Find Nearby Plumbers In Salt Lake City, Utah

This contractor shows strong pricing and technical expertise but is significantly hampered by serious reliability and professionalism issues. Multiple recent reviews (2024, 2023) document no-shows, missed appointments, and failure to respond to customer communications, which directly undermines the otherwise positive feedback about work quality and fair pricing. While customers consistently praise the quality of completed work and honest pricing when the contractor does show up, the pattern of broken commitments and poor follow-through creates substantial risk. The WW Score of 76.8 reflects this critical gap between capability and reliability.

• CRITICAL: Multiple no-show and cancellation incidents documented in recent reviews (2024-06-29, 2024-04-20, 2023-09-07, 2023-05-13). This is a recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• Communication breakdown: Reviews document deleted contacts, ignored messages, and failure to reschedule. This suggests systemic responsiveness issues.
• Recency concern: Most positive reviews are from 2022 or earlier. Recent reviews (2024, 2023) are predominantly negative regarding reliability.
• Two reviews marked 'unknown' with no text (2016, 2015) — cannot be evaluated but do not appear to be fake given context.
• Possible name inconsistency: Reviews reference 'Mike,' 'Kelly,' 'Kelley,' and 'Bret' — may indicate multiple team members or name variations, but one 2024 review explicitly mentions no-show by 'Mike' while others praise 'Kelley/Kelly.'

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical WW Score of 76.8 suggests moderate quality, the recent pattern of no-shows and communication failures represents a material risk that is not fully captured by the aggregate score. Customers should be aware that this contractor has demonstrated reliability issues in 2024 and 2023 despite strong technical capabilities.

Bruce Plumbing & Heating earns strong marks for professionalism, with multiple reviewers praising responsiveness, same-day or rapid service, and the warmth of both office staff and field technicians like Charlie. Experience scores are solid, supported by reviews describing creative plumbing solutions, boiler diagnostics, and quality workmanship across a range of jobs. However, project completion is meaningfully dragged down by one credible negative review describing recurring drain and faucet failures within a week of service, a $200 charge for a part available for $80, and a two-week wait for a callback — all serious red flags. Pricing is mixed: most reviewers found the company fair or even restrained in billing, but the one negative review raises legitimate concerns about overcharging and poor value. The overall picture is a generally well-regarded local plumber with a meaningful quality-control incident on record.

• Most reviews are older than 12 months; only one review (March 2024) falls within the past 12 months, limiting recency confidence.
• The single 1-star review (2017) is highly specific and credible — it describes failed drain work, a dripping faucet recurring within one week, overpricing, and a 2-week callback delay. This materially impacts project completion and pricing scores.
• Several positive reviews reference the same staff members by name (Charlie, Theresa/Teresa) with warm, personal language. While this may reflect genuine loyalty, it also creates a pattern of generic praise that slightly reduces differentiation between reviews. No fake review flag is raised, but specificity varies widely.
• The review base is small (8 reviews) and spans 2016–2024, meaning the score reflects a long time window with limited recent data to confirm current service quality.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a small and largely dated review set; the single negative review carries disproportionate weight and should be taken seriously, while the predominantly positive reviews suggest a generally trustworthy contractor whose recent performance cannot be fully confirmed.

Tingey Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, responsive communication, and courteous staff across 26 mentions. Project completion is solid but shows variability—many jobs are completed well, but several reviews document incomplete repairs, multiple callbacks, and warranty issues that required return visits. Experience/workmanship is generally strong with knowledgeable technicians, though some reviews cite inexperienced staff and diagnostic errors. Pricing is the most significant weakness: 11 reviews explicitly mention overcharging, inflated parts costs (e.g., $221 capacitor worth $6–$10), and unfavorable comparisons to competitors. The company's willingness to negotiate pricing appears limited based on customer feedback.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (2020, 2018, 2016, 2012) document significant overcharging complaints. One customer reported a $221 capacitor that cost $6.51–$9.61 retail; another was overcharged by $450+ on a $1,000 job. A third review noted they declined additional work due to overpricing. This pattern is consistent and credible.
• QUALITY DECLINE REPORTED: One 2020 review from a 6-year customer states quality 'went way down' and pricing 'went way up' over the past year, requiring hiring another plumber to fix shoddy work. This suggests possible deterioration in service standards.
• INCOMPLETE/REPEAT REPAIRS: Multiple reviews (2017, 2012) document technicians making multiple trips due to missing parts, incomplete diagnostics, or temporary fixes requiring return visits and additional charges. One 2012 review describes a recurring HVAC issue requiring four separate $150–$800 visits with no permanent resolution.
• INCONSISTENT TECHNICIAN QUALITY: Reviews mention 'completely incompetent young workers' (2020), technicians unfamiliar with systems they installed (2017), and one technician described as 'lethargic' (2018). One review noted technicians disclosing 'it's my first day on the job.'
• SCHEDULING RELIABILITY: Multiple reviews (2018, 2016) document appointment changes, rescheduling, and prioritization issues (emergency calls bumped for routine work). One customer waited 24+ hours without heat in January and was deprioritized.
• WARRANTY CONCERNS: Two 2017 reviews criticize the 90-day labor warranty as inadequate, with vague language on invoices ('if nothing goes wrong the system should be fixed') that lacks confidence.
• REVIEW AGE: Most negative reviews are from 2011–2020 (older than 1 year). Most recent reviews (2020) are mixed—two 5-star, one 1-star. This limits recency assessment but suggests long-standing issues.
• ONE UNUSABLE REVIEW: Review dated 2015-10-21 contains only 'unknown' text and provides no data.

This WW Score of 74.8 should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While professionalism and experience scores are well-supported by 16–26 mentions, the pricing dimension (11 mentions) reveals a consistent pattern of overcharging that significantly drags the overall score. The company excels at communication and punctuality but struggles with fair pricing and quality consistency. Customers should expect professional service but should obtain competitive quotes and carefully review invoices before approval. The score reflects a company in decline relative to its historical reputation, with recent negative reviews suggesting ongoing issues.

The WW Score of 73.8 reflects mixed performance across a very small sample of 3 reviews. Professionalism and experience scores are solid (82–90), driven by positive feedback about responsiveness, technical knowledge, and integrity. However, pricing concerns significantly drag down the overall score: one customer was charged $210 for a diagnostic visit without completing work, while another praised cost savings. Project completion shows strength where work was done, but the limited mention count (2 per dimension) constrains confidence. The score should be treated as preliminary pending additional reviews.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 reviews analyzed — insufficient for reliable scoring. Recommend collecting minimum 10–15 reviews before making business decisions.
• RECENCY ISSUE: One review is from 2020 (nearly 4 years old); only 2 reviews from 2024. Recent data is sparse.
• PRICING CONTRADICTION: Review 1 criticizes high estimate and $210 diagnostic fee; Review 2 praises cost savings. Suggests inconsistent pricing practices or context-dependent value perception.
• COMPANY NAME INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference 'Lone Eagle Plumbing & HVAC' and 'Lone Peak Plumbing' — verify if same company or different entities.
• INCOMPLETE WORK IN REVIEW 1: Customer did not use contractor's services; only diagnostic fee charged. This is a project completion failure and potential pricing dispute.

This score has LIMITED reliability due to only 3 reviews with all dimensions scoring at LIMITED confidence (1–2 mentions each). The contradictory pricing feedback and presence of an older review further reduce confidence. Do not rely on this score for major decisions without additional recent reviews.

Israel's business shows a stark bifurcation in performance. Professionalism and technical experience are consistently praised across 18 and 13 reviews respectively, with strong marks for communication, responsiveness, punctuality, and workmanship quality on completed projects. However, project completion is severely compromised by three catastrophic failures (2022-08-16, 2022-03-31, 2021-03-19) involving abandonment, non-responsiveness, and incomplete work. Pricing is generally fair when work is completed, but the abandonment cases represent severe value destruction. The WW Score of 72.8 reflects strong execution on smaller, completed projects offset by critical failures on larger commitments.

• CRITICAL: Three 1-star reviews (2022-08-16, 2022-03-31, 2021-03-19) describe severe project abandonment, non-responsiveness after payment, and incomplete work. These are detailed, specific, and credible accounts of major failures.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2020-2021 (older than 3 years). The most recent reviews (2022) are both 1-star abandonment cases, suggesting deterioration in reliability over time.
• PATTERN DETECTED: The 2022-08-16 review explicitly states Israel admitted to taking other jobs and 'blowing off' the client, then disappeared after final payments. The 2022-03-31 review corroborates a pattern of requesting advances and abandoning projects.
• INCONSISTENCY: Positive reviews praise reliability and honesty; negative reviews describe dishonesty and disappearance. This suggests performance is highly variable or dependent on project type/size, or that the contractor's behavior has deteriorated.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RISK: While small projects (painting, door installation, flooring) show 5-star completion, larger renovation projects show abandonment. Clients should be cautious with multi-month commitments.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While technical skill and professionalism on completed work are well-documented (HIGH confidence), the pattern of project abandonment on larger jobs and recent deterioration in reliability significantly undermines overall trustworthiness. The WW Score reflects an average across disparate outcomes; clients should weight the three detailed abandonment accounts heavily and avoid large, long-term projects without strict payment-hold structures and in-person oversight.

V-R Plumbing shows a mixed performance profile with significant polarization in customer experiences. Positive reviews (2021–2020) consistently praise professionalism, fair pricing, quick response, and technical competency, with one reviewer noting 35+ years of experience. However, negative reviews (2017–2018) reveal serious concerns about responsiveness (multiple unreturned calls), owner demeanor described as 'surly' and 'argumentative,' and at least one instance of potentially unnecessary work (sump pump replacement). One customer also reported being quoted 3 hours but charged nearly double. The company appears capable of quality work but struggles with communication consistency and pricing transparency.

• RECENCY BIAS: All positive reviews are from 2020–2021; all negative reviews are from 2017–2018. This 3-year gap suggests either significant operational changes or that dissatisfied customers stopped leaving reviews.
• RESPONSIVENESS PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2 of 7) explicitly mention unreturned phone calls and lack of callback, indicating a systemic communication issue.
• PRICING DISCREPANCY: One customer was quoted 3 hours but charged nearly double; another review defends pricing as 'inline with others' but this contradicts the billing complaint.
• OWNER CONDUCT: Two independent reviews describe owner Vern as 'surly' and 'argumentative,' suggesting a pattern rather than isolated incident.
• POTENTIAL UPSELLING: Sump pump replacement review raises concern about unnecessary work recommendation, though this may have been a genuine mistake per the reviewer's analysis.
• POSITIVE REVIEW TONE: The three most recent positive reviews use very similar language ('friendly,' 'professional,' 'competent,' 'highly recommend') and all are 5-star with no criticisms, which could suggest selective positive feedback or review bias, though not definitively fake.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While the WW Score of 72.8 reflects the mixed data, the stark temporal divide between positive and negative reviews (3+ year gap) makes it unclear whether recent performance matches the 2020–2021 positive trend or the 2017–2018 problems. The company demonstrates technical competency but has documented issues with communication responsiveness and pricing clarity that warrant verification before engagement.