Find Nearby Plumbers In Salt Lake City, Utah

This contractor's review record is dominated by a deeply troubling pattern of serious, detailed negative experiences spanning multiple years, offset by a cluster of recent, brief, and largely unsubstantiated 5-star reviews. Professionalism scores extremely low due to pervasive documented incidents of aggressive high-pressure sales tactics, no-shows, technicians refusing to leave homes, management yelling at customers, and rude on-site behavior. Pricing scores are among the worst possible, with dozens of reviewers explicitly describing bait-and-switch pricing, hidden fees, forced memberships, wildly inflated quotes, and charges for work that was unnecessary or incomplete. Project completion is severely penalized by multiple accounts of jobs taking months beyond promised timelines, abandoned work, uncompacted excavation, broken sprinkler lines left unrepaired, sewage spills into homes, and refusal to honor warranties. Experience scores marginally higher only because a small number of reviewers acknowledged individual technicians as knowledgeable, but this is heavily counterbalanced by documented instances of incorrect diagnoses, pipes installed in wrong locations, faulty water softener installations causing flooding, and pipe liners installed incorrectly causing blockages.

• STRONG FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: The most recent reviews (May–June 2025) are overwhelmingly 5-star, extremely brief, and formulaic. Many follow an identical structure: '[Technician name] was [positive adjective] and [positive adjective] with [service type].' Examples include 'Devan was great and professional at hvac system,' 'Devan was quick friendly and professional with hvac at my home,' 'Devan was great at hvac maintenance will really recommend him' — posted on the same date with no specifics. This pattern strongly suggests coordinated or incentivized review activity designed to bury older negative reviews.
• MULTIPLE BLANK REVIEWS: At least 7 reviews contain no text whatsoever, only a 5-star rating. These provide no usable data and inflate the star average without any substantive feedback.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two nearly identical 1-star reviews describing the same sewer pipe job experience (dated 2020-07-20 and 2020-07-21) appear to be the same reviewer submitting twice. Only one was counted for scoring purposes.
• RECENCY BIAS WARNING: The 5-star reviews are heavily concentrated in 2025 and early 2017/2018, while the most detailed and substantive negative reviews span 2016 through 2024. The recent positive cluster appears inconsistent with the long-term documented pattern of complaints.
• ALLEGED FRAUDULENT BUSINESS PRACTICES: Multiple independent reviewers across different years allege the same scheme — technicians deliberately failing to clear drains so a camera salesperson can diagnose false pipe collapses and pressure customers into unnecessary excavation jobs worth thousands of dollars. Two reviewers (2020-07-03 and 2020-07-05) describe the same two employees (Alex Halton and John Jordan) by name as operating a coordinated fraud scheme, corroborated by surveillance footage mentioned in one review.
• ALLEGED TARGETING OF VULNERABLE POPULATIONS: At least two reviews explicitly allege the company targeted elderly homeowners (an 85-year-old man and a 65-year-old woman) with high-pressure tactics and unnecessary work.
• COMPANY OPERATING UNDER MULTIPLE NAMES: Reviews reference this business operating as 'Action Plumbing,' 'Rooter Connectionz,' '24 Hour Rooter Connectionz,' and 'Connectionz Plumbing Heating and Air,' which may be used to obscure the cumulative negative review history across platforms.
• REVIEW MANIPULATION ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2020-08-10) explicitly states the company has friends and family posting fake recent reviews to bury legitimate negative ones, and provides screenshot evidence of review timestamps inconsistent with company response dates. A separate reviewer (2025-04-10) states they were 'harassed into changing my review five years ago.'
• BBB RATING REFERENCED: One reviewer references an F rating with the Better Business Bureau and multiple complaints filed with that organization.
• ATTORNEY GENERAL AND STATE LICENSING BOARD COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviewers state they filed or intended to file complaints with the Utah Attorney General's Office and the Utah Department of Commerce regarding this company's practices.

This WW Score of 34.2 carries HIGH statistical confidence given the large volume of detailed reviews, but the score should be treated as a ceiling rather than a floor — the pervasive and independently corroborated allegations of fraudulent sales practices, warranty non-compliance, and coordinated fake review activity suggest the true service quality may be even lower than the score reflects.

ESCO receives a critically low WW Score of 32.8, driven by severe and consistent deficiencies across all dimensions. Professionalism is compromised by widespread reports of disrespectful behavior, aggressive sales tactics, missed appointments, and poor communication—with 42 mentions documenting these failures. Pricing is the most damaging dimension (22.0), with 35 reviews detailing inflated quotes, bait-and-switch tactics, hidden charges, unauthorized upsells, and refusal to honor advertised promotions. Project completion suffers from frequent no-shows, cancellations, incomplete work, and unresponsiveness to callbacks. While technical competence is occasionally praised (48.0), it is overshadowed by a pervasive pattern of dishonest diagnostics designed to justify unnecessary expensive repairs—a pattern confirmed repeatedly through second opinions.

• CRITICAL: Systematic pattern of fraudulent diagnostics. Multiple independent reviews document technicians falsely claiming heat exchangers are cracked, furnaces are dangerous, AC systems are shot, and pipes are broken—all contradicted by second opinions from other companies. This suggests deliberate deception to drive sales.
• CRITICAL: Predatory sales practices targeting vulnerable populations. Explicit reports of technicians being dismissive of women's intelligence, refusing to work with single decision-makers, and exploiting elderly customers and those unfamiliar with pricing.
• CRITICAL: Membership/subscription abuse. Multiple reports of customers being charged after cancellation, denied promised discounts, misled about coverage, and unable to cancel without penalty despite verbal assurances.
• CRITICAL: Chronic no-show and cancellation pattern. At least 15 reviews document missed appointments, last-minute cancellations, failure to call back, and technicians arriving hours late—often after customers waited entire days.
• CRITICAL: Refusal to honor advertised pricing and promotions. Multiple reviews document vouchers rejected, advertised prices denied, quotes doubled at time of service, and bait-and-switch tactics.
• CRITICAL: Poor quality control and incomplete work. Reports of furnaces installed incorrectly, water damage caused and not disclosed, hot water systems left non-functional, parts left unscrewed deliberately, and breaker boxes left open.
• CRITICAL: Unresponsive management. Multiple customers report inability to reach supervisors, no callbacks despite promises, and dismissive attitudes when complaints are raised.
• MODERATE: Inconsistent service quality. A small subset of reviews (approximately 8-10) praise individual technicians for professionalism and competence, suggesting the company's problems are systemic rather than universal, but this does not offset the overwhelming pattern of abuse.
• NOTE: Review dates span 2014-2023. While older reviews dominate, negative patterns persist through 2023, indicating ongoing issues rather than historical problems.

This WW Score of 32.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 60 detailed reviews with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, supported by 28-42 mentions per dimension. The consistency of complaints across multiple independent reviewers, corroboration through second opinions, and documentation of specific fraudulent practices (false diagnostics, membership abuse, no-shows) create a clear and damning picture. This company exhibits systematic patterns of deception, predatory sales tactics, and poor service delivery that pose genuine financial and safety risks to consumers.

This contractor's review set is dominated by serious negative experiences across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is heavily damaged by multiple accounts of aggressive behavior, use of profanity toward customers, inappropriate sexual comments in front of elderly clients, and poor communication including no-shows and unreturned calls. Pricing is the single most consistently criticized dimension, with multiple reviewers independently describing significant overcharging, lack of transparent breakdowns, and refusal to itemize estimates. Project completion is mixed — a small number of positive reviews describe jobs finished on time and on budget, but several negative reviews describe incomplete work, misdiagnosed problems, and refusal to return to fix original issues without additional payment. Experience scores slightly higher due to a few positive reviews praising technical knowledge and clear explanations, but is undermined by at least one account of a misdiagnosed repair costing nearly $4,000 that did not fix the original problem.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The first two reviews are word-for-word identical in content, differing only in timestamp format. Only one has been counted toward scoring to avoid double-weighting.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are from 2012–2019, with only one review from 2022. No reviews exist from the past 12 months. The score may not reflect current business practices.
• PATTERN OF OWNER MISCONDUCT: Multiple independent reviews specifically name 'John' (the owner) as the source of aggressive, dishonest, or inappropriate behavior — including use of profanity, sexual comments, price manipulation, and refusal to honor service commitments. This is a significant integrity flag.
• PRICING FRAUD CONCERN: At least three separate reviews describe what they characterize as deliberate overcharging or scam-like pricing behavior, including a $1,200 markup on a $100 part and a $4,000 charge for work that did not address the original problem.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS ARE SPARSE AND OLD: The three clearly positive reviews are all from 2012–2014 and lack the specificity and detail of the negative reviews. While not definitively fake, they carry limited weight given their age and the volume of negative experiences reported.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a reasonable number of mentions across all dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given that most reviews are over five years old, a duplicate review was detected, and the negative reviews contain highly specific, credible, and independently corroborated accounts of misconduct that strongly outweigh the few positive reviews on record.

Jim Miller Plumbing shows severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. While two early reviews (2022) praised punctuality and courtesy, four detailed negative reviews (2018–2019) document systematic failures in project completion, technical competence, and follow-through on warranty work. The contractor failed to follow engineering specifications, abandoned incomplete work, demonstrated poor problem-solving, and refused callbacks for warranty claims. Professionalism scores are dragged down by unresponsiveness and dismissive attitudes toward clients. Pricing concerns emerge from unexpected charges and disputed warranty coverage. The weight of recent detailed complaints substantially outweighs the two positive reviews.

• SEVERE RECENCY BIAS: Two positive 5-star reviews from 2022 contrast sharply with four detailed 1-star reviews from 2018–2019. The 2022 reviews lack specificity and detail compared to the comprehensive complaints from 2018–2019, which document 13+ distinct failures.
• PATTERN OF NEGLIGENCE: Multiple reviews describe systematic failures (not following specs, incomplete work, poor technical judgment, unresponsiveness to callbacks). This is not isolated complaints but a pattern of professional inadequacy.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Two separate reviews document refusal to honor warranty work and unexpected charges for repairs that should have been covered.
• UNRESPONSIVENESS: Multiple reviews cite failure to return calls and refusal to complete work, suggesting systemic communication and follow-through problems.
• TECHNICAL INCOMPETENCE: Detailed review documents inability to solve basic plumbing problems (pipe connections, reducer issues) that the homeowner solved themselves, and poor judgment on installation locations (pipes in unheated spaces, furnace in unheated attic).

This score should be trusted with moderate-to-high confidence. While based on only 6 reviews, the four negative reviews are exceptionally detailed, specific, and consistent in documenting failures across professionalism, completion, and experience. The two positive reviews lack detail and predate the complaints by 3+ years. The pattern of documented negligence and unresponsiveness is compelling and not contradicted by substantive positive evidence.

The review set is deeply polarized: two positive reviews from 2012 praise Al May's pricing, communication, and follow-through, while three negative reviews from 2014 describe serious failures across nearly every dimension. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by repeated accounts of poor communication, failure to inform clients of decisions, refusing to take responsibility for defective work, and simply driving away without a word upon completion. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with multiple reviewers describing incomplete or defective work, recurring problems after job completion, and work that had to be redone at significant additional cost to the customer. Workmanship quality is consistently criticized in the negative reviews, including improper installation methods, use of subpar subcontractors, and structural defects. Pricing receives a moderate score because even negative reviewers acknowledged low upfront prices, though several noted that the low price ultimately cost them more due to rework and poor outcomes.

• All reviews are older than 10 years (2012–2014). This score reflects a historical snapshot only and should not be used to assess current contractor quality.
• The two positive reviews (both from 2012) are notably brief and generic compared to the detailed negative reviews. They lack specific project details, named outcomes, or descriptions of challenges overcome, which slightly reduces their evidentiary weight.
• Three of five reviews describe materially similar failure patterns: poor communication, defective workmanship, and refusal to accept responsibility — suggesting a systemic pattern rather than isolated incidents.
• The positive reviews predate all negative reviews by approximately 2 years, raising the possibility of a decline in service quality over time. Recency weighting favors the negative reviews.
• Small sample size of 5 reviews limits statistical reliability of this score despite HIGH confidence labels on individual dimensions.

While individual dimension confidence labels reflect HIGH due to mention counts, the overall WW Score should be treated with caution given the extremely small and outdated review set, the stark temporal split between positive and negative reviews, and the severity of documented failures in the majority of reviews.

This contractor received overwhelmingly negative feedback dominated by a detailed account of seven critical plumbing failures in a new home, including leaking toilets, reversed hot/cold lines, improper drain installation, and incomplete work. A second review documented unprofessional behavior (late-night power tool use despite customer objection). Two older positive reviews (2017, 2021) praising responsiveness and friendliness are substantially outweighed by the severity and specificity of the recent failures. The WW Score of 32.1 reflects severe deficiencies in project completion and experience, with limited professionalism data.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Two positive reviews are from 2017 and 2021; the two most recent reviews (2022) are highly negative, suggesting a potential decline in service quality or a shift in contractor performance.
• DATA IMBALANCE: Positive reviews lack specificity and detail, while negative reviews are extremely detailed and specific, raising questions about review authenticity balance.
• CRITICAL QUALITY ISSUES: The first review documents seven distinct plumbing failures on a new build, indicating systemic competency problems rather than isolated incidents.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: Second review documents disruptive behavior and dismissive attitude toward customer concerns.

This score should be trusted with moderate confidence. While based on only 4 reviews, the recent negative feedback is detailed, specific, and corroborated by a second negative review documenting unprofessional conduct. The older positive reviews lack detail and are significantly outdated. The WW Score of 32.1 reliably indicates serious quality and professionalism concerns, though a larger sample would strengthen confidence.