Find Nearby Plumbers In Tempe, Arizona

DC Family Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews. While positive reviews praise Devon's knowledge, efficiency, and fair pricing, two detailed negative reviews reveal critical failures in project completion and professionalism. The 2021 review documents multiple instances of wrong parts being installed, poor problem-solving, and dismissive customer service. The 2020 review highlights severe punctuality issues (5.5 hours late) and incomplete work with unjustified billing. These failures substantially outweigh the positive feedback, particularly given the explicit nature of the complaints. The company demonstrates technical capability but struggles with operational execution and accountability.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2020 (3 years old); most recent review (2021) is highly negative, suggesting potential service quality decline
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews (generic praise, minimal detail) and detailed 1-star reviews (specific failures, timestamps, names). Positive reviews lack specificity typical of authentic detailed feedback
• CRITICAL FAILURES: Two separate reviews document incomplete work, wrong parts installed, and poor follow-through—core project completion failures
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAGS: No-show after claiming 'on the way' (5.5 hour delay), dismissive dispatch response ('it happens'), rescheduling without notice
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Three 5-star reviews from July 2020 with similar generic phrasing ('highly recommend', 'very professional', 'will use again') lack specific technical details

This score should be treated with caution. While based on 6 reviews, the stark polarity between positive and negative feedback, combined with recency concerns (positive reviews are 3+ years old) and potential fake review patterns, suggests the current service quality may be lower than the overall score indicates. The detailed negative reviews from 2020-2021 are more credible than generic praise and warrant serious consideration.

Courtesy Plumbing has a mixed but analyzable record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most contested dimension: multiple reviews praise punctuality, responsiveness, and a courteous attitude, but serious negative reviews describe rudeness, failure to return calls, and hostile interactions with a customer's realtor — dragging the score down significantly. Pricing is a relative bright spot, with several reviewers explicitly noting competitive bids, estimates honored or beaten, and affordability; however, one review alleges being charged for work not performed, which tempers the score. Project completion is similarly split — most jobs appear to have been finished, but one notable review documents physical damage caused during a repipe job and a refusal to provide basic post-job documentation, indicating a pattern of incomplete follow-through in at least some cases. Experience scores moderately: positive reviews cite thorough inspections and quality workmanship, while the damage caused by drilling through a floor beam in the repipe job raises legitimate concerns about technical care.

• RECENCY WARNING: Only 2 of 10 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024 and 2022). The majority of reviews are from 2016–2019, meaning current service quality is largely unknown and the score may not reflect present-day performance.
• NEGATIVE TREND DETECTED: The 2018 review explicitly states the contractor's quality declined over time ('not the same as he was years ago'), and the 2022 negative review reinforces this. Positive reviews are disproportionately older, suggesting possible service degradation.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAG: One review (2022) alleges physical property damage during a repipe job and a refusal to provide post-job documentation without charging a fee, followed by rude treatment of the customer's realtor. This is a significant red flag for project completion and professionalism.
• BILLING INTEGRITY FLAG: One review (2018) explicitly claims the contractor charged for services not rendered. This directly impacts pricing and professionalism scores.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in tone, detail, rating, and date. Language is not repetitive or suspiciously generic. The mix of positive and negative reviews with specific details suggests authentic feedback.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — while all four dimensions have sufficient mentions to score, the heavy skew toward older reviews (most from 2016–2019), a documented negative quality trend over time, and serious allegations of property damage and billing fraud introduce meaningful uncertainty about current contractor performance.

This contractor's review corpus is deeply polarized: a substantial bloc of positive reviews praises individual technicians by name for punctuality, friendliness, and technical competence, while an equally substantial and highly detailed bloc of negative reviews documents systemic pricing deception, abandoned or botched work, hostile customer service, and outright fraud. Pricing is the single most-damaged dimension, with dozens of reviewers citing undisclosed double-charging, inflated parts markups, unauthorized work, and predatory upselling — particularly targeting elderly or uninformed customers. Project completion is severely undermined by multiple credible accounts of work left incomplete, failed callbacks, warranty non-fulfillment, and property damage left unaddressed. Professionalism scores slightly higher due to genuine praise for specific named technicians, but is dragged down by documented cases of no-shows, rude management, technicians vaping in homes, and owners arguing on-site. Experience is the strongest dimension but still compromised by accounts of improper installations, misdiagnoses, and technicians requiring customer assistance to complete basic tasks.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW CLUSTER: A large group of reviews dated 2023-06-10 00:00:00 share identical timestamps with no specific time component, many contain only one or two generic sentences ('Great service!', 'Excellence', 'Very helpful'), several are completely blank (rating only), and the volume and uniformity are inconsistent with organic review patterns. These reviews inflate the positive signal and have been discounted in scoring.
• SELF-PROMOTIONAL REVIEW DETECTED: One review dated 2023-06-10 reads 'We are proud professionals doing professional well service and pump repairs. We are all about restoring your water.' — this appears to be a business self-post and was excluded from scoring.
• EMPLOYEE REVIEW DETECTED: One review dated 2024-09-12 reads 'Great company to work for!' — this is an internal employee perspective, not a customer experience, and was excluded from scoring.
• MULTIPLE BUSINESS IDENTITIES: Reviews reference this entity under at least four names — All About Water, All About Water LLC, EcoWater Systems (EWS), and Collins Comfort Masters — suggesting mergers or rebranding that may affect service consistency across time periods.
• DECEPTIVE MARKETING PATTERN: Numerous reviewers across multiple years (2016–2018) independently report receiving misleading postcards claiming an undelivered 'parcel' to solicit calls. This is a documented deceptive sales tactic flagged by multiple consumers and at least one FTC complaint mention.
• PREDATORY TARGETING CONCERN: Multiple reviews allege that the company specifically targeted new homeowners via public purchase records and at least one review documents exploitation of an 81-year-old widow with unauthorized charges exceeding $1,300.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024–2025) continue to document the same systemic pricing and service issues seen in reviews dating back to 2012, suggesting these are entrenched operational problems rather than isolated incidents.
• LEGAL ACTION MENTIONS: Multiple reviewers mention filing or threatening complaints with the Attorney General, the FTC, and the Registrar of Contractors, and at least two mention pursuing legal action for breach of contract or fraud.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (155 reviews) with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically robust; however, confidence in the positive signals is materially reduced by a suspected cluster of fake or incentivized 5-star reviews with identical timestamps and generic content, meaning the true score for this contractor is likely at or below the calculated 42.1.

This contractor's review profile is deeply divided, with a cluster of strongly negative reviews describing serious unprofessionalism, harassment, rudeness, and incomplete or negligent work, offset by a smaller group of positive reviews praising courteous service and reasonable pricing. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is dragged down significantly by multiple explicit accounts of rude staff, dismissive attitudes, a plumber who barely spoke, and an owner who behaved confrontationally and failed to honor appointments. Project completion is similarly damaged by accounts of a first plumber worsening a problem, a toilet improperly installed causing structural damage, and an owner refusing to follow through on remediation. Pricing and experience receive modestly positive signals from a handful of reviews but are insufficient to offset the serious concerns raised elsewhere. The overall picture is of a business with inconsistent quality and significant professionalism and reliability risks.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: One negative reviewer (Sub-Par Plumbing, 2012) explicitly calls out three 5-star reviews as suspicious, noting each reviewer had only ever reviewed this one business. This pattern is consistent with fake or solicited reviews and has been factored into reduced confidence on positive signals.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of reviews are older than 5 years, with most dating from 2012–2021. Only one review is from 2021, one from 2020, and one from 2019. No reviews exist from the past 12 months. Scores should be treated with caution as they may not reflect current business practices.
• SEVERE NEGATIVE OUTLIER: The 2021 review describes predatory behavior targeting a vulnerable customer (veteran, single parent), including alleged exploitation of private information shared by a realtor. This is a serious character and ethics flag beyond typical service complaints.
• PATTERN OF STAFF RUDENESS: Multiple independent reviews across different years (2014, 2016) describe office staff and technicians as rude or dismissive, suggesting a systemic rather than isolated issue.
• NEGLIGENCE ALLEGATION: The 2012 review describes a toilet improperly installed by an associated contractor that nearly caused structural ceiling collapse, with the owner subsequently refusing to take responsibility and abandoning the follow-up job.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a meaningful number of reviews across multiple years, but confidence is reduced by suspected fake positive reviews, the age of most reviews, and the presence of serious unresolved allegations that suggest the positive reviews may not represent typical customer outcomes.

A+ Services carries a deeply polarized review history spanning over a decade, with a clear and persistent pattern of serious complaints that substantially outweigh the positive feedback. The pricing dimension is the most damaging, with dozens of reviewers independently describing extreme overcharging, hidden fees, bait-and-switch estimates, and predatory upselling tactics — including fabricated diagnoses of cracked septic tanks, unnecessary repairs, and charges far exceeding competitor quotes. Professionalism is similarly compromised by recurring reports of no-shows, missed appointment windows without communication, rude office staff, and technicians who were late or distracted. Project completion suffers from multiple accounts of incomplete work, unresolved callbacks, and jobs that required follow-up visits due to poor initial workmanship. The experience dimension shows the widest split: a subset of reviewers — particularly for septic pumping and emergency plumbing — describe knowledgeable, skilled technicians, while a larger group describes misdiagnoses, unnecessary work recommendations, and technically substandard outcomes.

• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Across multiple independent reviews spanning 2012–2025, reviewers consistently describe being quoted prices 3x–10x higher than competitors for identical work. This is not isolated — it appears systemic.
• FAKE DIAGNOSIS PATTERN: At least 8 reviews independently describe being told their septic tank was cracked and requiring expensive repair, only for a second opinion to confirm no crack existed. This is a recurring and specific fraudulent tactic.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: Several 5-star reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Great team!', 'Very professional.', 'Above and beyond great job', 'Amazing professional services. Would definitely recommend') with no specifics, names, or details. These may be inflated reviews. Confidence in positive scores is reduced accordingly.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews are present across the full date range from 2011 through 2025, indicating the problematic patterns have not been resolved over time. Positive reviews are more concentrated in 2023–2025 but remain outnumbered by negatives in substantive detail.
• ELDERLY TARGETING: Multiple reviews explicitly describe elderly or vulnerable customers being subjected to high-pressure sales tactics and overcharging, which constitutes predatory business conduct.
• MILITARY TARGETING: At least one review describes a military member being significantly overcharged and subjected to late service and possible forged signature waivers.
• UNRESOLVED COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviewers report filing complaints with the BBB and Washington State Attorney General, and receiving no response from the company.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Three reviews contained no text (only a star rating of 1 or 5). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• COMMISSION-BASED INCENTIVES: At least one reviewer explicitly states that technicians work on commission and receive bonuses for upselling, which directly explains the systemic overcharging and unnecessary repair recommendations documented across reviews.

This WW Score of 38.2 is based on a large volume of reviews (110) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, and should be considered a reliable and conservative reflection of this contractor's overall service quality — the low score is well-supported by consistent, specific, and independently corroborated negative experiences reported over more than a decade.

Scottsdale HVAC & Plumbing demonstrates severe and consistent professionalism failures across multiple dimensions. Seven reviews explicitly document unprofessional conduct including callous attitudes, poor communication, discriminatory scheduling practices against warranty customers, and lack of follow-up. Project completion is critically compromised, with documented cases of abandoned work, incomplete repairs, and failure to resolve damage caused during installation. While three positive reviews praise responsiveness and quick service, they are substantially outweighed by five detailed negative reviews describing serious operational failures. The company's treatment of warranty-covered customers appears systematically problematic, with evidence of deliberate deprioritization and service cancellations.

• CRITICAL: Systematic discrimination against warranty customers documented in multiple reviews (2023-08-15, 2023-08-08). Company appears to deliberately delay or cancel warranty work in favor of cash-paying customers.
• CRITICAL: Documented project abandonment (2023-03-20) — customer left without water for 6 days after initial work began, with no follow-up from company.
• CRITICAL: Quality control failure (2022-11-08) — technician sent with wrong materials, resulting in damaged equipment (denting, burning), non-level installation, and leaks. Owner refused accountability.
• CRITICAL: Service cancellation dispute (2023-08-15) — company cancelled appointment hours before scheduled time due to internal warranty payment dispute, leaving customer without A/C in triple-digit heat after week-long wait.
• Potential fake review pattern: Three 5-star reviews (2022-11-08, 2022-08-31, 2022-08-11) use generic praise language ('saved the day,' 'definitely gonna save their number') with minimal specifics, contrasting sharply with detailed negative reviews. However, confidence in this assessment is limited.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2023 or earlier. Only one positive review from 2022-11-08 is recent, but it is contradicted by a detailed negative review from the same date describing serious installation failures.

This score should be trusted with moderate-to-high confidence. The WW Score of 38.2 is driven by consistent, detailed, and specific negative evidence across professionalism and project completion dimensions. The five negative reviews document concrete failures (abandonment, discrimination, damage, cancellations) with dates and circumstances. The three positive reviews lack specificity and appear generic by comparison. However, the small sample size (8 reviews) and potential presence of one suspicious positive review on the same date as a detailed negative review introduce some uncertainty. This company presents significant operational and customer service risks.