Find Nearby Plumbers In Oro Valley, Arizona

Jeff demonstrates strong technical expertise and fair pricing based on customer feedback, with three reviews praising his professionalism, honesty, and knowledge. However, a critical 1-star review from 2022 explicitly documents a severe failure in project completion and responsiveness—specifically non-return of phone calls and failure to follow through over an extended period. This recent negative review directly contradicts the positive narrative and raises serious concerns about reliability. The WW Score reflects this conflict: while professionalism and experience scores are solid, the project completion dimension is heavily penalized by documented evidence of non-responsiveness and broken follow-through.

• CRITICAL CONFLICT: Review dated 2022-03-22 directly contradicts positive reviews. Customer reports consistent failure to return phone calls and lack of follow-through over past year. This is recent and explicit evidence of poor project completion and communication.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Three of four reviews are from 2018-2020 (3-6 years old). The most recent review (2022-03-22) is negative and suggests deterioration in service quality.
• LIMITED SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews total. Score reliability is constrained by small dataset.
• POTENTIAL REPUTATION INFLATION: Three highly positive reviews use similar language patterns ('honest guy,' 'knowledgeable,' 'friendly') but lack specific technical details. However, the negative review is sufficiently detailed and recent to override concerns about fake positive reviews.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size and significant internal conflict between recent negative evidence of non-responsiveness and older positive reviews. The documented failure to return calls and follow through (2022) is a serious red flag that outweighs the positive historical reputation.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across projects. The 2020 review demonstrates strong professionalism, fair pricing, and willingness to go above and beyond (weekend work, free small jobs). However, two older reviews (2017–2018) reveal serious project completion failures: incomplete paver work causing drainage issues and poor tile workmanship with inadequate follow-up. The contractor's unpleasant response to complaints in the 2017 review is particularly concerning. The WW Score of 68.2 reflects mixed performance with notable quality control and customer service issues that outweigh the positive aspects of the most recent engagement.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Two of three reviews are 5+ years old (2017–2018). The most recent review (2020) is significantly more positive, suggesting possible improvement or inconsistent service quality.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: Two reviews explicitly document incomplete or defective work (pooling water from pavers, poor tile grout work). This is a critical dimension.
• RESPONSIVENESS ISSUE: 2017 review states contractor was 'unpleasant' and refused to visit to discuss problems initially. This suggests poor communication and customer service under pressure.
• SKILL INCONSISTENCY: Contractor advertises as 'Repair All Guys' but 2017 review explicitly states tile work is subpar and should be left to experts. This suggests scope creep beyond actual competency.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited sample size (3 reviews) and significant age of 2 reviews. The contractor shows capability for quality work but has demonstrated serious project completion and customer service failures. Recent positive feedback is encouraging but insufficient to fully offset documented problems. Recommend requesting references specifically for tile/specialty work and clarifying scope limitations before hiring.

Two of the three reviews are strongly positive, praising communication, technical knowledge, fair pricing, and follow-through on callbacks. However, the third review — a 1-star — describes a significant responsiveness failure: the contractor never returned a call after 16 days, forcing the customer to seek another plumber. This is a direct and serious hit to both professionalism and project completion scores. With only 3 reviews total, the negative review carries substantial weight and prevents any dimension from scoring confidently high. The overall picture is mixed and the score should be treated with caution.

• Very small sample size (3 reviews total) — scores are highly sensitive to individual reviews and cannot be considered statistically reliable.
• One review dates from 2024, two from 2021 — the majority of data is over 3 years old and may not reflect current service quality.
• The two positive reviews use somewhat generic praise ('best in the business', 'knowledgeable', 'honest') with limited specific detail, which slightly reduces confidence in their authenticity, though no definitive fake review pattern is confirmed.
• The 1-star review describes a clear failure of responsiveness and follow-up — this is a concrete, specific complaint that meaningfully lowers professionalism and project completion scores.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, two of which are over 3 years old, making it LOW reliability — treat this score as a preliminary signal only and seek additional recent reviews before making a hiring decision.

Plumbologist presents a deeply divided review profile spanning 2017–2024, with strong positive experiences from some customers offset by serious, recurring complaints from others. Professionalism is the most contested dimension: multiple reviewers praise punctuality, clear communication, and responsiveness, while others report no-shows to multi-hour appointment windows, unanswered calls across many days, and a plumber who left without knocking or calling. Project completion is similarly split — several reviews describe fast, clean, effective repairs, but others document failed city inspections, unresolved issues, equipment that never worked, and a pattern of promising follow-through without delivering. Pricing drew explicit criticism from multiple reviewers who found quotes dramatically disproportionate to parts cost and labor time, though a few reviewers found pricing fair and competitive. Experience scores reflect genuine skill noted by satisfied customers alongside serious workmanship failures — including errors that caused two failed inspections and thousands of dollars in additional costs — attributed specifically to a technician named Paul.

• Two reviews dated 2018-06-27 are nearly word-for-word identical (same complaint about Paul, TWO failed inspections, $1800 electrical, $700 equipment refusal). These appear to be duplicate submissions of the same review, possibly posted twice by the same customer. Only one was counted for scoring purposes.
• One review (2018-06-11) contains no text — only a 1-star rating. This was excluded from dimension scoring as it provides no usable data.
• Several 5-star reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Nice, professional and punctual' with no specifics). While not conclusive, these warrant mild skepticism.
• A significant portion of reviews (roughly 60%) are dated before 2023, meaning the majority of the review base is more than 1–2 years old. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) include both a strong positive and a notable pricing complaint, suggesting the mixed pattern persists.
• Multiple distinct negative patterns appear across unrelated reviewers: no-shows, unanswered phones, and incomplete work. This consistency across different dates and reviewers increases the credibility of the negative reviews.
• The contractor appears to have multiple technicians (Geoff, Paul, David, Jeff) with notably different performance profiles. Paul is specifically named in the most severe negative reviews. Scores reflect the business as a whole, not individual technicians.

This WW Score is based on 24 usable reviews spanning 7 years with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically meaningful, though the age of many reviews and the presence of one duplicate submission slightly temper full confidence in the score as a reflection of current performance.

Appliance Repair of America presents a deeply divided picture across 15 reviews spanning 2013–2024. Positive reviews consistently praise Chad's promptness, communication, and technical competence, while a substantial cluster of negative reviews — particularly from 2014–2018 — describe missed appointments, unresponsiveness, incomplete repairs, and in one severe case, property damage caused by a technician. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly reporting that work was never finished, appointments were no-showed, and in one case a job was fraudulently marked complete. Professionalism scores are similarly split, with positive reviewers noting punctuality and friendliness while negative reviewers describe being ghosted, receiving texts instead of calls, and encountering technicians who appeared unqualified. Pricing received mixed signals — one reviewer found costs reasonable, others paid fees for repairs that were never completed or failed immediately, representing poor value. The most recent reviews (2022 and 2024) are positive, which is a modest encouraging signal, but the volume and severity of negative reviews from prior years significantly weigh down the overall score.

• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: One reviewer (2017-10-03) explicitly alleges that positive reviews are fabricated by Illinois-based associates, noting the business operates in Tucson but lists an Illinois number. This warrants scrutiny of the positive reviews.
• RECENCY IMBALANCE: The majority of reviews are older than 1 year (13 of 15 reviews predate April 2023). Only 2 reviews are within the past 12–24 months. The score may not reflect current service quality.
• ABANDONED WORK PATTERN: At least 4 reviews explicitly describe work that was started but never completed, and in one case a job was submitted as complete to the home warranty company while the appliance remained broken — a serious integrity concern.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE: One review (2015-08-06) describes a technician leaving appliances disassembled, breaking a knob, and causing a plumbing flood that required homeowner's insurance involvement. This is a significant liability flag.
• INCONSISTENT TECHNICIAN QUALITY: Multiple reviews suggest the quality of service varies dramatically depending on which technician is dispatched, with 'Chad' receiving most positive mentions and unnamed technicians receiving the most severe complaints.
• UNRESPONSIVENESS PATTERN: At least 3 separate reviews describe an inability to reach the company by phone after initial contact, with calls and messages going unreturned for weeks.

This WW Score is based on 15 reviews with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but the score's reliability is moderated by the age of most reviews, credible allegations of fake positive reviews, and a consistent pattern of serious service failures that cannot be dismissed as outliers.

Rogiers Plumbing shows a mixed picture across a very small review set. Two positive reviews highlight responsiveness, fair pricing, and technical competence, with one reviewer noting they were squeezed in urgently and another calling Richard a skilled master plumber. However, a significant negative review describes a failure to return and complete a repair after payment, which directly and seriously impacts the project completion dimension. Professionalism is similarly split — praised as 'very professional' and 'super nice' in two reviews, but undermined by the account of being ignored after a complaint. With only 3 reviews total, confidence in all scores is low and this report should be treated as preliminary only.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed — this is the absolute minimum threshold for a WW Score calculation. Results are highly unreliable and should not be used as a definitive assessment.
• One review (1-star, 2022-08-04) describes a serious follow-through failure: work was not completed after payment and callbacks were not honored. This is a significant red flag for project completion.
• One review (2020-11-21) is over 3 years old and carries reduced weight due to recency rules. Only one review falls within the past 12 months (2023-01-31).
• No fake review patterns detected, but the small sample size makes pattern analysis unreliable.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning multiple years and should be considered highly unreliable — do not use this score as a confident indicator of contractor quality without gathering significantly more review data.