exhibits chronic professionalism failures including missed appointments, no-shows, poor communication, rude staff, and unresponsiveness to customer concerns. Project completion is critically weak, with extensive documentation of abandoned work, repeated rescheduling, failure to follow through on callbacks, and incomplete repairs requiring customer intervention or third-party contractors. Pricing practices are frequently criticized as deceptive, with hidden charges, inflated estimates, and charges for services not rendered. While individual technicians occasionally demonstrate competence, the company's operational infrastructure is fundamentally broken, making reliable service delivery impossible.

• CRITICAL: Extremely high volume of 1-star reviews (approximately 110+ one-star ratings) with consistent, detailed complaints spanning 10+ years indicates systemic, persistent organizational failure—not isolated incidents.
• PATTERN: Overwhelming evidence of no-shows and missed appointments across multiple time periods, with customers reporting 2-7 scheduled appointments with zero completion.
• PATTERN: Repeated complaints about communication failures—customers unable to reach company by phone, voicemails never returned, text-only communication preventing complex problem discussion.
• PATTERN: Consistent allegations of deceptive pricing practices including undisclosed fees, inflated estimates, charges for services not rendered, and refusal to refund overcharges.
• PATTERN: Multiple reports of technicians providing incorrect diagnoses, performing unsafe work (carbon monoxide exposure, improper electrical installation, broken gas valves left unrepaired), and leaving jobs incomplete.
• PATTERN: Extensive complaints from customers assigned through American Home Shield warranty company, with customers explicitly requesting Whitney be blacklisted and AHS being criticized for continuing to use them despite documented failures.
• PATTERN: Documented instances of fraudulent billing (charging for work not performed, falsifying signatures on invoices, submitting false diagnostic reports to warranty companies).
• PATTERN: Multiple reports of property damage (flooded basements, destroyed walls, burned carpets, melted wires) caused by Whitney's negligence or incompetence, with company refusing accountability or compensation.
• PATTERN: Complaints spanning from 2014 to 2025 with no evidence of systemic improvement, suggesting organizational culture resistant to change.
• RECENCY: Recent reviews (2024-2025) show identical complaint patterns to reviews from 2014-2020, indicating no meaningful operational reform.
• RED FLAG: Approximately 40+ reviews with 5-star ratings clustered in June 2025 and June 2024 with minimal detail or generic praise (e.g., 'James was excellent,' '5 star,' empty reviews) suggest potential fake review activity, though this does not materially change the overall assessment given the overwhelming volume of detailed negative reviews with specific incidents.

This WW Score of 42.3 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 176 reviews with extensive, detailed, and consistent evidence across all dimensions. The score reflects a company with severe, systemic, and persistent operational failures documented over more than a decade. The HIGH confidence rating is appropriate given the massive volume of corroborating evidence, the specificity of complaints, and the consistency of failure patterns across time, geography, and service types. Customers should avoid this company.

The single most recent review (January 2024) is strongly positive, describing thorough sewer replacement work, proactive communication, and above-and-beyond effort from Billy and his crew. However, the review pool is small and heavily skewed toward older data, with four of six reviews dating back to 2012–2016. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension but is dragged down significantly by a no-show complaint and a late-arrival complaint. Project completion is similarly mixed: one review describes a failed drain clearing that only lasted two weeks with no guarantee honored and no refund response, while others describe successful jobs. Pricing shows both positive signals (saving a customer $2,000, described as reasonable) and a negative one (unexpected after-hours upcharge not disclosed upfront), resulting in a middling score.

• Four of six reviews are more than 8 years old (2012–2016). Only one review falls within the past 12 months. The WW Score is heavily influenced by outdated data and may not reflect current service quality.
• The 2016 and 2015 negative reviews describe serious reliability and billing transparency issues. These are older but substantive complaints that cannot be dismissed.
• The 2015 negative review describes a significant project completion failure: a temporary fix that lasted only two weeks, no guarantee offered, a $375 charge, and a six-week delay in providing an invoice. This materially lowers the project completion and experience scores.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in rating, detail level, and writing style, which supports authenticity.

This WW Score should be treated with LOW confidence due to the very small review pool (6 reviews), the age of most data (4 of 6 reviews are from 2012–2016), and the presence of substantive negative reviews describing no-shows, billing surprises, and a failed repair — making it difficult to draw reliable conclusions about current service quality.

This contractor shows severe and consistent professionalism deficiencies across multiple reviews, including rudeness, poor communication, missed appointments, and disrespect for customers' time and property. Pricing concerns are evident with reports of overcharging and lack of transparency. Project completion is inconsistent—while some jobs were finished acceptably, others involved damage (broken pipes, roof damage) and incomplete remediation. Technical skill appears moderate, with acceptable workmanship when executed but poor problem-solving when complications arise. The company's reputation has deteriorated significantly since ownership changes, and current management practices are highly problematic.

• SEVERE PROFESSIONALISM ISSUES: Multiple reviews (2015-2020) document rude behavior, arguing with customers, cursing at supervisors, and explicit refusal to serve customers. This is a pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING AND COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Repeated instances of missed appointments, false claims about customer calls, and leaving customers waiting all day without clear communication.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Evidence of price gouging (3x going rate charged for line cleaning), overcharging ($1600 vs. $900-1200 estimate), and pricing based on customer occupation rather than transparent quotes.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE: Report of causing additional pipe damage and roof damage during repairs, with inadequate remediation and refusal to take responsibility.
• RECENCY: Most negative reviews are from 2015-2020, with only two positive reviews from 2014-2016. The 2020 review suggests ongoing problems despite age of data.
• OWNERSHIP CHANGE: Explicit mention that company quality declined after original owners left and a friend took over management, suggesting management/operational issues rather than technical skill gaps.

This WW Score of 42.8 is reliable and should be trusted as a strong warning indicator. The score is based on consistent patterns of poor professionalism across multiple independent reviews spanning 5+ years, with corroborating evidence of pricing issues and project completion problems. The contractor should not be recommended.

Perrysburg Plumbing receives a low WW Score driven primarily by recurring and serious complaints across all four dimensions. Pricing is the weakest area, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out price gouging, hidden charges, and work performed without authorization — one reviewer was charged $700 for work they never approved, another paid $317 for a 20-minute drain unclog, and a garbage disposal install was billed at $705 for a unit retailing at $213. Project completion is also deeply problematic, with documented cases of damage left unacknowledged (broken valve, chipped countertop), leaking work immediately after completion, and a dishwasher left leaking for an entire vacation. Professionalism scores are mixed — some reviewers praised promptness and politeness, but others reported rude phone staff, a technician leaving without disclosing damage, and a general decline in service quality over time. Experience scores are similarly split, with long-term customers praising consistent and knowledgeable technicians while newer reviewers describe shoddy workmanship requiring immediate rework.

• Multiple reviews are older than 12 months — only 1 review (June 2023) falls within the past 12 months, meaning the score may not reflect current performance.
• Several reviews span from 2016 to 2023, suggesting a long-term pattern of pricing complaints rather than an isolated incident.
• One reviewer (2021) describes being charged for re-diagnosing the exact same issue a previous customer had already paid to fix — a potential ethical concern.
• The single most recent review (2023) is a 1-star complaint involving property damage left undisclosed by the technician, which is a serious professionalism and liability flag.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in detail, tone, rating, and specificity, suggesting authentic submissions.

This WW Score is based on 11 reviews spanning 7 years with only 1 review from the past 12 months, so while the score carries MODERATE overall confidence due to consistent patterns, it should be treated cautiously as a current performance indicator given the lack of recent data.