Find Nearby Plumbers In Tempe, Arizona

The overwhelming majority of reviews across all four dimensions are deeply negative, with recurring and serious complaints about predatory pricing, upselling unnecessary services, and incomplete or incorrect work. Pricing is the most damaged dimension, with multiple reviewers documenting quotes that were 3–10x higher than competitors for identical jobs, including a $4,200 water softener quote versus a $1,600–$2,100 market range, $900 for a small pipe, and $1,287 in labor alone for a capacitor. Project completion is severely undermined by accounts of paid work left unfinished, a drain left clogged after payment, a wrongly sized AC unit installed in a mobile home that never worked correctly, and a technician leaving after only two successful toilet flushes. Professionalism scores are dragged down by reports of a technician smelling of marijuana and shushing a customer, chronic lateness, a rude cancellation operator, and a representative with no product knowledge. The few positive reviews (roughly 7 out of 25) describe responsive technicians and quality workmanship, but these are outnumbered more than 2-to-1 by detailed negative accounts and do not offset the pattern of systemic issues.

• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2021–2024) document quotes dramatically higher than market rate for identical services. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• UPSELLING / UNNECESSARY WORK FLAG: At least 5 reviews explicitly describe technicians recommending expensive replacements (new AC unit, new toilet, new pipe) that second-opinion providers confirmed were unnecessary or grossly overpriced.
• INCOMPLETE WORK / FRAUD CONCERN: One reviewer paid $77 upfront for a drain clearing with camera inspection, received neither service, and was then accused of not paying. Another reviewer's AC issue recurred within minutes of the technician leaving.
• WRONG EQUIPMENT INSTALLED: One detailed review describes an oversized AC/heating unit installed in a mobile home that never cooled properly, was too loud to sleep near, and whose heater failed shortly after installation — with no corrective action taken by the company.
• UNAUTHORIZED CONTRACT ENROLLMENT: At least two reviewers describe being signed up for service contracts without consent, with punitive back-charges threatened upon cancellation.
• TECHNICIAN CONDUCT CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly states the technician 'wreaked of weed' and shushed the customer — a serious professionalism and safety concern.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024) continue the same negative patterns seen in 2021–2022, indicating no meaningful improvement over time. Positive reviews are concentrated in 2020–2022 and are significantly outnumbered.
• POSITIVE REVIEW AUTHENTICITY: The 7 positive reviews are generally brief and lack the specific detail present in negative reviews. While not conclusively fake, they are thin on verifiable specifics and should be weighted with caution relative to the detailed negative accounts.
• REVIEW VOLUME WARNING: 25 total reviews is a moderate sample. Confidence is HIGH due to strong consistency of negative themes across independent reviewers spanning multiple years.

This WW Score is based on 25 reviews with strong thematic consistency across all four dimensions and spanning multiple years, making it a reliable indicator of systemic performance issues at this company — the score of 34.2 should be taken seriously as a warning signal.

This contractor's reviews are overwhelmingly negative across all four scored dimensions, with 10 out of 12 reviews being 1-star ratings. Professionalism is severely damaged by repeated accounts of rude staff, a supervisor harassing a customer for already-paid invoices, a technician refusing to wear a mask, a driver behaving aggressively on the road, and a customer service representative hanging up on a client. Pricing is a dominant complaint, with multiple reviewers describing charges they considered grossly inflated, hidden fees, refusal to provide itemized receipts, and estimates that were multiples above what competitors charged. Project completion is critically undermined by accounts of abandoned warranty work, failure to return for callbacks, shortcuts left unaddressed years after installation, and a misdiagnosis that left a customer without air conditioning for six days. Experience scores marginally higher only because two reviews noted a competent individual technician, but these are heavily outweighed by multiple accounts of misdiagnosis, failure to check manufacturer warranties, and work that created new problems.

• 10 of 12 reviews are 1-star ratings, indicating a strong and consistent pattern of customer dissatisfaction across multiple service types (HVAC, plumbing, electrical).
• The two positive reviews (4-star and 5-star) are notably sparse in detail compared to the highly specific negative reviews, and both are from 2018-2019, making them the oldest reviews in the dataset.
• Most reviews are from 2019-2021; no reviews from the past 12 months relative to a 2024/2025 analysis date are present, meaning the dataset may not reflect current performance.
• Multiple reviews independently describe a pattern of inflated estimates, misdiagnosis, and pressure tactics, which suggests systemic business practices rather than isolated incidents.
• One review explicitly uses the word 'scam' and another calls the company 'scam artists,' with detailed accounts supporting those characterizations.
• A technician allegedly told a customer 'You can afford it, look at the car you drive,' suggesting predatory pricing behavior targeting perceived wealth.
• Failure to honor manufacturer warranty on a 3-year-old unit and failure to check parts availability before charging for labor suggests either incompetence or deliberate upselling.

This WW Score of 18.7 is based on 12 reviews with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions and should be considered a reliable and conservative reflection of this contractor's performance, strongly indicating a pattern of poor service, predatory pricing, and unprofessional conduct.

This contractor's reviews paint a consistently negative picture across nearly all dimensions. Professionalism is severely undermined by repeated no-shows, missed appointments, rude office staff, and poor communication — with only one review offering any positive note about a technician's demeanor. Project completion is a critical failure point, with multiple reviews describing incomplete work, incorrect installations, abandoned jobs mid-repair, and a company apparently operating with only one plumber on staff. Workmanship quality is repeatedly cited as substandard, including wrong parts installed, leaking fixtures, incorrect pipe sizing, and charged-for work that was never performed. Pricing drew explicit complaints of gross overcharging, with one reviewer independently verifying a markup of over 1000% on parts alone.

• The vast majority of reviews are from 2016–2018, with the most recent being November 2018. All reviews are over 5 years old. This score may not reflect current business performance.
• Only one review (5-star, 2017) is positive. It is notably generic in praise and lacks specific detail compared to the highly detailed negative reviews. Its authenticity cannot be confirmed but it stands in stark contrast to all other accounts.
• Two reviews dated 2016-01-31 appear to describe the same job and same customer, with nearly identical complaints. These have been treated as a single incident to avoid double-counting, though both were read for context.
• A pattern of systemic operational failure is evident: staffing shortages, no-shows, unreturned manager calls, and office staff instructing customers 'buyer beware' — suggesting organizational-level issues beyond individual technician performance.
• No reviews mention pricing positively. The single pricing-related positive data point is absent; all pricing mentions are complaints of overcharging or lack of transparency.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a meaningful review count of 8, strong consistency in negative feedback across multiple dimensions, and HIGH confidence on three of four dimensions — however, all reviews are more than 5 years old, which limits applicability to the contractor's current state of operations.

This contractor has severe and consistent quality issues across all dimensions. Three of four reviews are overwhelmingly negative, citing incomplete work, unresponsiveness, excessive pricing, and damage caused during service. The single positive review (2020) is contradicted by three recent negative reviews (2022-2024) describing scam-like practices, failed repairs requiring re-work, and property damage. The pattern of non-responsiveness to customer complaints and inflated charges is particularly damaging. The positive review appears isolated and may not reflect current service quality.

• CRITICAL: Three of four reviews are 1-star with detailed, specific complaints about the same company (Ferrin Ryco). This is NOT a fake review pattern but rather a genuine pattern of poor service.
• The single 5-star review (2020) is significantly older (4 years) and discusses HVAC service, not plumbing, which may indicate service inconsistency or scope creep.
• Two reviews (2022) describe a pattern of charging for incomplete work and then charging again for the same repair—suggests potential fraudulent billing practices.
• One review (2022) documents property damage (clogged fixtures, debris, broken valves) caused directly by the contractor's work.
• Most recent review (2024-02-29) shows no improvement in responsiveness or accountability—customer unable to reach company after service.
• Recency concern: Three of four reviews are from 2022 or later, indicating ongoing problems, not isolated incidents.

This score should be treated with extreme caution due to insufficient review volume (only 4 reviews), but the consistency and specificity of negative feedback across three independent reviews from 2022-2024 strongly suggests genuine service quality problems rather than random complaints. The company should not be hired based on available evidence.

With only two reviews, the data is insufficient for a reliable WW Score, but the content of those reviews paints a deeply concerning picture. The 2023 review is mildly positive, noting responsiveness, same-day service, and reasonable material costs, though labor pricing was unexpectedly high. The 2019 review, however, describes an extremely serious incident involving alleged drug impairment, lack of basic tools, unauthorized access to the customer's garage and shed, theft of personal property (beers), destruction of property (broken lightbulbs), and behavior that left the customer fearing for her and her children's safety. Professionalism and project completion scores are dragged sharply downward by the severity of the 2019 account. The gap between the two reviews is nearly four years, so it is unclear whether the 2023 reviewer encountered the same individual or conditions.

• CRITICAL SAFETY CONCERN: The 2019 review alleges the contractor arrived visibly impaired (suspected methamphetamine use), lacked basic tools, entered the customer's garage and shed without permission, consumed the customer's alcohol without consent, broke property, and created a situation serious enough that a neighbor who is a law enforcement officer intervened. The reviewer states this was captured on video.
• SEVERE PROFESSIONALISM VIOLATION: Alleged unauthorized access to private areas of the property (garage, shed, backyard) constitutes a potential criminal trespass and theft issue, not merely a service quality complaint.
• RECENCY NOTE: The alarming review is from 2019 (over 5 years old at time of analysis) and the positive review is from 2023. It is unknown whether the 2019 incident involved the same technician still employed by the company. However, the severity of the allegation cannot be discounted on the basis of age alone.
• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW VOLUME: Only 2 reviews are available. No statistically reliable WW Score can be produced. All dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence and should be treated as directional only.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: The two reviews are stylistically distinct, specific in detail, and represent opposite ends of the rating spectrum. No artificial inflation is suspected.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews spanning 4 years and cannot be considered statistically reliable; however, the 2019 review contains allegations of serious misconduct that prospective customers should independently investigate before hiring this contractor.

Only a single review is available, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer describes the contractor as prompt, efficient, and knowledgeable, which touches on professionalism, project completion, and experience respectively. Scores have been kept conservative given the extremely limited data. Pricing was not mentioned at all and cannot be scored. The review is also over five years old, further reducing its reliability as a current indicator of performance.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is dated January 2019, making it over 5 years old. It may not reflect current service quality.
• With only one review, fake review detection is not meaningful, but the review is notably brief and generic with no specific details about the job performed.
• All dimension scores are LIMITED confidence and should be treated as indicative only.

This score is not reliable and should not be used for decision-making; it is based on a single, brief, and outdated review with no pricing data and insufficient detail across all dimensions.