Find Nearby Plumbers In Salt Lake City, Utah

Speirs Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, satisfied customers who frequently praise individual technicians — particularly Ken, Brian Hyde, and Alex — for skilled, professional, and thorough work. However, the review set contains multiple serious negative experiences that significantly temper the scores: documented overbilling and billing disputes (two separate reviews), repeated failures to return calls or honor scheduled appointments (at least four reviews), a gas leak left unresolved on the first callback attempt, and a threatening legal response to a billing complaint rather than direct resolution. Professionalism is dragged down by late arrivals, unreturned emergency calls, rude office staff, and aggressive driving complaints. Pricing is mixed — some reviewers praise affordability and value, while others explicitly report being overcharged by hundreds or thousands of dollars. Project completion suffers from documented instances of incomplete work, missed appointments, and a job that required multiple return visits to fix a gas leak. Experience scores moderately well given the volume of praise for skilled diagnostics and problem-solving, but is offset by a gas meter rebuild criticized by utility company employees and a faucet replacement requiring multiple trips due to wrong parts.

• 4 reviews contain no text — only a star rating (all 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• 2 reviews reference rude or aggressive driving by company vehicle operators. These are not direct service reviews but reflect on company culture and were factored lightly into professionalism.
• Multiple 5-star reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Merry Christmas!', 'Thank you for all your help') with no specific detail — these were treated as low-information and not scored for individual dimensions.
• A pattern of unresolved billing disputes appears in at least two detailed negative reviews (2025-04-10 and 2023-06-10), suggesting a systemic issue with billing accuracy and dispute resolution rather than isolated incidents.
• The 2025-04-10 review describes the company responding to a billing complaint by hiring an attorney to threaten legal action against the customer — a significant red flag for customer relations and dispute handling.
• Several reviews are older than 3 years (pre-2022), including some from 2014–2016. These were given reduced weight in scoring relative to more recent reviews.
• No confirmed fake review patterns detected, but the volume of brief, undetailed 5-star reviews (including blank ones) slightly inflates the raw star average without contributing meaningful evidence of quality.

This WW Score is based on 52 reviews spanning over a decade, with sufficient volume and detail to produce a moderately reliable assessment; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given recurring systemic issues with billing accuracy, appointment reliability, and communication that appear across multiple independent reviewers in recent years.

Cavalier Plumbing and owner Gary receive consistently strong praise across professionalism, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out friendliness, punctuality, courteous behavior, and responsiveness to emergencies. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers describing completed re-pipes, faucet replacements, toilet installs, and dishwasher installations with no mention of abandoned or incomplete work. Experience is backed by references to quick diagnosis, quality workmanship, and long-term repeat use spanning decades. Pricing is mentioned positively in three reviews, with one reviewer specifically noting fair prices after being quoted a higher rate elsewhere, lending moderate confidence to that dimension. The overall picture is of a reliable, well-regarded small plumbing operation with a loyal customer base.

• All 10 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback — this warrants mild caution, though the reviews do contain specific details (job types, timing, circumstances) that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• 6 of the 10 reviews are older than 1 year, and 4 reviews date back to 2013–2019, which is more than 5 years old. These older reviews carry reduced weight in the scoring.
• Only 4 reviews are from the past 12 months (2023–2024), limiting how confidently recent performance can be assessed.
• Some reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Gary is a top notch guy') with minimal specifics, which slightly reduces evidentiary value for those individual entries.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability for professionalism, project completion, and experience based on sufficient recent and detailed mentions, but the score should be interpreted with awareness that all reviews are 5-star, several are quite old, and pricing data rests on only three mentions.

Reviews consistently praise Fred and his team for punctuality, professionalism, and completing jobs on time, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting timely arrival and clean-up. Project completion is well-supported, with several reviews highlighting that work was finished within the promised timeframe even under difficult conditions such as snow and boulders. Experience is supported by references to knowledgeability, quality workmanship, and effective problem-solving. Pricing is mentioned positively in only two reviews, so that dimension carries limited confidence and is scored conservatively. All reviews are from 2022 or earlier, meaning none fall within the past 12 months relative to a 2025 evaluation date, which reduces overall reliability.

• All 10 reviews are dated 2022 or earlier — none are within the past 12 months (relative to 2025). The score may not reflect current service quality.
• Several reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Great speedy service', 'It was great service.', 'Went very well and quickly') with no specific details, which limits their evidentiary value and raises mild concern about authenticity or effort in review writing.
• All reviews are 5-star with uniformly positive sentiment and no critical feedback whatsoever. While not conclusive, this pattern warrants caution and conservative scoring.
• Small sample size of 10 reviews limits statistical reliability of all dimension scores.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a small and entirely dated review pool (all from 2022), several vague or generic reviews, and a complete absence of any critical feedback, which together prevent high confidence in the scores despite their positive direction.

Harris-Dudley demonstrates strong professionalism across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for courtesy, responsiveness, punctuality, and communication. Project completion is solid, with evidence of follow-through, on-time delivery, and proactive customer service callbacks. Technical expertise is evident in specialized work (radiant heating, snowmelt systems, HVAC). However, pricing presents a significant concern: while some reviews cite competitive or fair pricing, one recent review (2016) reports escalating costs ($1000+ for repeated A/C service calls with unresolved issues), suggesting potential value-for-money problems. The mixed pricing feedback and one negative experience with incomplete problem resolution temper the otherwise strong profile.

• Pricing inconsistency: Multiple reviews praise fair/competitive pricing, but one 2016 review reports high costs and repeated service calls without resolution. This suggests either inconsistent pricing practices or service quality issues on certain job types (HVAC maintenance).
• Review age: Most reviews are 5+ years old (2016-2021). Only 2 reviews from 2022-2023. Limited recent data may not reflect current operations.
• Unresolved complaint: The 2016 negative review indicates a system that was not operating properly after multiple service visits and $1000+ in charges. This is a project completion failure that was not addressed in follow-up.
• No fake review patterns detected: Reviews contain specific details, varied language, and one credible negative review, suggesting authentic feedback.

This score should be treated with moderate caution due to limited recent reviews (only 2 from past 2 years) and a credible negative experience regarding pricing and service resolution on HVAC work. The strong historical professionalism and project completion scores are offset by pricing concerns and one unresolved service failure.

Ken Rentmeister Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and courteous behavior across 8 reviews. Pricing is viewed favorably in 5 reviews, with customers appreciating reasonable rates and transparent service calls. However, project completion shows a significant weakness: one detailed 1-star review from 2018 describes incomplete work, abandoned tasks, and failure to resolve issues, substantially lowering this dimension's score. Experience is rated highly based on technical competence and problem-solving demonstrated in 5 reviews. The WW Score of 82.1 reflects solid overall performance tempered by documented project completion failures.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 7 of 11 reviews are older than 5 years (2015-2018). Only 2 reviews from 2023 and 2021. Recent performance data is limited.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: Two reviews (2017-10-05 and 2017-09-28) contain only '..' and 'Excellent.' respectively with no substantive detail. These appear to be placeholder or low-effort entries and reduce confidence in the dataset.
• CRITICAL PROJECT FAILURE: The 2018-09-22 review (1-star) documents serious project completion failures including incomplete work, abandoned job, poor communication about follow-up, and substandard materials. This single detailed negative review significantly impacts the project_completion score and should be weighted heavily despite being older.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 11 total reviews is a small dataset. Confidence in overall score is limited by sample size.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While professionalism and experience ratings are well-supported by multiple detailed reviews, the project completion dimension is heavily influenced by one serious documented failure from 2018, and most reviews are older than 5 years, limiting insight into current performance. The presence of two low-effort placeholder reviews further reduces dataset quality. A more recent review sample would significantly improve reliability.

All three reviews are highly positive and explicitly praise professionalism, communication, punctuality, and problem-solving ability. The contractor demonstrates strong project completion with jobs finished efficiently and on time. Pricing is highlighted as reasonable and fair in two reviews, with one customer noting significant savings compared to competitors. However, the sample size is small (3 reviews) and all are older than 12 months, with the most recent from March 2022. The consistent positive messaging across all reviews, while genuine-sounding with specific details, limits confidence due to low volume.

• All 3 reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback or balanced perspective
• Most recent review is from March 2022 (2+ years old); all reviews predate 2023
• Sample size is very small (n=3); score reliability is limited until more recent data is available
• No negative or mixed reviews present to validate balance

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (3 reviews) and age of data (all older than 12 months). While the reviews contain specific, credible details and are not obviously fabricated, the lack of recent feedback and absence of any critical perspectives limits confidence in the overall assessment.