Cheap plumbing isn’t cheap — it’s deferred risk (Part 1)

By Maryna Landman, MBA, director of Strategy & Compliance at Alpha Plumbing

In my recent opinion piece, I argued that when compliance becomes optional, plumbing becomes dangerous. I also argued that cheap plumbing often means missing line items you only pay for later. So, let’s continue the conversation, because those “missing” line items are usually hidden risks — and that is what people are buying or selling, whether they admit it or not. This is part one of a two-part series.

Supplied by Maryna Landman

How do we talk about compliance honestly when the economics keep pulling the other way? We are dealing with constant pricing pressure, narrow scopes and the idea that the lowest quote is somehow “compliant enough”. Then, when the risk finally becomes reality, the conversation swings the other way, and suddenly all plumbers are accused of offering low quality.

That is the conversation this industry should be having. Loudly.

Standards matter… right up until they cost money

Everybody says the right things. Quality matters. Compliance matters. Workmanship must meet standards and be guaranteed. But the moment the quote lands on the table, the conversation changes. The question is no longer what protects the building, the system, or the person who inherits the repair six months later. The question becomes, ‘Who can do it the cheapest?’

That is usually where the real trouble starts.

“Cheap” buys time before failure

The customer is happy because the leak was repaired, or the geyser replaced, at a fraction of the price.

But if the workmanship was poor, the scope was narrowed to the bare minimum, or the surrounding non-compliant parts were left in place, was the plumbing really fixed – or was the risk simply postponed?

That is my point. Cheap plumbing is rarely cheap in any meaningful sense. It did not buy value – it bought time before failure.

Is it the plumber or is it the price?

Before this discussion derails, let’s be clear: I am not saying every low-cost plumber is crooked, careless or incompetent. I am saying the system often rewards the wrong thing. This is not only about bad actors – it is about bad incentives.

That matters because in most industries, price competition can drive efficiency. In a high-risk trade, it can drive something else entirely.

Plumbers do not sell products; they sell a service. And in a service, three things have to be paid for: skill, labour and materials. Materials are often the least flexible part of that equation. So, if price becomes the main differentiator while material costs stay more or less fixed, something else has to give.

Usually it is time, or supervision, or testing – in other words, labour, care and quality control.

You can be the most ethical plumber in the world, but if the market demands the narrowest scope at the cheapest price, the pressure is obvious. The question is not whether shortcuts become tempting. The question is whether this trade can afford a system that rewards them.

Plumbing does not fail politely

When plumbing is done properly, nobody notices it. Water comes in, waste goes out, and life carries on. But when it is done badly, it rarely stays a small problem. Risk becomes reality.

It becomes damp in the wall, a burst geyser, or, worse, a sewerage spill from a drain that should never have been laid that way in the first place.

That is why the cheapest quote – which only fixes what is visible – is just the beginning of the cost story. It is almost never the end of it.

Usually what follows is a repeat callout, an insurance dispute, a facilities manager under pressure with irate tenants, or a homeowner paying twice for what should have been fixed properly the first time.

If poor execution is expensive, the bill rarely arrives on the same day as the original decision.

Facilities management research reaches a similar conclusion: reactive maintenance can cost three to five times more than planned, preventative maintenance.

Insurance covers risk, until it doesn’t

Damage from non-compliant plumbing is not some obscure edge case in property ownership. It is one of the most common and costly ways buildings get damaged. Yet too many plumbing decisions are still made as if the downside is minor.

Globally, water damage accounts for ~24–30% of household ; that’s roughly a third of all homeowners’ insurance claims. Locally, geyser failures and plumbing-related damage remain familiar territory for insurers.

But here is the part people do not like hearing: when insurers assess a water-damage claim, proof of compliant installation and workmanship suddenly matters a great deal.

(To be continued in part two…)

In case you missed it, click here to view Maryna’s opinion piece in the Plumbing Africa March magazine: PlumbingAfrica_Mar2026 Plumbing Africa

Sources:

1. https://retail.ifma.org/preventive-maintenance-that-actually-prevents/
2. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/capital-projects-and-infrastructure/our-insights/reinventing-construction-through-a-productivity-revolution
3. https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-homeowners-and-renters-insurance
4. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9241563184