Find Nearby Plumbers In Salt Lake City, Utah

This contractor presents a deeply polarized review profile: a large cluster of recent 5-star reviews (predominantly from 2024–2025) praising individual technicians like Holland, Jamie, and Steve by name, contrasted with a substantial body of 1-star reviews spanning 2016–2024 describing serious misconduct including fraudulent diagnoses, wildly inflated quotes, no-shows, property damage, and refusal to accept responsibility. The professionalism score is dragged down significantly by multiple credible accounts of no-call no-shows, rescheduling failures, and dismissive or deceptive behavior toward customers. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with numerous independent reviewers describing quotes 3–10x higher than competitors for identical work, and at least two accounts of alleged insurance fraud and unauthorized credit charges. Project completion is severely impacted by accounts of abandoned work, work not done to code, and damage caused and left unaddressed. The experience dimension reflects genuine skill from some technicians but is undermined by repeated accounts of fabricated camera diagnoses and unnecessary repair recommendations.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW CLUSTER: The 2024–2025 5-star reviews show strong patterns of suspected inauthenticity — repetitive phrasing ('Holland was great,' 'Holland was awesome,' 'Holland was the best'), multiple reviews posted on the same date (e.g., four reviews on 2025-05-19 all praising Holland with near-identical structure), no specifics about pricing or job scope, and suspiciously uniform 5-star ratings with no variation. Confidence in these positive reviews is reduced.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS: Multiple independent reviewers (not appearing coordinated) describe a consistent pattern of fraudulent sewer camera diagnoses, fabricated damage, pressure tactics to commit immediately, discouraging customers from contacting insurance in advance, and quotes 5–20x higher than competitors who found no issues.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE AND NON-RESPONSE: At least three reviews describe significant property damage caused by the company (sewage flooding, ruined floors, damaged landscaping) with the company denying responsibility and in some cases offering to charge the customer to fix their own mistakes.
• UNAUTHORIZED CREDIT CHARGE: One reviewer reports being billed $3,629 through Synchrony Financial for work that was never performed, requiring a fraud complaint to resolve.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: Multiple reviews across different years describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and never called, suggesting a systemic scheduling reliability problem.
• RECENCY BIAS WARNING: The majority of positive reviews are from 2024–2025 while the majority of negative reviews are from 2016–2022. This could reflect genuine improvement under new management or technicians, OR it could reflect a coordinated review campaign to bury older negative reviews. The fake review flags above suggest the latter cannot be ruled out.
• THREE BLANK REVIEWS with 5-star ratings and no text were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• Yelp is referenced in one review as having consistent negative patterns — suggesting the negative review history extends beyond this platform.

This WW Score should be treated with significant caution: while the volume of reviews is sufficient for calculation, the strong evidence of a coordinated positive review campaign combined with numerous detailed, credible, and independently corroborating negative reviews describing fraud, property damage, and deceptive practices means the true service quality is likely closer to the lower end of this score range.

Schoonover Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 14 years. While some customers praise professionalism and technical skill (particularly Chris and Chad), multiple recent reviews (2024, 2023, 2021) document serious failures in workmanship quality, project completion, and customer service responsiveness. The 2024 review details poor frame support installation requiring rework, and the owner's failure to respond to complaints. Pricing concerns appear in multiple reviews citing excessive labor hours, incomplete work, and estimates exceeded. Older positive reviews (2010-2019) contrast sharply with recent negative experiences, suggesting potential service degradation or inconsistent quality across technicians.

• TEMPORAL PATTERN ALERT: Most recent reviews (2024, 2023, 2021) are predominantly negative (1-star), while older reviews (2010-2019) are predominantly positive (5-star). This suggests either service quality decline or changing customer expectations.
• INCONSISTENCY ACROSS TECHNICIANS: Named technicians (Chris, Chad) receive specific praise, while unnamed technicians in recent reviews receive harsh criticism. Quality appears highly variable by individual.
• OWNER RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE: 2024 review explicitly states owner made no attempt to respond or resolve complaint after paying $850 for defective work.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Reviews from 2019 and 2010 use suspiciously similar generic praise language ('amazing job,' 'top notch,' 'honest, fair and integrity') with minimal specific detail, contrasting with detailed negative reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: 6 of 10 reviews are older than 5 years. Recent reviews (past 2 years) are predominantly negative, which should be weighted more heavily for current reliability assessment.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While the calculated score is 62.8, the dramatic divergence between recent negative reviews and older positive reviews, combined with apparent inconsistency across technicians and potential fake review patterns in older entries, suggests the company's current reliability is likely LOWER than this score indicates. Recent reviews (2024, 2023) should be weighted most heavily for assessing current service quality.

Utah Leak Locate shows significant inconsistency across reviews. Three older reviews (2018–2019) praise fast response, courteous service, and timely completion, while a recent 2024 review raises serious concerns about diagnostic accuracy, overpricing, and misrepresentation of required work. The 2024 review alleges the company located a leak 30 feet from its actual position, charged double the market rate for diagnostics, and proposed unnecessary internal repairs. This creates a critical trust issue: either service quality has deteriorated significantly, or the company's diagnostic practices are fundamentally unreliable. The older positive reviews lack specificity about pricing and technical accuracy, making them less reliable indicators of current performance.

• CRITICAL: Recent 2024 review alleges serious diagnostic failure and potential overcharging. Leak was mislocated by ~30 feet, and proposed repair costs were significantly higher than competitor bids for the same work.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Three positive reviews are from 2018–2019 (5–6 years old). Only one recent review (2024) is available, and it is highly negative. Recent data heavily favors the negative assessment.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: The 2024 review claims $1,200 for leak location (double market rate) and $14,000+ for repair work, later completed by another company for just over half that cost. This suggests either overpricing or misdiagnosis.
• DIAGNOSTIC RELIABILITY: The allegation that the company initially misidentified leak location by 30 feet, then claimed the leak wasn't at the second location either, raises questions about technical competence and honesty.
• POTENTIAL PATTERN: The older reviews mention Brandon by name and praise his courtesy, but the 2024 review also names Brandon and describes him as unresponsive to requests for marking and willing to change his diagnosis. This may indicate a real person with inconsistent performance, or suggest selective positive reviews from satisfied customers.

This score should be treated with caution. While three older reviews are positive, they are 5–6 years old and lack detail on pricing accuracy or diagnostic precision. The single recent review (2024) presents detailed, specific allegations of misdiagnosis, overpricing, and poor follow-through that directly contradict the company's trustworthiness. With only 4 total reviews and a stark recency divide, the WW Score reflects conflicting signals; the recent negative review carries more weight due to specificity and recency, but the small sample size limits confidence. Prospective customers should seek independent verification of any diagnostic findings and obtain multiple bids before committing to work.

Craig's Appliance presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores moderately — several reviews praise punctuality, friendliness, and responsiveness, but multiple reviews raise serious concerns about technician conduct, including a technician allegedly fabricating a carbon monoxide reading and another pushing an unnecessary full replacement with minimal diagnostics. Pricing is the weakest dimension: three separate reviews independently describe prices 37–50% above competitors, a hidden 25% restocking fee, and a $7,000 replacement quote that turned out to be unnecessary — these are significant red flags that drag the pricing score down substantially. Project completion scores better, with several reviews noting jobs were completed quickly and correctly, though the misdiagnosis reviews undermine confidence in whether the right work was actually done. Experience is similarly split — some reviews highlight genuine technical skill and honest problem-solving, while others describe technicians who either lacked diagnostic thoroughness or appeared to be steering customers toward unnecessary replacements.

• SERIOUS CONCERN — Multiple independent reviews (2023, 2017, 2017) describe technicians recommending full unit replacements that were later found to be unnecessary by other companies. This pattern suggests either systemic misdiagnosis or deliberate upselling.
• PRICING CONCERN — Three separate reviews across different years cite prices 37–50% above competitor bids, suggesting a consistent pattern of overpricing rather than isolated incidents.
• ETHICAL CONCERN — One review (2017) alleges a technician may have falsified a carbon monoxide reading to pressure a replacement sale. If accurate, this is a serious integrity issue.
• HIDDEN FEE CONCERN — One review (2017) describes a 25% restocking fee buried in fine print that was not disclosed verbally, resulting in a $1,200 charge for no work performed.
• RECENCY NOTE — The most recent review (2023) is a 1-star complaint. The majority of positive reviews are from 2014–2021, with the most recent being over 2 years old. The current service quality may not reflect older positive experiences.
• REVIEW SPREAD — Positive reviews tend to be generic in praise while negative reviews contain specific, detailed, and independently corroborating accounts of misconduct, which increases the credibility weight of the negative reviews.

This WW Score is based on 11 reviews spanning 2014–2023 with usable data across all four dimensions; while mention counts are sufficient for HIGH confidence labels, the score should be treated with caution given the serious and independently corroborated allegations of misdiagnosis, price gouging, and potential deceptive practices across multiple reviews.

Ace Plumbing shows a genuinely mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a detailed, credible account of repeated no-shows and scheduling failures spanning three weeks, as well as a contractor job that took a full month and resulted in unfinished hookups — these are serious, specific complaints that offset the many positive mentions of polite and communicative technicians. Pricing receives a middling score because while several reviewers praised reasonable or comparable prices, at least two explicitly called them expensive or flagged a $250 charge for an incorrectly sized part, and one review raised a serious concern about unpaid suppliers resulting in a lien threat against a homeowner. Project completion is the weakest dimension: multiple reviews describe incomplete or incorrect work, a month-long job with failed hookups, a faucet job that was never returned to finish, and work that needed to be redone — these are significant red flags that substantially lower the score. Experience is similarly mixed, with skilled and knowledgeable technicians praised in several reviews but offset by an incorrectly sized expansion tank installation and multiple instances of work left incomplete or done incorrectly.

• LIEN WARNING: One reviewer explicitly states Ace Plumbing failed to pay their suppliers, resulting in a lien threat against the homeowner's property. This is a serious financial and legal risk flag for prospective customers.
• PROJECT ABANDONMENT: One detailed 1-star review describes a technician committing to return for a faucet repair and never showing up or calling — across multiple rescheduled attempts over three weeks. This is a credible, specific account of project abandonment.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: A subcontracted repipe job took one month, left a washing machine unconnected to hot water (costing the customer $1,000 to diagnose), and left a refrigerator water line unturned and leaking. Management reportedly did not respond to complaints.
• WORKMANSHIP ERROR: One reviewer reports an expansion tank was installed that was the wrong size for their water heater, suggesting a technical knowledge gap on at least one job.
• RECENCY NOTE: All reviews date from 2017 to 2019. There are no reviews from the past 12 months (relative to the most recent review date of September 2019). This data is now several years old and may not reflect the company's current performance.
• RATING INCONSISTENCY: One review is rated 5 stars despite describing a lien threat against the homeowner's house due to unpaid suppliers. This suggests the star rating system may not reliably reflect the content of the review text for this dataset.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in length, detail, writing style, and sentiment. Negative reviews are specific and credible. No artificial inflation patterns identified.

This WW Score is based on 13 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions, but all reviews are from 2017–2019, making the data potentially outdated; the score should be treated as a historical snapshot only and prospective customers should seek more recent references before hiring.

Dan the Man Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all dimensions. On the positive side, multiple reviewers praised his responsiveness, same-day availability, communication during scheduling, and technical competence when he did show up. Pricing was consistently described as reasonable across the reviews that mentioned it. However, two serious negative reviews — one from 2013 and one from 2014 — describe complete no-shows with zero follow-up communication, including one incident where a disabled customer was left without water for an entire weekend. These failures significantly drag down professionalism and project completion scores, as they represent fundamental breakdowns in reliability and follow-through. The mixed record prevents any dimension from scoring in the high range despite genuine praise from satisfied customers.

• Two reviews (2013, 2014) describe complete no-shows with no callback — a serious reliability pattern that cannot be dismissed.
• The most recent reviews are from 2017, meaning all data is over 6 years old. Current performance is entirely unknown and this score should be treated with caution.
• No reviews from the past 12 months are present; recency weighting cannot be applied favorably.
• The business owner disputed a customer's account in a review response (2014 no-show), but the customer explicitly contradicted this — no independent verification is possible.
• Small sample size of 6 reviews limits statistical reliability of all dimension scores.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability at best — the sample is small, all reviews are more than 6 years old, and two credible negative reviews describe serious no-show incidents that meaningfully offset the positive feedback.