Find Nearby Plumbers In Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

This contractor presents a deeply bifurcated review profile: a large cluster of recent (2024–2025) positive reviews praising individual technicians for professionalism, friendliness, and same-day responsiveness, contrasted sharply with a substantial body of older (2006–2024) reviews describing systematic overcharging, fraudulent upselling, abandoned work, bounced refund checks, and repeated failure to complete jobs. Pricing is the most consistently criticized dimension across the full review history, with dozens of reviewers citing charges two to ten times higher than competitors for identical work, undisclosed fees, and bait-and-switch quoting practices. Project completion is severely undermined by multiple accounts of work left unfinished for months or years, sewage problems recurring immediately after expensive repairs, and management refusing to return calls after payment. Experience scores are mixed: recent technicians are frequently praised for skill and problem-solving, while older reviews document misdiagnosis, incorrect installations, and work that failed within weeks. The professionalism score reflects genuinely courteous individual technicians offset by a documented pattern of high-pressure sales tactics, unauthorized credit card charges, and unresponsive management.

• SUSPECTED DUPLICATE REVIEWS: At least four reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on consecutive dates (e.g., 'Very good experience. Came same day and performed a complex shower valve installation...' appears on both 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04; 'Excellent service in timely manner.' appears on both 2025-06-06 and 2025-06-03; 'Jason was very professional and friendly...' appears on both 2025-06-05 and 2025-06-02; 'They did a bad Job and then issued a Bad Check!' appears on both 2024-09-24 and 2024-09-20). These duplicates have been counted only once each for scoring purposes.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN — RECENT CLUSTER: A disproportionate number of recent 2024–2025 reviews are very short, generic, or blank (27 reviews contain no text at all, only a 5-star rating). This inflates the apparent recent sentiment and reduces the reliability of the recent positive signal.
• SEVERE NEGATIVE PATTERN IN OLDER REVIEWS: Reviews from 2006–2023 contain a high density of 1-star reviews describing fraud, price gouging, abandoned work, misdiagnosis to upsell unnecessary excavation, unauthorized credit card charges, bounced refund checks, and targeting of elderly or vulnerable customers. These are specific, detailed, and credible.
• MANAGEMENT RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE: Multiple independent reviewers across different years report that management never returned calls after complaints, refused to issue promised refunds, and in at least one case charged a credit card without authorization. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY BIAS WARNING: The majority of positive reviews are from the past 12 months (2024–2025), while the majority of negative reviews are older. This could reflect genuine improvement, a review solicitation campaign, or artificial inflation of recent scores. The blank 5-star reviews in the recent period are a red flag for the latter.
• ELDERLY CUSTOMER EXPLOITATION: Multiple reviews explicitly describe technicians targeting elderly or cognitively impaired customers with inflated quotes and pressure tactics, including a review about an 89-year-old aunt charged $640 for two toilet flappers and a review about elderly parents pressured into signing away cancellation rights.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence of duplicate and potentially artificial 5-star reviews in the recent period, a deeply polarized review history, and documented systemic issues with pricing transparency and post-payment follow-through that persist across many years.

Miller Plumbing Heating and Cooling has a deeply polarized review profile: a loyal base of long-term customers who praise consistent, high-quality work, and a substantial volume of negative reviewers who report serious pricing concerns including dramatically inflated quotes, undisclosed fees, and charges they allege were fraudulent or predatory. Pricing is the single most-mentioned dimension and carries the lowest score, with dozens of reviewers independently describing quotes 2x to 10x higher than competitors, hidden trip charges, and refusals to provide itemized billing. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by multiple accounts of no-shows, missed appointments, rude owner interactions, and a technician who allegedly trash-talked a competitor to pressure a sale. Project completion is mixed — positive reviewers describe thorough, complete work, while negative reviewers describe incomplete jobs, return visits that cost extra, and at least one case of a furnace not being fully reassembled. Experience scores are similarly split, with positive reviewers praising technical knowledge on complex installs (Navien, HVAC systems) and negative reviewers describing misdiagnoses and inexperienced technicians.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews from early-to-mid 2025 contain no review text (rating only). These blank 5-star entries inflate the star average without providing any verifiable information and should be treated as unreliable.
• ONE REVIEWER EXPLICITLY STATES they have never used this company but received 15 review requests in a few days, strongly suggesting a solicited or incentivized review campaign is active.
• EXTREME RATING POLARIZATION: Reviews cluster heavily at 1-star and 5-star with very few mid-range ratings, which is a common pattern when a business actively solicits positive reviews to offset a large volume of genuine negative feedback.
• RECENCY BIAS CONCERN: The majority of 5-star reviews are from 2023–2025, while many of the most detailed and specific negative reviews span 2015–2021. This may reflect genuine improvement over time, or it may reflect a review solicitation strategy targeting satisfied recent customers while older dissatisfied customers are not re-engaged.
• SERIOUS HISTORICAL ALLEGATIONS: One review from 2011 alleges installation of used/refurbished furnaces sold as new, BBB removal, and an Attorney General investigation. While this is old and unverified, it is a significant flag that warrants disclosure.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE HIGHLY SPECIFIC AND CONSISTENT: Multiple independent reviewers across different years cite specific dollar amounts for quotes that were 2x–10x competitor prices for identical work. The consistency and specificity of these complaints across unrelated reviewers lends them credibility.
• 11 reviews contained no text content and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence of both a solicited positive review campaign and a persistent, specific pattern of pricing and professionalism complaints from independent reviewers.

D.R. Sevacko Plumbing presents a deeply divided picture across 23 reviews. Positive reviews — primarily from customers served through insurance or warranty programs — praise responsiveness, friendliness, and efficient work. However, a substantial volume of negative reviews describes serious failures across all dimensions: rude office staff, no-shows, abandoned or incomplete job sites, upselling for unnecessary work, and billing amounts far exceeding quoted prices. The pricing dimension is particularly damaged by multiple credible accounts of inflated or fraudulent estimates and surprise charges. Project completion scores are dragged down by repeated reports of unfinished landscaping, unfilled trenches, property damage, and failure to return for promised follow-up work. The split between positive and negative reviews is stark enough that the mid-range scores reflect genuine inconsistency rather than moderate performance.

• Multiple reviews describe attempts to upsell unnecessary work, including a fabricated high-pressure reading, a $6,500 sewer repair that two independent plumbers confirmed was not needed, and pressure to add unneeded clean-out cuts — this is a serious pattern of concern.
• Several negative reviews describe billing amounts significantly higher than quoted prices with no prior warning, suggesting a pattern of non-transparent pricing practices.
• Multiple reviews report the office manager or female staff members being rude, dismissive, or unresponsive — this is a recurring and consistent complaint across different years.
• At least three reviews describe incomplete or abandoned job sites with unfilled trenches, dirt piles, and property damage left unaddressed for months or permanently.
• One review describes a missing electrical ground rod that was cut and buried — a potential safety and code violation.
• The positive reviews are largely from customers covered by third-party insurance or warranty plans, which may mean Sevacko had less financial incentive to perform well on those jobs; direct-pay customers appear more likely to report negative experiences.
• Review dates span 2017–2022 with no reviews from 2023 onward — the score reflects a contractor whose recent track record cannot be assessed from available data.
• No fake review patterns detected; both positive and negative reviews contain specific details and varied language suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score is based on 23 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions and carries HIGH overall confidence in its accuracy as a reflection of this contractor's inconsistent and frequently problematic service record.

This contractor shows a stark divide in performance: three recent positive reviews (2021–2022) praise prompt service, quality workmanship, and courteous behavior, while two older negative reviews (2022–2023) document serious failures in reliability and transparency. The most recent complaint (May 2023) describes a two-month delay, missed appointments, and dishonest rescheduling—critical professionalism failures. A second complaint (June 2022) reveals opaque pricing practices ($240/hr with undisclosed travel time and bundled costs). The positive reviews emphasize technical skill and responsiveness, but the negative reviews suggest systemic issues with scheduling integrity and pricing honesty that undermine overall trustworthiness.

• CRITICAL: Most recent review (May 2023) documents severe reliability and honesty failures—missed appointments, rescheduling without confirmation, and customer left hanging for two months. This is the most recent data point and suggests ongoing operational problems.
• Pricing transparency issue: June 2022 review reveals non-standard billing practice (travel time charged at $240/hr, bundled costs not disclosed upfront). Customer was not informed of pricing structure before service.
• Recency concern: Positive reviews are from 2021–2022; the two most recent reviews (2022–2023) are both 1-star with serious complaints. This suggests deterioration in service quality or reliability over time.
• Polarized review pattern: No middle-ground reviews (2–4 stars). All reviews are either 5-star praise or 1-star complaints, which may indicate inconsistent service delivery or selective review submission.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (5 reviews) and significant recency concerns: the most recent complaint documents critical failures in professionalism and honesty, contradicting the positive older reviews and suggesting the company's current reliability may be lower than historical performance indicates.

Stahl Plumbing & Heating exhibits a deeply polarized review pattern with stark contrasts between recent positive experiences (2024, 2022) and numerous severe complaints spanning 2009–2020. While recent reviews praise professionalism, responsiveness, and fair pricing, the overwhelming majority of historical reviews document chronic issues: rude staff, missed appointments, incomplete work, misdiagnosis, overcharging, and poor follow-up. Professionalism scores are dragged down by repeated complaints about discourteous phone staff, no-shows, and disrespectful technicians. Project completion suffers from abandoned callbacks, failed repairs requiring re-work, and broken promises. Pricing concerns include significant overcharges, hidden fees, and inflated labor rates. The company appears to have undergone management or operational changes, but the weight of negative historical evidence substantially outweighs recent improvements.

• SEVERE RECENCY BIAS: 5 of 6 most recent reviews (2024, 2022) are 5-star; 30+ reviews from 2009–2020 are predominantly 1-star. This suggests either major operational restructuring or potential review manipulation.
• PATTERN OF SYSTEMIC FAILURES: Multiple independent complaints about identical issues (rude phone staff, no-shows, misdiagnosis, overcharging, incomplete work) across different years and technicians indicate structural company problems, not isolated incidents.
• CREDIBILITY CONCERNS: Recent 5-star reviews lack specificity compared to detailed negative reviews. Positive reviews mention names (Susan, Nicole, Pete, Quinton, Mike, Tyree, Tom, Jen, Scott) but lack depth on complex issues. Negative reviews provide extensive documentation with specific dollar amounts, timelines, and technical details.
• UNRESOLVED COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews reference unresolved issues, unreturned calls, and refusal to honor warranties or stand behind work—suggesting poor accountability systems.
• BBB REFERENCES: Two reviews explicitly mention Better Business Bureau complaints and F-rating, indicating formal regulatory concerns.
• SAFETY/CODE VIOLATIONS: Reviews document code violations (copper tubing for gas line), improper installations (shower valves, fixtures in wrong bathrooms), and workmanship described as 'jury-rigged' and 'amateur.'
• FINANCIAL HARM: Cumulative documented financial losses across reviews exceed $5,000+ (flooded basement, unnecessary excavation, overcharges, re-work costs, property damage).

This WW Score of 48.2 should be treated with caution due to extreme temporal polarization: recent reviews suggest possible improvement, but 30+ years of detailed negative documentation indicates systemic, long-standing problems. The score reflects the full dataset, but consumers should heavily weight the 2009–2020 pattern of failures and note that recent positive reviews lack the specificity and corroboration of negative ones. Recommend independent verification and consultation of BBB records before engaging this company.

Mark Puharic Plumbing receives a below-average WW Score of 48.3, driven primarily by severe professionalism and pricing concerns. Multiple reviews document poor communication (unreturned calls, unresponsiveness to complaints), unethical billing practices (charging for work after customer objection, triple-charging without explanation), and aggressive upselling tactics that appear designed to maximize costs rather than solve problems efficiently. Pricing is consistently flagged as excessive ($180–$195/hr, undisclosed $90 service fees, inflated labor charges). While some reviews acknowledge technical competence and occasional follow-through, these positives are heavily outweighed by documented instances of incomplete work, missed inspections, and apparent dishonesty in problem diagnosis.

• SERIOUS ETHICAL CONCERNS: Multiple reviews allege predatory billing practices, including triple-charging without response, charging for work after customer objection, and undisclosed service fees. One customer reports being charged $280 three times after explicitly requesting no charge.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: Two separate reviews document complete non-responsiveness—one customer called daily for 2–3 weeks with no callback; another received zero reply after providing evidence of overcharging.
• POTENTIAL DIAGNOSTIC DISHONESTY: One detailed review describes what appears to be deliberate misdiagnosis (claiming $2000+ floor excavation necessary when clog was resolved in 5 minutes by competitor). Customer explicitly states this felt like 'theater and drama to get us in a place of worry.'
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Stark contrast between positive reviews (2019, 2017) and negative reviews (2018, 2023). Negative reviews are more recent and detailed; positive reviews lack specificity.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY: Multiple complaints about hidden fees ($90 service charge not disclosed upfront) and rates described as 'exorbitant' and 'crooked and shady.'
• RECENCY NOTE: Most critical negative reviews are from 2017–2023. Oldest positive review is from 2019. Recent 2023 review continues pattern of incomplete work and overcharging.

This score should be trusted with moderate-to-high confidence. Seven reviews provide sufficient data, but the pattern of serious allegations (unethical billing, non-responsiveness, apparent diagnostic dishonesty) across multiple independent customers over several years suggests systemic issues rather than isolated complaints. The WW Score of 48.3 reflects genuine business practice concerns and should be weighted heavily in contractor selection decisions.