Find Nearby Plumbers In Toledo, Ohio

The reviews that contain usable data paint an overwhelmingly negative picture of ACP and its owner John Burrows across every dimension. Professionalism is severely damaged by accounts of threats made to customers, failure to obtain required permits, extremely delayed follow-up communication, and alleged check forgery. Pricing is flagged as deeply problematic, with one reviewer reporting a final bill more than double the verbal estimate and another describing double-billing for equipment and days charged. Project completion is critically low, with multiple accounts of unfinished or incorrectly completed work including wrong fixtures installed, damaged HVAC ducting left unaddressed, and poor-quality ceiling and cabinet repairs that had to be redone by others. Workmanship quality was described as unskilled, with poor granite seams, incorrect sink installation, and damage to walls and furnishings during remediation work.

• Two reviews contain only a period or the word 'unknown' with no usable content — these were excluded from scoring.
• One review is a 5-star rating with no text whatsoever, which provides no evidence of quality and was not scored.
• All substantive reviews are dated between 2013 and 2017 — all are older than 1 year and most are 7–10 years old. This score may not reflect current business practices.
• Alleged check forgery and unauthorized cashing of insurance checks are described in one review — this is a serious legal and ethical flag beyond typical contractor complaints.
• The repeated unsolicited mention of the owner's religious identity ('Good Christian Man', 'devoted Christian') across two independent reviews may indicate a pattern of using religious affiliation as a trust-building sales tactic.
• Sample size is very small (only 3 reviews with usable data), severely limiting the reliability of all dimension scores.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to a very small number of usable reviews, all of which are more than 7 years old, and the complete absence of any positive substantive feedback to balance the severe negative accounts provided.

This business shows severe inconsistency across reviews spanning 15+ years, with a stark divide between recent positive reviews (2019-2021) and older highly negative reviews (2007-2009) alleging scams and unethical practices. Professionalism scores are dragged down by documented rudeness, poor communication (week-long callback delays), and no-shows for estimates, though recent reviews praise friendliness and responsiveness. Pricing concerns are serious: multiple reviews cite overcharging, deceptive replacement practices, and refusal to provide itemized invoices. Project completion is mixed—some jobs completed promptly, but one major job (city water hookup) resulted in no estimate and apparent abandonment. Experience ratings reflect skilled technical work in recent reviews but allegations of unlicensed personnel and deliberate misrepresentation in older reviews. The 2024 review indicates potential phone number confusion or business identity issues.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews from 2007-2009 allege fraudulent practices including deceptive product replacement, unlicensed personnel, and scamming. One review references BBB unsatisfactory rating. These are serious allegations that cannot be ignored.
• SEVERE RECENCY BIAS: Reviews split into two distinct eras—older reviews (2007-2009) are uniformly 1-star with fraud allegations; newer reviews (2019-2021) are uniformly 5-star with generic praise. This pattern is suspicious and suggests either business ownership/management change or potential review manipulation.
• BUSINESS IDENTITY CONFUSION: June 2024 review indicates caller reached 'Fry Heating and Cooling' when calling S&K plumbing number. This suggests possible phone number reassignment, business closure, or merger—raising questions about which business is actually being reviewed.
• INCONSISTENT BUSINESS NAMES: Reviews reference 'S&K', 'Newell', 'Joe', and 'Al Newell'—unclear if these are the same entity or different businesses operating under different names.
• INSUFFICIENT CURRENT DATA: Only 1 review from past 12 months (June 2024), and it reports a service failure. Most positive reviews are 3-5+ years old. Cannot reliably assess current business performance.
• UNVERIFIABLE CLAIMS: Older negative reviews contain serious allegations (scamming, unlicensed work, BBB complaints) that would require independent verification. Absence of recent corroboration does not invalidate these claims.

This score cannot be reliably calculated and should NOT be trusted. The business shows extreme inconsistency across time periods with serious fraud allegations in older reviews, unclear current business identity/status, and insufficient recent data to assess present-day operations. Any decision to hire should require independent verification of current licensing, BBB status, and direct contact confirmation.

This contractor demonstrates severe and consistent deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Five of six reviews are 1-star ratings documenting unfinished work, repeated failed repairs, overcharging, refusal to honor refunds, poor communication, and dismissive owner behavior. The single 5-star review from 2016 is substantially outweighed by multiple detailed accounts of fraud, incompetence, and unethical practices spanning 2016–2022. Professionalism is critically compromised by non-responsiveness, dishonesty, and disrespectful treatment. Pricing shows systematic overcharging and billing for work not completed. Project completion reveals abandoned repairs, repeated failures on the same issue, and refusal to rectify problems. Experience appears adequate for initial work but fails catastrophically in troubleshooting and follow-through.

• CRITICAL: 83% of reviews are 1-star ratings with detailed, specific complaints of fraud and unethical conduct—not generic dissatisfaction.
• Multiple independent reviewers report identical patterns: overcharging, incomplete repairs, non-responsiveness, and owner dismissal of complaints.
• One review documents alleged theft of customer property (furnace computer) and owner's hostile response to complaint.
• Another review documents $10,000 refund promised but never delivered, with owners refusing to return calls.
• Third review documents $3,000 in charges for repeated failed repairs on same issue (pool leak).
• Fourth review documents false diagnosis (pool heater 'shot') and customer self-repaired for $70.
• The single 5-star review (2016) is isolated and predates the pattern of complaints (2017–2022), suggesting possible deterioration or outlier.
• Owner Art Grace is personally named in multiple complaints for dishonesty and disrespect.
• One review references current lawsuit against the business and unfinished work complaints from former employees.
• Recency: Most damaging reviews are from 2020–2022 (recent); pattern is not historical but ongoing.

This score should be treated as highly reliable evidence of serious contractor deficiency. The consistency, specificity, and recency of negative reviews, combined with documented patterns of fraud and non-completion, strongly indicate this contractor poses significant financial and service risk to customers.

This contractor shows severely conflicting performance signals across only 3 reviews spanning 5 years. Two reviews (2019) describe critical failures: incomplete hot water heater diagnosis, customer self-resolution, highest pricing, and dismissive attitude. One positive review (2014) praises promptness, fair pricing, and technical competence on an A/C service. The extreme polarity, small sample size, and significant time gap between reviews make reliable scoring impossible. The 2019 reviews suggest serious professionalism and completion issues, but insufficient recent data prevents confident assessment.

• Only 3 total reviews — below minimum threshold for reliable WW Score calculation
• Extreme polarity: two 1-star reviews vs. one 5-star review with no middle ground
• 5-year gap between reviews (2014 vs. 2019) — most recent data is 5+ years old
• Second 1-star review (2019-06-02) is cryptic and provides no substantive detail; appears to reference the first review rather than independent experience
• Possible review manipulation or coordinated negative campaign given timing and vague second review
• Critical failure documented in 2019: incomplete diagnosis, customer self-resolution, dismissive communication

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume (n=3), extreme rating polarity, significant recency gap, and suspected review coordination. Any decision should be based on direct contact and recent references only.

Insufficient data to calculate WW Score reliably. Only 3 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for reliable scoring. While all three reviews are positive and mention professionalism (responsiveness, politeness, cleanliness), project completion (timely service, successful outcomes), and experience (knowledgeable workers), the sample size is too small to produce a trustworthy composite score. Additionally, all reviews are 5-star ratings with generic praise language and no specific pricing information is mentioned in any review.

• Insufficient review volume: Only 3 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews threshold met but at absolute minimum — score reliability is severely limited.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with generic positive language and no specific details about pricing, problems encountered, or concrete examples of work quality.
• Review recency concern: Two of three reviews are older than 3 years (2018 and 2020). Only one review is from 2021. Most data is stale.
• No pricing data available: Zero mentions of cost, value, quotes, or affordability across all reviews.
• Potential fake review pattern: Suspiciously uniform 5-star ratings, repetitive praise structure ('great job', 'knowledgeable', 'quick response'), and lack of specific project details suggest possible review manipulation.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (3 reviews at absolute minimum threshold), absence of pricing data, review age (mostly pre-2021), and suspicious uniformity suggesting potential fake reviews. Any score derived would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 3 reviews analyzed, with critical data sparsity across all dimensions (1–2 mentions each). The reviews are highly polarized: one 5-star from 2019 praising professionalism and job quality, versus two 1-star reviews from 2024 and 2016 citing excessive fees, poor communication, and unresolved callbacks. The extreme recency gap (one review is 5 years old) and conflicting narratives prevent reliable scoring. No dimension meets the threshold for meaningful confidence.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 total reviews — sample size is too small for reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY ISSUE: One review is from 2019 (5 years old), one from 2016 (8 years old). Only one recent review from 2024. Historical data may not reflect current operations.
• EXTREME POLARIZATION: Ratings are 5-star, 1-star, 1-star with no middle ground. This suggests either significant operational changes over time or inconsistent service delivery.
• CONFLICTING NARRATIVES: 2019 review praises professionalism and completion; 2024 and 2016 reviews cite poor communication and unresolved issues. Cannot determine which reflects current state.
• INSUFFICIENT MENTIONS: All dimensions have 1–2 mentions only. No dimension has enough data for confident scoring.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=3) and critical data sparsity. Do not rely on any dimension scores for decision-making. Recommend collecting at least 10–15 recent reviews before assessing this contractor.