Find Nearby Plumbers In Birmingham, Alabama

Extra Care Plumbing receives a critically low WW Score of 32.8, driven by severe deficiencies across all dimensions. Two detailed 1-star reviews from 2024 and 2018 document repeated failures: inability to diagnose leaks, incomplete repairs requiring customer intervention, improper installations violating code, excessive labor hours, and overcharging for parts and services. Two 5-star reviews from 2021 lack specificity and contain generic praise language, raising authenticity concerns given the stark contrast with detailed negative reviews. The company demonstrates poor professionalism, unfair pricing practices, and inadequate technical expertise, with work requiring complete redoing by competitors.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Two positive 5-star reviews are from 2021 (3+ years old), while the most recent review (2024) is a scathing 1-star detailing major failures. This suggests potential service quality decline or inconsistency.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: The two 5-star reviews (2021) use suspiciously generic language ('most excellent plumbing service in the universe', 'highly recommend') with no specific details about work performed, pricing, or outcomes. This contrasts sharply with the detailed, specific complaints in negative reviews.
• CRITICAL SERVICE FAILURES: Multiple reviews document the same pattern—inability to diagnose problems, incomplete work, customer having to teach the 'expert' how to do the job, improper installations, and work requiring complete redoing by other companies.
• PRICING ABUSE: Evidence of overcharging for parts that should be included, excessive labor charges ($375 for dishwasher relocation), and hidden fees beyond initial quotes.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-to-HIGH confidence due to detailed, specific negative evidence from recent reviews (2024) corroborated by an older review (2018) showing consistent failure patterns, though the small sample size (4 reviews) and suspected fake positive reviews introduce some uncertainty. The WW Score of 32.8 reflects genuine service quality concerns and should be considered reliable for decision-making purposes.

This contractor's reviews present a deeply mixed and concerning picture. Two of the five reviews are scathing 1-star accounts describing outright failure to locate leaks accurately, refusal to honor service guarantees, and poor follow-through on callbacks — directly impacting professionalism, project completion, and experience scores. The two positive reviews (one from 2019, one from 2023) describe skilled technicians and successful outcomes, but they are outnumbered and outweighed by the detailed negative accounts. Pricing was flagged as high in multiple reviews, and in the negative cases, customers felt they paid significant sums ($425–$800+) for services that were not delivered. The one neutral 4-star review acknowledged accurate leak detection but also noted the company is not cheap, providing only partial positive reinforcement.

• Two detailed 1-star reviews describe the same core failure pattern: inaccurate leak detection, refusal to refund, and ignored follow-up calls — this is a significant red flag for service reliability.
• The 5-star review from 2023-06-27 is vague and generic ('done the job on the spot,' 'excellent work skills and knowledge') with no specific details, which raises mild concern about its authenticity.
• The most positive and detailed 5-star review is from 2019, making it over 4 years old at time of analysis — recency weighting reduces its impact on the current score.
• Only 5 reviews total were available, making this an extremely small sample. Scores should be treated with caution and the WW Score is near the minimum threshold for reliability.
• A pattern of the company not honoring callbacks or refund requests appears in two separate reviews, suggesting a possible systemic customer service issue rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews with a small and conflicting dataset — it should be treated as a preliminary signal only, and prospective customers are strongly advised to seek additional references before hiring.

The review set is extremely small (3 reviews) and spans nearly a decade, making reliable scoring very difficult. The single positive review (2023) praises responsiveness, helpfulness, and efficiency, but it is heavily outweighed by two negative reviews describing overcharging on basic repairs and seriously shoddy workmanship that required multiple costly corrections by subsequent plumbers. The project completion dimension is particularly concerning, as one reviewer describes three separate corrective jobs needed after a bathroom re-plumb, with ceiling and wall cuts required to fix the original work. Pricing is flagged as a problem area based on a $165 charge for a 5-minute visit. Overall, the negative reviews carry significant weight due to their specificity and severity, despite their age.

• VERY LOW REVIEW COUNT: Only 3 reviews total — WW Score cannot be considered reliable and should be treated as indicative only.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two of the three reviews are from 2014 and 2015, making them 9–10+ years old. Only one review is recent (2023). Score may not reflect current performance.
• SEVERE WORKMANSHIP COMPLAINT: One reviewer explicitly describes repeated corrective work by other plumbers following a bathroom re-plumb, indicating potentially serious quality issues on at least one job.
• PRICING CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly describes being overcharged, including a $165 fee for a 5-minute visit, suggesting possible lack of pricing transparency.
• SPLIT SIGNAL: The 2023 review is strongly positive while both older reviews are strongly negative — it is unclear whether quality has genuinely improved or whether the sample is too small to draw conclusions.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning nearly 10 years and should be considered highly unreliable — prospective customers are strongly advised to seek additional references and recent reviews before making a hiring decision.

This contractor demonstrates severe and consistent deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Four of five reviews are 1-star ratings citing rude behavior, poor communication, rushed work, inadequate cleanup, and refusal to take responsibility for damage caused. The single positive review (4-star) from 2018 praises professionalism and timeliness but is heavily outweighed by overwhelming negative evidence. Pricing concerns appear in multiple reviews with complaints of unexpected cost increases. Project completion is compromised by rushed work, incomplete cleanup, and poor quality outcomes. The contractor's experience level is questionable given the pattern of improper installations and damage.

• CRITICAL: Four of five reviews are 1-star ratings with consistent complaints about rudeness, poor workmanship, and unprofessional behavior. This pattern suggests systemic operational problems, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Four reviews are from 2018-2019 (4-6 years old). Only one review is from 2018. Limited recent data makes it difficult to assess if issues have been corrected.
• DAMAGE LIABILITY: Multiple reviews explicitly mention improper installations causing additional damage and refusal to acknowledge responsibility. This is a serious red flag.
• PRICING DISPUTES: Two reviews mention unexpected price increases during service, suggesting unclear quoting practices or potential overcharging.

This WW Score of 28.3 is highly reliable given the consistency of negative feedback across multiple dimensions and the explicit nature of complaints. However, the age of most reviews (4-6 years) means current service quality cannot be fully assessed without more recent data.

The review set is small (3 reviews) but the signal is strongly negative across nearly all dimensions. Two of the three reviews are detailed, scathing accounts describing rudeness, dishonesty, failure to communicate, abandoned work, and deliberate avoidance of calls — including hanging up on a home warranty company. The single positive review (4 stars, 2024) notes a friendly technician, a prompt follow-up, and an early scheduling accommodation, which provides a small upward offset but is heavily outweighed by the two 1-star reviews. Pricing received a near-zero score because one reviewer explicitly described being charged a $100 service fee with no work performed, which constitutes a deceptive charge. Project completion scores are critically low due to a documented case of a claim being abandoned over four months with no resolution.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as directional only, not definitive.
• Two of three reviews are from 2021 and may not reflect current business practices; the only recent review is from May 2024.
• One reviewer explicitly alleges the contractor deliberately hung up on a home warranty company when called on the customer's behalf — a serious professional misconduct flag.
• One reviewer alleges a $100 service fee was collected with no work completed and no claim resolution — potential fraud or deceptive billing flag.
• The positive review is generic in some respects (no specifics on work type beyond 'replacement') but does mention a follow-up visit, lending it some credibility.
• Recency note: The two negative reviews are over 3 years old. The most recent review (2024) is positive. Score may not reflect current performance — more recent reviews are needed to assess improvement or decline.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 3 years and should be considered LOW reliability — the score directionally signals serious past concerns, but insufficient recent data exists to confirm whether these issues persist today.

This contractor's review record is overwhelmingly negative across all four scored dimensions, with the vast majority of reviews describing serious, repeated failures. Professionalism is the most heavily documented dimension and is catastrophically poor — multiple reviewers across many years describe the owner yelling, cursing at customers, hanging up on them, threatening legal action, and using the Health Department as an intimidation tool. Project completion is nearly as damning, with numerous accounts of no-shows across multiple rescheduled appointments, abandoned work after deposits were taken, jobs installed below county code requirements, and systems failing within months of completion. Pricing drew consistent complaints of hidden charges, dramatic mid-job price inflation, refusal to return deposits for uncompleted work, and bait-and-switch quoting. Experience scores marginally higher only because a small number of early positive reviews describe competent technicians, but these are vastly outweighed by accounts of incorrect diagnoses, undersized installations, and work that required expensive correction by other companies. The handful of positive reviews (roughly 5 out of 28) are sparse in detail, several are very old, and they do not meaningfully offset the volume and specificity of the negative accounts.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review describing a failed septic tank replacement with 275 feet of field lines, a $5,000 payment, and a state water board complaint appears verbatim twice — once dated 2020-06-10 and once dated 2019-10-01. This is likely a duplicate submission and was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• ONE REVIEW IS BLANK: The review dated 2020-06-10 with a 1-star rating contains no text and was excluded from dimension scoring.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The five positive reviews span 2013 to 2020, with none in the past 12 months (relative to the most recent review date of August 2023). The most recent reviews are all strongly negative, suggesting a deteriorating or consistently poor service record.
• PATTERN OF OWNER MISCONDUCT: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe the same specific behaviors from the owner — cursing at customers, threatening lawyers, threatening Health Department inspections, and refusing deposit refunds. This consistency across unrelated reviewers adds credibility to these accounts.
• POSSIBLE INTIMIDATION OF REVIEWERS: At least two reviewers explicitly state the owner threatened them with legal action or Health Department reports if they posted negative reviews. This may have suppressed the total volume of negative reviews and should be considered when interpreting the overall rating distribution.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS ARE THIN: The five positive reviews contain minimal specifics and are significantly older than the bulk of negative reviews. While not conclusively fake, they carry low evidentiary weight given the volume and detail of negative accounts.

This WW Score carries HIGH confidence and should be trusted as an accurate reflection of this contractor's service quality — the score is based on 27 usable reviews spanning a decade, with strong cross-review consistency in the nature and specifics of complaints across all four dimensions.