Find Nearby Plumbers In Toledo, Ohio

Imperial Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across most reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and skilled workmanship. However, two significant negative reviews (1-star ratings from 2018 and 2017) reveal serious concerns about dishonest billing practices, unnecessary work, and poor follow-up communication that substantially impact overall trustworthiness. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and competitive, though the negative review alleges fabricated labor hours. Project completion is mostly reliable, though one review notes delayed estimate delivery. The contractor's age profile is heavily skewed toward 2011–2015 (13 of 24 reviews), with limited recent data.

• Two damaging 1-star reviews (2018 and 2017) allege dishonest billing, unnecessary labor, excessive material use, and poor customer service—these directly contradict the predominantly positive narrative and suggest inconsistent service quality or potential ethical issues.
• Two reviews contain minimal or no substantive content ('.' and 'unknown' ratings from 2015), reducing data quality.
• One review marked 'Unable to review - no response' (2015) suggests communication failures.
• Review recency is a concern: 13 of 24 reviews are from 2011–2015 (9+ years old); only 3 reviews are from 2018 or later, limiting ability to assess current performance.
• The positive reviews, while detailed and credible, are heavily concentrated in the 2011–2015 period; the most recent substantive reviews include serious allegations of fraud and poor follow-up.

This score should be treated with caution. While the numerical WW Score of 79.8 reflects mostly positive historical data, the two credible 1-star reviews alleging dishonest billing and poor communication represent material red flags that are not fully captured in the aggregate score. The heavy skew toward older reviews (2011–2015) and lack of recent positive feedback suggest the contractor's current reliability is uncertain. Prospective customers should request detailed, itemized estimates and verify work scope carefully before engaging.

Able Master (Fred) earns consistently strong marks for professionalism across nearly all reviews, with customers repeatedly praising his responsiveness, punctuality, after-hours availability, and courteous communication. Pricing is a clear strength, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting reasonable fees, no weekend surcharges, and rates below larger competitors. However, project completion is meaningfully dragged down by one detailed 1-star review in which the reviewer credibly describes incomplete work — the sewer pipe was not fully snaked, the basement floor was left dirty, and the problem recurred within 11 months — which must be weighted seriously against the otherwise positive pattern. Experience scores moderately well given frequent praise for diagnostic skill and technical knowledge, but the incomplete-snake incident introduces legitimate doubt about consistency of workmanship. Overall, Fred presents as a reliable, friendly, and affordable solo operator whose track record is strong but not without a documented quality lapse.

• One detailed 1-star review (October 2021) describes incomplete sewer cleaning, a mess left behind, and pipe failure within 11 months — this is a substantive quality and completion concern that meaningfully lowers the project_completion score.
• The business address listed on the contractor's website was flagged as non-deliverable by the 1-star reviewer, which raises a minor credibility/contact concern.
• Two reviews are from 2014 (approximately 10+ years old) and one is from 2018 — these are significantly outside the 12-month recency window and carry reduced weight. The majority of reviews with usable detail are from 2020–2023.
• Several positive reviews are written by third parties (e.g., a daughter writing on behalf of parents, a wife writing on behalf of her husband's experience) — these are lower-confidence data points as they are secondhand accounts.
• No strong fake-review patterns detected; reviews vary in length, specificity, and tone. The presence of a critical 1-star review further supports authenticity of the review set.

This WW Score is based on 11 reviews spanning 2014–2023 with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, but reliability is modestly tempered by the age of the oldest reviews, two secondhand accounts, and one well-documented negative experience that directly contradicts the otherwise positive completion narrative.

Down Under Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism, experience, and project completion. Reviews consistently praise Peter's expertise, reliability, responsiveness, and follow-through on complex projects including full re-plumbing and bathroom remodels. Pricing information is minimal (mentioned in only 1 review), limiting confidence in that dimension. The contractor's willingness to honor original bids even when circumstances changed and provide ongoing service support after project completion demonstrates exceptional commitment to customer relationships.

• All 8 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback or complaints — this uniformity is unusual and warrants caution
• Most reviews are significantly dated (5 of 8 are from 2011–2016); only 2 reviews from past 12 months provide recent performance data
• Pricing dimension based on only 1 mention; insufficient data for reliable pricing assessment
• No reviews mention specific pricing concerns, hidden charges, or affordability issues, but absence of complaint is not evidence of fair pricing

This score should be treated with moderate caution due to the small sample size (8 reviews), heavy skew toward older reviews, and perfect 5-star uniformity which may not reflect the full range of customer experiences. The professionalism, project completion, and experience scores are reasonably reliable, but the pricing score is too limited to be meaningful.

Lee's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with responsive communication, friendly staff, and punctual service across 48 mentions. Project completion is solid but shows some concerns: while most jobs are finished well, there are documented cases of incomplete repairs requiring callbacks and one significant failure to resolve a recurring water leak over a year. Pricing is generally fair and transparent (22 mentions), though one customer reported an undisclosed $65 estimate fee and another noted parts markups. Technical skill is strong (28 mentions) with knowledgeable technicians, though a few reviews indicate diagnostic failures. The company excels at customer service and professionalism but has reliability gaps in follow-through on complex issues.

• Two severe negative reviews (2024-06-09 and 2024-04-07) describe a recurring water leak issue over 12+ months where initial repair was incomplete, customer had no water for 5+ days, and company refused weekend service despite family hardship. This suggests potential project completion and responsiveness failures.
• One review (2023-06-10) reports no-show after confirmed appointment window, indicating scheduling/reliability issues.
• One review (2023-01-31) and another (2022-08-17) describe failed repairs where work was ineffective or incomplete, contradicting majority positive feedback on technical skill.
• Multiple reviews with minimal or 'unknown' text content (approximately 12 reviews) reduce data quality; these appear to be placeholder entries and were counted but provide limited substantive information.
• One review (2019-06-25) reports undisclosed $65 estimate fee that was not mentioned during initial phone call, suggesting potential transparency issues in pricing communication.
• One review (2013-04-07) describes misdiagnosis of sewer line problem that led to insurance claim denial and required second plumber to identify actual issue, indicating diagnostic limitations.
• Recency note: Approximately 35% of reviews are from 2023 or earlier (pre-2024), with some dating back to 2012-2016. Most recent reviews (2024-2025) are predominantly positive, but older reviews contain more critical feedback.

This WW Score of 78.2 is moderately reliable due to high mention counts across all dimensions and recent data concentration, but confidence is tempered by documented project completion failures (incomplete repairs, no-shows, diagnostic errors) and pricing transparency concerns that contradict the predominantly positive rating distribution. The score reflects a company with strong customer service and professionalism but inconsistent follow-through on complex issues.

Eagle Plumbing demonstrates solid overall performance with a WW Score of 76.8, reflecting a company with genuine strengths but also notable inconsistencies. Professionalism scores 78.5 based on 89 mentions, with many customers praising punctuality, courtesy, and communication—though a significant subset reports rude phone staff, no-shows, and late arrivals. Pricing scores 77.0 across 52 mentions; customers frequently cite fair and reasonable rates, though some object to parts markups and the $100 minimum service call fee. Project Completion scores 75.2 from 78 mentions, revealing a critical weakness: while many jobs are completed successfully, a substantial number of reviews document incomplete work, warranty disputes, poor craftsmanship, and failures requiring callbacks or outside contractors. Experience scores 80.5 from 68 mentions, with strong technical knowledge and problem-solving ability consistently praised, though some reviews cite incompetence or misdiagnosis. The company shows a pattern of excellent work from certain technicians (Jeff, Tim, Victor, Kevin, Bob) alongside poor experiences with others and persistent phone-based customer service issues.

• CRITICAL: Two major negative reviews (Sept 2024, 0.5 and 1.0 stars) document severe project failures on a 4-plex replumbing job—trenched and cracked sewer line covered up without repair, dozens of installation errors, extended timeline (5+ weeks vs. 1.5 weeks promised), sloppy workmanship, and incomplete follow-through. These are detailed, specific, and credible complaints suggesting systemic quality control issues on larger projects.
• PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2013–2021) report no-shows, missed appointment windows, and lack of communication despite scheduled service times. This pattern suggests operational/dispatch issues that persist across years.
• PATTERN: Recurring complaints about rude, dismissive, or sarcastic phone staff (multiple reviews mention 'Steve' and unnamed female receptionist with poor attitude). This is a consistent weak point in customer experience.
• PATTERN: Several reviews document warranty disputes, refusals to honor work guarantees, and demands that customers prove fault before service is provided at no charge.
• CONCERN: Reviews from 2024 show the company still operating, but the Sept 2024 4-plex disaster and earlier major failures suggest quality control remains inconsistent, particularly on complex/large jobs.
• RECENCY: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail, which may indicate selection bias or review platform changes. However, the Sept 2024 negative reviews are detailed and credible.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: LOW-MODERATE. Several reviews are blank (5-star with no text) or extremely generic ('Great job,' 'Wonderful,' 'unknown'). However, the majority of reviews contain specific details, named technicians, and varied experiences, suggesting authentic feedback overall. The pattern of detailed negative reviews alongside detailed positive ones supports authenticity.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: the company demonstrates genuine competence and customer satisfaction in routine jobs and with specific technicians, but exhibits serious inconsistencies in project completion quality, phone-based customer service, and performance on complex/large projects. Customers should expect variable service quality depending on technician assignment and job complexity, and should be prepared for potential communication friction and warranty disputes. The Sept 2024 4-plex failure is particularly concerning and suggests the company may struggle with scope management and quality oversight on larger engagements.

SOS Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently courteous, responsive staff and timely service across most reviews. However, the company shows significant inconsistency in project completion and pricing transparency, with multiple complaints about incomplete work, follow-up failures, and unexpected charges. Experience-level feedback is generally positive regarding technical knowledge and problem-solving, though some reviews indicate diagnostic errors. The WW Score of 76.8 reflects a company with solid fundamentals but notable reliability and pricing concerns that prevent a higher rating.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (at least 8) report no-shows, missed appointments, or failure to follow up on callbacks despite claims of 24/7 service. This is a systemic professionalism issue.
• PRICING CONCERNS: At least 6 reviews explicitly mention overcharging, inflated estimates, hidden charges, or unexpected fees. One elderly customer was allegedly charged $4,320 for work estimated at $800-$1,500 by competitors.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Multiple reviews (at least 5) report incomplete work, jobs requiring multiple visits to fix, or work that had to be redone by other contractors or homeowners.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Several reviews report poor workmanship (leaking installations, damaged fixtures, incorrect diagnostics) despite other reviews praising quality.
• OWNER/MANAGEMENT ISSUES: Multiple reviews describe rude, dismissive, or threatening behavior from ownership when complaints were raised. One review reports owner threatening legal action over payment disputes.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: At least 2 reviews report the company refusing to honor stated warranties or guarantees.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews cluster in 2017-2024 period, suggesting ongoing systemic issues rather than historical problems. Recent reviews (2024-2025) are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail, which may indicate review selection bias.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Approximately 15-20 reviews from June 9, 2024 show identical timestamps, minimal detail, or generic praise without specifics. Several are blank or single-sentence reviews. This clustering suggests possible review manipulation.
• ELDERLY CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews specifically mention poor treatment of elderly customers, including overcharging and delayed emergency service.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While the score of 76.8 is supported by substantial data (150 reviews), the company exhibits a troubling pattern of inconsistency: excellent service in some cases paired with serious failures in others, particularly around appointment reliability, pricing transparency, and warranty honoring. The recent clustering of generic 5-star reviews and the prevalence of detailed negative reviews from 2017-2024 suggest the company may have systemic operational issues that are not fully reflected in the overall score. Prospective customers should request detailed written estimates, confirm appointment times in writing, and consider the company's mixed track record before committing to major projects.