Find Nearby Plumbers In West Jordan, Utah

Roto-Rooter scores very strongly on professionalism and technician experience, with hundreds of reviews praising individual technicians by name for being courteous, knowledgeable, communicative, and thorough. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs resolved same-day or within a short timeframe, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, broken promises on follow-up visits, and warranty disputes. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension across the entire review set — dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges as 'outrageous,' 'ridiculous,' 'a scam,' or triple the price of competitors, with specific dollar amounts cited ranging from $315 for 4 minutes of work to $8,700 for a water heater installation. Several reviews also describe deceptive pricing practices, including quotes that changed after work began, failure to disclose service fees upfront, and pressure tactics targeting vulnerable customers including seniors and non-English speakers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., multiple identical reviews for 'Gio,' 'Gabriel,' 'Daniel,' 'Gus,' 'Giovanni,' and others). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate a review solicitation system that caused customers to submit the same review twice, or potential manipulation. Confidence in raw review count is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 150-200 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (almost all 5-star). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from scoring but inflate the total count.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SEVERE AND SPECIFIC: Negative pricing reviews are not vague — they cite specific dollar amounts, compare to competitor prices, and describe practices such as quoting after work begins, refusing to honor coupons, and charging elderly or non-English-speaking customers without disclosure. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe technicians failing to arrive within promised windows, no-call-no-shows, and dispatch communication failures. This is a recurring pattern affecting the project completion score.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Several reviews describe Roto-Rooter refusing to honor stated warranties, including a 6-month guarantee and a 30-day guarantee, with customers being charged again for the same recurring issue.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: A small but notable number of reviews describe active harm caused by technicians — flooding a kitchen, improperly setting a toilet, changing the wrong pipe, leaving sewage handprints, and damaging property with no accountability.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians quoting extremely high prices and then reducing them when customers push back, suggesting initial quotes are inflated as a negotiating tactic rather than honest pricing.
• RECENCY: All reviews are dated between approximately May 7, 2025 and June 9, 2025 — all within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is fully applied.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review set and carries HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews inflating volume, a strong and consistent pattern of severe pricing complaints that meaningfully suppresses the score, and documented instances of incomplete work and warranty non-compliance that suggest the positive technician-level experience does not always translate to a satisfactory overall customer outcome.

This contractor shows strong professionalism and project completion capabilities, with multiple recent reviews praising responsiveness, politeness, and timely service delivery. However, significant pricing concerns emerge from two detailed negative reviews alleging dishonest upselling and inflated quotes, corroborated by independent verification from competitors and manufacturers. Technical expertise is questioned in one review where the contractor allegedly misdiagnosed HVAC system compatibility, contradicting manufacturer guidance. The positive reviews (5 of 7) are detailed and specific, but the two negative reviews raise serious trust issues around pricing transparency and technical knowledge that substantially lower the overall score.

• CRITICAL: Two reviews (2021-06-15 and 2021-06-13) allege dishonest business practices including false diagnosis and upselling. The 2021-06-15 review includes independent verification from two competing companies and the manufacturer (Rheem) that contradicts the contractor's technical assessment.
• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: Alleged quote of $3,600 for blower motor replacement when actual cost was $60 labor + warranty part suggests either severe overpricing or misdiagnosis. Second review corroborates pattern of inflated pricing.
• TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE QUESTIONED: Contractor's claim about 'mismatched systems' was explicitly refuted by Rheem and two other HVAC companies, suggesting either lack of expertise or intentional deception.
• RECENCY BIAS: Positive reviews are from 2020 (4 reviews); negative reviews are from June 2021. The negative reviews are more recent and may reflect a change in service quality or business practices.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS APPEAR AUTHENTIC: The 5-star reviews contain specific details (Ben's name, 24-hour response, duct installation specifics, holiday weekend service) and vary in language/structure, suggesting genuine customer feedback rather than fake reviews.

This score should be treated with caution. While professionalism and completion metrics are strong, the two detailed negative reviews from 2021 alleging dishonest pricing and false technical diagnosis—corroborated by independent third parties—create serious credibility concerns that outweigh the positive 2020 reviews. The contractor's trustworthiness on pricing and technical honesty is questionable and warrants verification before engagement.

Only 2 of 5 reviews contain substantive usable data; 3 reviews are marked 'unknown' with no text content. The two usable reviews praise promptness, professionalism, and pricing competitiveness, with one mentioning 4-5 years of reliable service. However, the extremely limited mention count across all dimensions and the age of most reviews (2013–2015, with only one from 2023) severely constrains confidence in this score. The WW Score of 81.3 reflects positive signals but should be treated as preliminary pending additional recent reviews.

• 3 of 5 reviews contain no text ('unknown') — these cannot be analyzed and reduce overall data quality
• Most reviews are 10+ years old (2013–2015); only 1 review from past 12 months (2023)
• Duplicate review detected: 'Prompt and professional' appears twice on 2013-07-22 with identical text and rating
• Extremely limited mention counts (1–2 per dimension) — score is highly provisional
• Insufficient recent data to assess current service quality or consistency

This WW Score should be treated with caution and is not reliable for decision-making. The analysis is based on only 2 substantive reviews, most data is over a decade old, and there is a suspicious duplicate review. Additional recent reviews are needed to produce a trustworthy assessment.

Mountain View Plumbing receives strong positive feedback across three recent reviews, with Mark (owner/operator) praised for responsiveness, arriving early, transparent labor-based quotes, and completing jobs same-day including additional work beyond the original scope. However, one 2024 review explicitly describes a failure to respond to both a voicemail and a website email, which is a meaningful professionalism concern that meaningfully drags down the professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing feedback is consistently positive, with customers noting fair hourly rates and no nickel-and-diming on small materials. The experience dimension is supported by specific mentions of problem-solving, explaining system details, and correctly diagnosing issues on the first visit. Overall confidence is limited due to the very small review pool of only 5 reviews spanning nearly two decades.

• Very small review pool (5 reviews total) — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• One review is dated 2006-06-06, making it approximately 18 years old. This review was given minimal weight as it reflects conditions that may no longer be relevant to current operations.
• The 2006 review uses all-caps formatting and contains no specific details, making it low-value for scoring purposes.
• The 2024 no-response complaint is the most recent review in the dataset and carries elevated weight — it represents a real and documented failure in communication and responsiveness.
• No fake review patterns detected; the positive reviews contain specific, credible details and varied language.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning 18 years, with one recent negative experience and one very old low-detail review, making the score directionally useful but statistically unreliable — more reviews are needed before this score can be trusted with confidence.

Michael's business shows significant polarization in customer experience. Two long-term clients praise his availability, quality workmanship, and fair pricing over decades of service. However, a detailed negative review from 2019 documents serious concerns about pricing transparency, aggressive upselling, unprofessional conduct under pressure, and excessive service charges. The contractor's willingness to reduce a bill only after confrontation raises questions about initial pricing integrity. While technical competence appears solid, professionalism and pricing practices are substantially undermined by the documented negative experience.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Two positive reviews are from August 2021 (3+ years old); negative review is from April 2019 (5+ years old). Limited recent data to assess current business practices.
• POLARIZATION PATTERN: Extreme divergence between reviews (5-star vs 1-star) suggests either inconsistent service delivery or significant customer selection bias. Two reviews appear to be from property management/long-term clients; negative review from one-time customer.
• PRICING INTEGRITY ISSUE: Negative review documents specific pricing concerns (initial $5,000 quote reduced to $3,000+ after challenge; $880 repair reduced to $500 after customer objection). Pattern suggests negotiable pricing rather than transparent upfront quotes.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERN: Negative review documents defensive behavior, dismissive attitude ('run your business how you want'), and willingness to leave customer with incomplete work when challenged.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited sample size (3 reviews), significant age of data (oldest is 5 years, newest is 3 years), and extreme polarization between positive and negative experiences that suggests inconsistent service or customer-dependent outcomes.

Abbott Plumbing's reviews paint a deeply troubled picture across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is the most heavily cited concern, with repeated accounts of being hung up on, talked down to, unresponsive scheduling staff, a technician arriving over an hour late without notice, and an attempted fraudulent access fee charge — offset only by two or three genuinely positive accounts of Randy's personal responsiveness and empathy. Project completion is similarly poor, with multiple reviews describing jobs that were never finished, chronic scheduling failures, weeks-long delays on simple repairs, and at least one technician leaving a job site without completing any work. Pricing drew explicit complaints about mid-job upcharging and an attempted extortion-style fee, though one reviewer praised competitive pricing, resulting in a very low aggregate score. Experience scores slightly higher because a handful of reviews acknowledged real technical skill — diagnosing problems others could not, and resolving a flooding incident caused by their own work — but this is undermined by the volume of negative outcomes.

• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary significantly in length, detail, writing style, and rating, which supports authenticity.
• RECENCY NOTE: The two most recent reviews (March and July 2023, March 2024) are all negative and fall within the past 12–18 months, suggesting conditions have not improved over time.
• RECENCY NOTE: The only clearly positive reviews are from 2020 and 2022, meaning recent customer experience appears substantially worse than the historical average.
• PATTERN WARNING: Multiple independent reviewers describe the same specific failure modes — unreturned calls, scheduling breakdowns, and the scheduler (named 'Desiree' in one review) being difficult or abusive — which lends high credibility to these complaints as systemic rather than isolated.
• ATTEMPTED FRAUD FLAG: One detailed 2019 review credibly describes a technician attempting to charge an unjustified $225 access fee to a home warranty customer, which constitutes a serious ethical and business conduct concern.
• UPCHARGING FLAG: The most recent review (2024) explicitly describes mid-job upcharging after an original estimate was given, corroborating the 2019 fraud-adjacent behavior as a possible pattern.

This WW Score is based on 12 reviews spanning 2019–2024 with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it a HIGH confidence assessment — the score of approximately 34 reliably reflects a contractor with serious, recurring, and well-documented deficiencies in professionalism, scheduling, and follow-through.