CL
Corey Levesque
Feb 4, 2026
I've used Dehart for the past 11-12 years at two different homes. I've never deviated from using them.
I have a localized sewer repair that needs to be done. A camera was sent all the way to the main sewer, and it was clearly established that the issue is a local break approximately 3–4 feet from the basement toilet.
The repair scope is straightforward: break up the concrete, cut out the damaged section of pipe, glue in two couplings with a new section of pipe, then refill and clean up.
For this work, I was quoted $7,000 on the high end with a warranty, and $6,000 on the low end with zero warranty. For a short, localized repair with a clearly defined scope, those numbers are extremely hard to justify.
Before the quote was written, we were clear to the technician about the amount we were pre-approved for. The estimate that came back landed exactly at that number, despite the work being a localized sewer repair: tearing up roughly 4–6 feet of concrete, cutting out a short section of PVC, and replacing it with two couplings and new pipe. This is why I questioned if the quoted of financing and not off the scope of work. I believe it's quoted of financing.
When I questioned why the quote was so high, I was told they don’t do “foot-in-the-door” pricing because unforeseen issues may arise. That explanation would be reasonable except the written estimate directly contradicts it. The quote clearly states it is a “good faith estimate” and that additional labor, materials, or unforeseen problems would be discussed and priced separately if discovered after work begins. If costs can already be adjusted later, inflating the initial price to hedge against unknowns makes no sense and feels misleading.
Another major issue is the refusal to itemize the work. Customers are told this is for “transparency,” but not itemizing is the opposite of transparency. Without itemization, there is no way to evaluate labor time, material costs, or whether the price reflects the actual scope of work. I asked the tech if they itemize and he said no. I read other low star reviews and others also see this as a problem.
The same flawed logic applies to the frequent response of “you’re paying for quality.” Quality may justify higher pricing for complex or specialized work, but fundamental plumbing work should have a reasonable ceiling. Basic tasks do not become exponentially higher quality past a certain point.
A $7,000 quote for this job is simply crazy, and a $6,000 option with zero warranty is even harder to justify. Cutting out a small section of pipe, removing concrete debris, and refilling the area does not support pricing at that level.
After reading other negative reviews here, a clear pattern emerges:
1. Work is not itemized, yet it is described as “transparent,” which is contradictory transparency requires a breakdown, not a lump sum.
2. Customers who question pricing are dismissed with vague statements instead of clear explanations.
3. “Quality” is repeatedly used as a catch-all justification, even for basic plumbing tasks where quality should have a reasonable cap.
They are either price gouging and no one looks into it because of who they are or the company simply does not want to do the job so the skyrocket the price
This experience is why I will not be using this company again..............
Edit-
It was a straightforward job that one guy completed in about 6.5 hours. Not even close to a $7,000 job. Their pricing is absolutely insane for the scope of work that was actually done.
On top of that, DeHart marked the break at the wrong pipe. If they had marked the correct location from the start, this would have been closer to a 6-hour job. I understand being slightly off, but marking the wrong pipe entirely is not a small mistake. That error created additional, unnecessary work.
It’s really disappointing. They talk a lot about “quality,” and charge based off it. Multiple mistakes l don’t reflect the level of quality they claim to provide. Beware of this guy when looking for a plumbing company, prices are absolutely insane.