Find Nearby Plumbers In Ogden, Utah

Norm's Plumbing presents a deeply divided picture across its review history. On the positive side, several long-term customers praise reliability, responsiveness, and reasonable pricing, with one reviewer specifically noting competitive water heater installation pricing at less than half of competing quotes. However, multiple detailed negative reviews describe serious workmanship failures including leaky pipes, code violations, improperly installed fixtures, and work left incomplete — with at least two reviewers stating they had to hire another plumber to correct Norm's work. Professionalism is significantly dragged down by incidents of showing up late without notice, failing to apologize, disclosing a customer's private financial information to a third party, and charging customers to fix the company's own mistakes. Project completion scores are low due to multiple explicit accounts of unfinished or defective work requiring callbacks or outside remediation. The most recent substantive reviews (2020–2023) are mixed but lean negative on reliability and workmanship, which is weighted more heavily under recency rules.

• Two reviews ('unknown' and a single period '.') contain no usable text and were excluded from scoring.
• The review dated 2023-02-08 mentions a 20+ year personal relationship with the owners, which may introduce bias and reduce objectivity.
• Several positive reviews are vague and lack specific detail (e.g., 'they always do a great job'), which limits their evidentiary weight per scoring rules.
• The majority of reviews are older than 3 years, with only two reviews from 2020 or later that contain substantive detail — recency weighting limits confidence in current service quality.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the stark split between generic praise and highly detailed negative accounts warrants caution when interpreting positive reviews.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a meaningful number of substantive reviews, but is significantly limited by the age of most reviews, the presence of two non-usable submissions, and a sharp credibility gap between vague positive reviews and highly specific negative accounts describing workmanship and professionalism failures.

The review set is extremely small, heavily dated, and mixed in quality. One review explicitly calls the contractor 'the most unprofessional and difficult person' they have worked with, which is a serious negative signal for professionalism. Positive reviews are largely vague and generic, offering little specific detail to substantiate high scores. One review does provide meaningful positive detail — noting punctuality, a courtesy call ahead of arrival, politeness, and a completed drain repair — which partially offsets the negative. No reviewer mentioned pricing or value at any point, so that dimension cannot be scored.

• ALL reviews are older than 8 years — the most recent is from 2016. This data is severely outdated and may not reflect current contractor quality or behavior.
• One review contains only the word 'unknown' with a 1-star rating and provides no usable information — excluded from scoring.
• Several positive reviews are suspiciously brief and generic ('They did a really good job.', 'It went great, these guys know what they are doing') with no specific details, raising mild concern about authenticity or usefulness.
• Pricing dimension has zero mentions across all reviews — this dimension cannot be scored and was excluded from WW Score calculation.
• Sample size of 6 reviews (5 usable) is very low. Scores should be treated with significant caution.

This WW Score has very low reliability due to an extremely small and entirely outdated review set, a complete absence of pricing data, and a mix of vague generic praise against one explicit professionalism complaint — this score should not be used as a confident indicator of current contractor quality.

Total Home Services of Utah receives a critically low WW Score of 28.4, driven by severe and consistent failures across professionalism and project completion. Thirteen reviews explicitly document unprofessional behavior including rudeness, disrespect for customer time, poor communication, and unresponsiveness. Twelve reviews detail incomplete or failed project work, including multiple no-shows, unresolved issues requiring repeat visits, and incorrect parts orders. While five reviews mention competent technicians with solid technical skills, this positive experience is vastly outweighed by systemic operational failures. The company demonstrates a pattern of billing disputes, failure to honor commitments, and lack of accountability. Only two positive reviews (both from 2021-2022) contrast sharply with fourteen negative reviews spanning 2019-2024.

• SEVERE PATTERN OF COMPLAINTS: 14 of 16 reviews are 1-star ratings with detailed complaints. This is not random dissatisfaction but systematic operational failure.
• RECURRING THEMES ACROSS REVIEWS: Multiple independent reviewers report identical problems—no-shows, failure to return calls, inaccurate communication about service visits, and unresolved technical issues. This suggests systemic company-wide issues, not isolated incidents.
• BILLING AND ETHICS CONCERNS: Multiple reviews document billing disputes, charges for incomplete work, and alleged misrepresentation to warranty companies. One review explicitly questions business ethics.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: At least 6 reviews specifically mention failure to return calls, missed appointments without notification, and false claims about leaving voicemails. This is a critical operational failure.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE HOSTILITY: Multiple reviews describe rude, dismissive, and disrespectful behavior from technicians and management. One review documents a tech calling a customer 'delusional' on an invoice.
• RECENCY CONCERN: While older reviews exist (2019-2020), negative reviews continue through 2024 (March 2024), indicating problems persist.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS ARE OUTLIERS: The two 5-star reviews (2021-2022) praise individual technicians (Yannick, Mike Murphy, Merrill) but do not address systemic company issues. These appear to be exceptions rather than evidence of company-wide quality.

This WW Score of 28.4 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 16 reviews with consistent, detailed, and corroborating evidence of systemic failures in professionalism and project completion. The overwhelming majority of reviews (87.5%) are 1-star ratings with specific, credible complaints that align across independent customers. This company demonstrates critical operational and interpersonal deficiencies and poses significant risk to customers.

Edge Plumbing demonstrates severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Project completion is critically weak, with 8 reviews documenting incomplete work, abandoned jobs, broken promises, and failure to follow through on callbacks. Professionalism is severely compromised by rudeness, unresponsiveness, hanging up on customers, and dismissive attitudes toward legitimate concerns. Technical experience is questionable, with multiple instances of improper installations (wrong water line types, inadequate repairs using tape instead of proper fittings) and lack of preparedness. Pricing concerns emerge in 2 reviews suggesting potential bait-and-switch tactics to generate additional service calls. The company's overall pattern suggests systemic operational and ethical failures.

• CRITICAL: BBB rating of F mentioned in one review for hiring unlicensed workers without proper supervision—serious regulatory violation
• Pattern of non-responsiveness: multiple reviews document ignored calls and unreturned messages
• Potential bait-and-switch practice: showing up unprepared, promising return visits, then refusing to follow through to force additional service charges
• Safety and liability concern: one review documents basement flooding caused by plumber negligence; company refused responsibility and owner would not return calls
• Suspicious business practice: flood repair company allegedly on speed dial when damage occurred
• Consistent pattern of poor workmanship: wrong materials used, improper installations, temporary fixes instead of proper repairs
• All reviews are from 2013-2017 (7-11 years old); no recent reviews available to assess if practices have improved
• Rudeness and dismissiveness documented in multiple reviews; one employee (Cody) specifically called customer a liar and contractor an idiot

This WW Score of 18.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 8 detailed reviews with consistent patterns of failure across all dimensions, supported by HIGH confidence across three major dimensions. The company demonstrates systemic problems in professionalism, project completion, and technical competence. However, note that all reviews are 7-11 years old; current performance may differ, though the absence of recent reviews is itself concerning.

This business is a plumbing/sprinkler supply store, not a contractor or plumber performing installation work. The WW Score framework is designed to evaluate contractors who complete projects (installation, repair, renovation). This entity operates as a retail supplier and customer service business. Professionalism and Experience scores reflect exceptional staff knowledge, friendliness, and helpfulness across 38 and 28 mentions respectively. Pricing is competitive and fair (9 mentions). However, Project Completion cannot be scored because this business does not undertake customer projects—they sell parts and provide advice. The WW Score cannot be reliably calculated without the Project Completion dimension, which carries 35% weight.

• CRITICAL: This business is a plumbing supply store, not a contractor/plumber. The WW Score framework is designed for service contractors who complete projects. This entity sells parts and provides retail customer service.
• All 51 reviews are 5-star ratings except one 4-star review. While reviews contain specific details and vary in language, the uniformly positive sentiment is consistent with a highly-regarded local business rather than fake reviews.
• No reviews mention project completion, callbacks, timeliness of job delivery, or abandoned work—because this business does not perform installation or repair projects.
• Review dates span 2016–2025, with majority from 2022 onwards, indicating sustained quality over time.
• Multiple reviews mention specific employee names (Bill, Carter, Dallen, McKayla, Michaela, Chris, Mark, Nathan, Dylan, Dillon), adding credibility and specificity.

A WW Score cannot be calculated for this business because it is a retail plumbing supply store, not a contractor performing projects. The Project Completion dimension (35% weight) is not applicable. If evaluating this business as a retail supplier on professionalism and expertise alone, it demonstrates exceptional performance (95 and 93 respectively), but this does not constitute a valid WW Score for contractor evaluation.

This contractor presents an extremely polarized profile with one exceptional 5-star review from June 2024 contrasting sharply against three damaging 1-star reviews from 2022–2023. The positive review praises professionalism, fair pricing ($64k vs. $53k–$122k quotes), on-time delivery, and skilled workmanship. However, three separate reviews document serious failures: incomplete work with year-long delays, poor craftsmanship (flooring gaps, cracked drywall, failing grout), abandonment of projects, non-responsiveness, and refund disputes totaling $25,000+ in customer losses. The pattern suggests either dramatic recent improvement or inconsistent service quality. The recency of the positive review (June 2024) versus older negative reviews (2022–2023) cannot fully reconcile the severity of documented project abandonment and financial harm.

• CRITICAL: Three reviews document project abandonment, non-responsiveness, and significant financial losses ($7k, $18k deposits). These are not minor complaints but serious contractual failures.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The single positive review is from June 2024, while negative reviews span 2022–2023. Insufficient time has passed to determine if recent behavior represents genuine change or isolated exception.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: One review describes exceptional professionalism and quality; three others describe poor workmanship, incomplete demolition-only work, and broken promises. This extreme polarization suggests either highly variable service or potential for selective positive review.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: Two reviews explicitly describe abandoned projects with extended delays (months to 1.5 years). One review documents only demolition work completed with no actual construction.
• FINANCIAL RISK: Documented pattern of deposit collection followed by non-delivery or incomplete work. Refund disputes required extended follow-up.

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to extreme polarization and insufficient data volume (4 reviews). The single recent positive review cannot outweigh documented patterns of project abandonment, poor workmanship, and financial harm across three separate customer accounts. Extreme caution is warranted; recommend requesting references from projects completed in past 6 months and verifying completion before payment.