Find Nearby Plumbers In Phoenix, Arizona

Dynamic Plumbing shows a deeply polarized review pattern with four 5-star reviews praising professionalism, pricing, and technical skill, but two severe 1-star reviews from 2004–2005 documenting catastrophic project abandonment, incomplete work, and substantial financial harm to customers. The positive reviews emphasize efficiency, diagnosis ability, and fair pricing; however, the negative reviews explicitly detail unfinished jobs, improper installations, regulatory complaints, and customers forced to hire replacement plumbers at significant additional cost. The recency gap is critical: positive reviews span 2007–2021, while the most damaging reviews are from 2004–2005, suggesting either historical issues or potential company changes. The project completion dimension is severely compromised by explicit evidence of abandoned work and incomplete installations.

• CRITICAL: Two reviews (2004, 2005) document severe project abandonment with regulatory complaints filed to Arizona Registrar of Contractors. These are not minor complaints but catastrophic failures resulting in $7,000+ additional costs to complete work.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Negative reviews are 16–19 years old; positive reviews are more recent (2007–2021). This temporal gap makes it unclear whether issues were resolved or if company practices changed.
• POLARIZATION PATTERN: All positive reviews are 5-star with generic praise; all negative reviews are 1-star with detailed, specific damage claims. This extreme polarization warrants caution.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS LACK SPECIFICITY: Four of five positive reviews contain minimal detail and could reflect selective posting or satisfied customer bias rather than comprehensive quality assessment.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: Explicit evidence of incomplete work, improper installations (misplaced drains, incorrect vents), and abandonment. This is not a minor issue but a pattern of non-delivery.

This score should be treated with caution due to extreme temporal and severity polarization. While recent reviews are positive, two detailed complaints from 2004–2005 document serious project abandonment and regulatory involvement. Without recent negative reviews or evidence of remediation, it is unclear whether historical issues persist or have been resolved. The WW Score reflects the conflicting evidence but leans conservative given the severity of documented project completion failures.

Rooter Hero presents a deeply polarized review profile: a large cohort of positive reviews praising individual technicians for punctuality, friendliness, and effective work, offset by an equally large and highly detailed body of 1-star reviews documenting systematic bait-and-switch pricing, fraudulent upselling, no-shows, and work left incomplete or made worse. The pricing dimension is the most severely penalized, with dozens of independent reviewers reporting that advertised $77 specials routinely escalated to hundreds or thousands of dollars, and multiple reviewers confirmed via second opinions that recommended repairs costing $5,000–$40,000 were entirely unnecessary. Project completion suffers significantly from recurring patterns of technicians failing to clear drains they were called to clear, abandoning job sites, and returning visits that still did not resolve the original issue. Professionalism and experience scores are dragged down by widespread reports of no-shows, rude managers, technicians lacking proper equipment, and deliberate misdiagnosis, though a genuine subset of skilled and courteous individual technicians prevents these scores from being lower.

• STRONG FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: A significant number of 5-star reviews are extremely brief, generic, or name-only (e.g., 'Good', 'Honest and capable', 'Wonderful firm', 'unknown', blank text with 5 stars). Several appear to be submitted in clusters on the same date (e.g., multiple reviews dated 2025-06-08, 2025-05-09) with no specific detail, which is a common pattern for incentivized or fabricated reviews.
• SYSTEMATIC FRAUD PATTERN: Dozens of independently written 1-star reviews from different geographic areas and time periods describe an identical operational pattern: low advertised price ($77) used to gain entry, technician fails to complete simple job, supervisor called in to quote $5,000–$40,000 in unnecessary work, second opinion from another plumber resolves the issue for under $500. This pattern is too consistent and widespread to be coincidental.
• LEGAL AND REGULATORY FLAGS: Multiple reviewers reference active lawsuits, BBB complaints (D- rating cited), a reported 5-year probation, and news coverage of fraudulent practices. One reviewer links to a KCRA news story about a $50k contract dispute. These are serious external red flags beyond individual review sentiment.
• ELDERLY AND VULNERABLE TARGETING: Multiple reviewers explicitly state the company targets seniors, women, and first-time homeowners with high-pressure sales tactics and inflated quotes, which constitutes a pattern of predatory behavior.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review set spans from approximately 2013 to June 2025. The most recent reviews (2025) continue to show the same split pattern of brief 5-star reviews and detailed 1-star fraud complaints, indicating no meaningful improvement in business practices over time.
• CONFIDENCE REDUCTION APPLIED: Due to the high volume of suspected fake or incentivized 5-star reviews, all dimension scores have been conservatively weighted toward the detailed negative evidence. The WW Score should be treated as an upper bound given this concern.

This WW Score has HIGH data confidence due to the very large review volume, but the score itself should be treated with caution as a ceiling estimate — the systematic fraud patterns, suspected fake positive reviews, external legal/regulatory flags, and consistent second-opinion evidence strongly suggest the true service quality for an average customer is likely worse than the blended score indicates.

Patrick Riley presents a deeply polarized review profile: a large volume of positive reviews praising individual technicians by name for friendliness, professionalism, and thoroughness, offset by a substantial and highly detailed body of negative reviews describing systematic upselling, price gouging, misdiagnosis, and incomplete work. Pricing is the single most damaged dimension, with dozens of reviewers explicitly describing charges that were 2x to 10x competitor quotes, hidden fees, and deceptive warranty sales targeting seniors and women. Project completion suffers significantly from multiple accounts of abandoned work, no-shows, repeated callbacks for the same unresolved issue, and jobs left in worse condition than found. Professionalism scores moderately due to the genuine volume of positive individual tech mentions, but is dragged down by serious incidents including road rage, racial slurs used on job sites, a technician vomiting in a customer's yard, and aggressive sales behavior. Experience is similarly split, with many reviewers praising knowledgeable techs while others describe outright misdiagnosis that was corrected cheaply by competitors.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review 'Excellent! Service was fast, reliable and electrical breakers replaced. We learned a lot today!!!' (5-star) appears verbatim on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-05. The review 'Great service, thank you!' (5-star) appears verbatim on 2025-06-06 and 2025-06-04. The review about being charged $300 for smoke detector batteries (1-star) appears verbatim on 2025-06-06 and 2025-06-04. The extremely detailed 1-star review about the $17,000 AC install (Ivan/hangover/vomiting) appears to be posted twice with near-identical text on 2024-06-21. These duplicates suggest possible review manipulation on both the positive and negative sides.
• SYSTEMATIC UPSELLING PATTERN: An unusually high number of independent reviewers (20+) describe being quoted prices 2x-10x higher than competitors for identical work, with multiple reviewers explicitly stating a second opinion saved them thousands of dollars. This is a strong signal of a company-wide pricing and sales practice rather than isolated incidents.
• PREDATORY TARGETING ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviewers explicitly state the company targets seniors, women, and people who are alone or uninformed. One reviewer reported the company attempted to pay $850 to have a negative review removed, which is a serious ethical flag.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: At least 8 independent reviews describe Patrick Riley diagnosing expensive compressor failures, coil replacements, or full unit replacements that were subsequently fixed by competitors for under $500. This pattern across many years and reviewers suggests a systemic diagnostic integrity problem.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: At least 6 reviews describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and communication was poor or absent, indicating operational reliability issues.
• WARRANTY AND CONTRACT COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviewers describe VIP service contracts that expired without use due to company no-shows, warranty work being refused or charged for, and contract terms that were misrepresented at point of sale.
• 12 BLANK REVIEWS (no text, only a star rating) were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data. All were 5-star ratings, which slightly inflates the raw star average but cannot be used for dimension analysis.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review corpus spans from 2016 to June 2025. Negative reviews describing upselling, misdiagnosis, and incomplete work are present consistently across all years including the most recent 12 months, suggesting these are not historical issues that have been resolved.

This WW Score of 52.1 is based on a large and highly diverse review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, and should be considered a reliable representation of the contractor's overall performance; however, prospective customers should weigh the pricing dimension especially heavily, as the volume and specificity of overcharging complaints is among the highest observed in any contractor review corpus, and independent price verification before authorizing any work is strongly advised.

Pat's Plumbing has a deeply polarized review history spanning over a decade. Professionalism scores moderately because while many individual technicians (Pat, Alex, Jesse, Julio, Merle) are repeatedly praised for being friendly, punctual, and communicative, the office management — particularly the owner Linda — is cited in numerous reviews as rude, dismissive, and unresponsive to legitimate complaints. Pricing is the single most damaging dimension: an overwhelming volume of reviews across many years describe quotes that are 2x to 5x higher than competitors or DIY costs, with multiple reviewers citing specific dollar amounts that appear grossly inflated for simple jobs; this is not a handful of outliers but a consistent, high-volume pattern. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are completed successfully and on time, but there are credible accounts of no-shows, failed inspections, work not up to code, unresolved problems after payment, and at least one instance of warranty being denied. Experience scores moderately positive because skilled technicians are frequently praised for diagnosing and resolving complex issues, but is dragged down by documented cases of substandard workmanship, code violations, and misdiagnosis.

• PRICING PATTERN WARNING: An unusually high volume of reviews — spanning 2010 to 2024 — describe pricing that is 2x to 5x above market rate for simple jobs. This is a systemic business practice, not isolated incidents. Examples include: $2,650 for a 2-foot pipe replacement, $574 for a kitchen sink clog, $833 for a shower valve replacement under 1 hour, $1,800 quoted for a gas stove install worth ~$500, $1,205 for a pinhole pipe repair, and $777 for a dishwasher install. This pattern is highly consistent and credible.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: Several 5-star reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Top notch service! Always a pleasure doing business with these guys...they know their stuff!', 'It was great, the company was awesome, they did a great job.', 'Pat and Robert are the best...providing EXCELLENT service and quality work'). These lack any specific detail about the job, technician, or problem solved, and may inflate the positive score. Confidence in the positive reviews is reduced accordingly.
• OWNER CONDUCT WARNING: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe the owner (Linda) as rude, dismissive, and unwilling to address pricing complaints. At least two reviewers report receiving legal letters offering small refunds only if they agreed not to post negative reviews — a practice that raises serious ethical concerns and may constitute suppression of legitimate consumer feedback.
• CODE COMPLIANCE AND LICENSING CONCERN: One detailed 1-star review (2024) describes work that failed a utility inspection due to use of non-outdoor-rated pipe outdoors and failure to obtain a permit in advance. A separate review from a self-described former employee (2020) alleges that only one licensed journeyman plumber is on staff and that apprentices are sent to work alone in violation of Washington state law. These are serious allegations that could not be independently verified from reviews alone but are noted as significant flags.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2008 to 2024. The pricing complaints and professionalism issues are present across the entire timeline, including the most recent 12 months (2024), indicating these are not historical issues that have been resolved. The most recent reviews (2024) include both strong positives and a serious code-compliance failure, suggesting the business remains inconsistent.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (85 reviews) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, making the overall score statistically reliable; however, the score should be interpreted with caution given the strong evidence of a systemic overpricing pattern, credible allegations of unlicensed work, documented owner misconduct, and suspected generic fake positive reviews that may artificially inflate the professionalism and experience dimensions.

This contractor presents a deeply polarized review profile: a cluster of glowing 5-star reviews praising responsiveness, professionalism, and technical knowledge sits alongside a serious and detailed set of 1-star reviews alleging fraud, unlicensed work, abandoned jobs, fabricated insurance claims, and financial harm to customers. The positive reviews are heavily concentrated around a narrow date window (March 13, 2024 — three 5-star reviews on the same day) which raises significant authenticity concerns. The negative reviews are highly specific, naming individuals, describing legal and regulatory complaints, and detailing financial losses exceeding thousands of dollars, which lends them considerably more credibility. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly describing unfinished work, torn-up homes left in disrepair, and a pattern of the owner walking off jobs. Pricing is similarly compromised by allegations of fraudulent charges, undisclosed invoices, and insurance manipulation.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: Three 5-star reviews were posted on the exact same date (2024-03-13) within minutes of each other, all praising the same technician 'Corri' and the same water heater service. This is a strong indicator of coordinated or inauthentic reviews.
• UNLICENSED CONTRACTOR ALLEGATION: One detailed 1-star review explicitly states that Craig Heaps holds no plumbing or AZROC license, and that another contractor's ROC number was fraudulently used on work they did not perform. This is a serious legal and safety concern.
• FRAUD AND FINANCIAL HARM ALLEGATIONS: Multiple 1-star reviews allege fraudulent insurance claims, charges for work not completed, painting over parts instead of replacing them, and refusal to provide invoices. One reviewer paid $3,400 out of pocket with no reimbursement.
• PATTERN OF ABANDONED WORK: At least three independent reviewers describe jobs being left unfinished, homes left torn up for months, and the owner becoming unresponsive after receiving payment.
• HARASSMENT ALLEGATION: One reviewer describes the owner calling and texting their elderly mother repeatedly to demand payment while refusing to produce an invoice, and threatening legal action.
• TECHNICIAN NAME INCONSISTENCY: Positive reviews reference technicians named 'Corri', 'Cory', and 'Craig' interchangeably in ways that suggest possible name confusion or fabrication in some reviews.
• PAYMENT TO UNRELATED BUSINESS: One reviewer notes payment was directed to 'City Boi BBQ', a completely unrelated business, which is a significant red flag for financial impropriety.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most severe negative reviews are from 2024, meaning the most recent data skews negative. The positive reviews from 2024 are the ones flagged as potentially inauthentic.

This WW Score should be treated with LOW trust — the review set contains strong indicators of fake positive reviews, multiple credible and detailed fraud allegations, unlicensed contractor claims, and a pattern of financial harm to customers that collectively undermine confidence in any positive signal present in the data.

Big G Plumbing has a deeply polarized review history, with a large volume of 1-star reviews describing serious, recurring failures in professionalism — including rudeness from both the owner Greg and office staff, failure to return calls, and outright hostility toward customers. Project completion is a major weakness, with numerous reviewers citing incomplete repairs, repeat visits for the same issue, excessive delays, and jobs abandoned or never finished. Positive reviews do exist and describe a capable, friendly, and timely service, but these are heavily outnumbered and several lack specific detail, raising authenticity concerns. Pricing received mixed signals — one reviewer cited a grossly inflated parts markup (6x retail), while others praised fair and reasonable pricing. Experience scores moderately, as positive reviewers describe skilled and knowledgeable work, but multiple negative reviewers explicitly question the company's technical competence.

• SUSPECTED FAKE OR INCENTIVIZED REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Great service from an honest guy,' 'I had the best experience with Big G') with no specific job details, names, or context. One 1-star reviewer explicitly states that 5-star reviews are likely from the owner himself.
• OWNER CONDUCT CONCERNS: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe the owner Greg as personally rude, retaliatory, and dismissive — this is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• STAFF CONDUCT PATTERN: At least 3 separate reviews name office staff (referred to as Felicia, Phylisha) as rude, dismissive, and unprofessional — suggesting an organizational culture issue beyond individual incidents.
• RECURRING COMPLETION FAILURES: At least 6 reviews describe the same issue — jobs not completed on first visit, excessive delays in returning, or repairs that failed shortly after completion. This is a strong systemic signal.
• PRICING CONCERN: One reviewer documented a 6x parts markup ($300 charged vs $50 retail), and another cited $2,600 for a 50-gallon water heater replacement as non-competitive. These are significant red flags for price transparency.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024, 2023) are predominantly negative, suggesting no improvement in service quality over time. Positive reviews are concentrated in 2017–2020 and may reflect an earlier period of better performance.
• REVIEW SPAN: Reviews span from 2016 to 2024. Given the weight given to recency, the 2024 and 2023 negative reviews were weighted more heavily in scoring.

This WW Score is based on 41 reviews with a high volume of dimension-specific mentions across all four categories, making it statistically reliable — the score of 42.1 should be treated as a genuine reflection of a contractor with serious, documented, and recurring service deficiencies.