Find Nearby Plumbers In Washington, District Of Columbia

This aggregated review set covers multiple distinct businesses operating under similar or shared names (Corados Services LLC, Cox Plumbing, and related entities), which significantly complicates scoring reliability. The majority of reviews praise responsiveness, emergency availability, and technical skill — with many technicians (Osaro, Samuel, Jeff, Rod, Braden) receiving specific commendations for professionalism and problem-solving. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — roughly 20 out of 163 — document serious failures including no-shows, abandoned jobs, hidden charges, dishonest billing, rude office staff, and incomplete work, which substantially drag down all four dimensions. Pricing is generally viewed as fair or competitive, but several reviews cite unexpected charges, overbilling, and lack of transparency. Project completion is the most polarizing dimension, with strong positives offset by multiple accounts of unfinished work, missed callbacks, and jobs requiring multiple return visits without resolution.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to cover at least two or three distinct businesses — Corados Services LLC (Samuel/Luz), Cox Plumbing (Osaro/Jeff/Rod/Braden/Dwayne), and possibly others. Aggregating these into a single score is inherently unreliable and may misrepresent any individual contractor's performance.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: A cluster of reviews dated 2022-06-09 and 2022-06-10 and 2023-06-09 and 2023-06-10 and 2024-06-09 and 2024-06-10 share identical dates with no review text (rating only), which is a common pattern associated with review padding. At least 18 reviews contain no text whatsoever and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews from 2022-06-10 and 2021-06-08 are near-identical lengthy complaints about Jeff and billing disputes — this appears to be the same reviewer posting twice, which inflates negative signal for that specific issue.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2010 to 2025. A significant portion of reviews are older than 3 years. Business quality and ownership may have changed substantially over this period. More recent reviews (2024-2025) show a mixed but generally positive trend for Corados Services specifically.
• NO-SHOW AND ABANDONMENT PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years report no-shows, missed appointments, and abandoned jobs — this is a recurring and credible pattern that meaningfully reduces the project completion score.
• BILLING TRANSPARENCY ISSUES: At least 3 separate reviews cite hidden charges, inconsistent pricing, or charges for work not performed — this is a credible recurring pattern that reduces the pricing score.
• BBB RATING CONCERN: One reviewer noted a BBB rating of F for one of the entities. This external signal was noted but not used to mechanically adjust scores.

This WW Score should be treated with significant caution due to the aggregation of reviews across multiple distinct business entities, a large volume of content-free ratings that inflate review counts without providing scorable data, credible recurring patterns of no-shows and billing disputes, and a review date range spanning 15 years during which business quality and ownership likely changed substantially.

Abbott's Plumbing scores reasonably well on professionalism and experience, with the large majority of reviewers praising courteous, knowledgeable technicians who communicate clearly and arrive on time — however, a meaningful minority of reviews describe punctuality failures, misdiagnoses, and unprofessional conduct by specific staff members, which prevents a higher score. Project completion is mixed: many jobs are finished thoroughly and callbacks are honored, but there are repeated complaints about poor trench restoration after sewer work, abandoned or incomplete fixes, and at least one case of a warranty dispute where the company refused to correct its own installation error. Pricing is the most consistently criticized dimension across the entire review history, with dozens of reviewers independently describing charges as excessive, opaque, or exploitative — including multiple accounts of charges for minimal or failed work, a $49 service fee used as a hook, and estimates dramatically higher than competitors. Experience scores moderately well given strong technical praise from many customers, but is tempered by documented misdiagnoses on tankless water heaters and other systems that resulted in unnecessary costs for customers.

• 15 reviews contain no text whatsoever (blank or single-character entries such as 'unknown', 'n/a', '.') and were excluded from dimension scoring — these blank 5-star entries inflate the raw star average and may represent low-effort or inauthentic submissions.
• Pricing complaints span the full date range from 2005 to 2025 and are highly consistent in describing the same patterns: high flat-rate charges for short jobs, a $49 service fee used as a commitment device, and estimates far above market rate — this consistency across many independent reviewers is credible and not a fake-review pattern, but it is a serious structural concern.
• At least three reviews describe what appear to be misdiagnosis events on water heaters (tankless and hybrid), where Abbott's recommended full replacement when a simpler fix was available — one customer resolved the issue themselves using manufacturer support after paying Abbott's over $700.
• One review (2024-09-12) alleges a foreman arrived smelling of alcohol and that the company's work on a neighbor's sewer line caused repeated basement flooding and a full basement remodel — this is a serious allegation that could not be independently verified but is detailed and specific.
• One review (2020-06-13) claims to be from a current or former employee alleging the company underpays staff and uses cheap materials while charging premium prices — this is unverifiable but noted as a potential internal quality concern.
• Several reviews from 2012–2015 describe yard and property damage following sewer line work that was not adequately remediated, and a 2024 review echoes the same complaint about trench settling — this is a recurring pattern across many years.
• Recency note: The majority of detailed, substantive reviews are from 2024–2025, which carry the most weight. Reviews from 2005–2013 are numerous but many are very brief or marked 'unknown' and carry reduced weight in scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews spanning nearly two decades and carries HIGH statistical confidence, but prospective customers should weight the pricing dimension heavily as it reflects a persistent, well-documented pattern of overcharging that appears consistently across independent reviewers from multiple time periods.

This contractor has a large and genuinely mixed review base spanning over a decade. The majority of recent reviews (2022–2025) are strongly positive, praising responsiveness, punctuality, friendly technicians, and solid workmanship across a wide range of plumbing and HVAC jobs. However, a significant minority of reviews — particularly from 2012–2021 — describe serious concerns including bait-and-switch pricing, abandoned or incomplete work, no-shows, unskilled technicians, and failure to honor callbacks, which meaningfully drag down all four dimension scores. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple credible complaints about overcharging, undisclosed fees, and quotes that escalated mid-job. Project completion scores moderately well in recent years but is undermined by historical patterns of repeat visits failing to resolve issues and work left unfinished. The overall picture is of a company that has improved over time but carries a legacy of serious service failures that cannot be ignored.

• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span 2012–2025. The most recent 24 months (2024–2025) are overwhelmingly positive (5-star), while reviews from 2012–2021 contain a disproportionate number of 1-star complaints about pricing fraud, no-shows, and poor workmanship. Scores were weighted toward recent reviews but older negatives were not discarded.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to reference at least two distinct business entities — 'Real Plumbers' (Los Angeles/Santa Monica area) and 'Warner Super Service / Warner Plumbing' (DC/Maryland area). These may be separate companies whose reviews have been aggregated. This significantly undermines the reliability of the composite score and all dimension scores.
• PRICING FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews across different years describe the same pattern — low initial quote, escalating charges mid-job, pressure to pay in full before work is verified complete, and charges for return visits caused by the company's own errors. This is a credible and recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• NO-SHOW / GHOSTING PATTERN: At least 5 reviews describe confirmed no-shows, missed appointment windows without contact, or being ghosted after initial service. One reviewer explicitly noted their edit that no one ever reached out after a public complaint.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A cluster of 5-star reviews from May 2025 and surrounding months are very brief, generic, and contain no specific details (e.g., 'Great Experience, Greatly satisfied.' and blank-text 5-star submissions). 24 reviews in the dataset contain no review text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring but inflate the perceived volume of positive sentiment.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES ON RECORD: Multiple reviews describe technically incorrect installations (improper venting, gas leaks post-installation, incorrect pipe materials, failed inspections by DCRA) that required repeated return visits or third-party correction. These are serious safety-relevant failures.
• CALLBACK / FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURES: Several reviews describe the company refusing to return for warranty or callback work without charging a new service fee, or simply not returning calls after a complaint. This is a recurring theme across multiple years and reviewers.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its reliability as a predictor of future service quality is MODERATE at best, primarily because the reviews likely span two different business entities operating in different geographic markets, and because the historical record contains credible, patterned complaints about pricing fraud and workmanship failures that prospective customers should weigh seriously alongside the more recent positive reviews.

Aqua Plus Plumbing has a deeply split record. The majority of positive reviews — many concentrated around 2018–2021 — consistently praise individual technicians (especially Jack and Burchell) for punctuality, friendliness, communication, and technical skill. However, a significant and recurring pattern of negative reviews documents serious failures in reliability: no-shows, last-minute cancellations via text, unresponsive office staff, and in multiple cases, jobs left incomplete or abandoned. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, dragged down by at least 8–10 reviews describing jobs that were never finished, rescheduled without notice, or marked complete when no work was done. Pricing received mostly positive mentions with one notable complaint about an inflated quote attempt, and experience scores are strong when technicians actually showed up. The overall WW Score reflects a company with genuine skilled workers but systemic operational and reliability failures.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: A large cluster of reviews dated exactly '2021-06-10' and '2020-06-10' with no specific timestamps are suspicious. Many of these are extremely brief ('Jack was a great. Thanks!', 'Jack did a great job repairing my toilet') or entirely blank (7 reviews with no text at all, only a 5-star rating). This pattern — identical dates, generic or empty content, all 5-star — strongly suggests review padding or bulk submission. Confidence in the positive review cluster from these dates has been reduced accordingly.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 7 reviews contained no text whatsoever (only a 5-star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent reviews (2024–2025) are predominantly negative, describing cancellations, no-shows, and non-responsiveness. This suggests a possible decline in service quality in recent years. The bulk of positive reviews are from 2017–2021.
• REPEATED FAILURE PATTERN — PROJECT COMPLETION: At least 8 distinct negative reviews describe the company cancelling appointments last-minute, failing to show up, abandoning jobs mid-way, or marking jobs 'complete' without performing any work. This is a systemic operational issue, not isolated incidents.
• TECHNICIAN NAME INCONSISTENCY: One review refers to the technician as both 'Jack/John', and another calls him 'John'. This minor inconsistency does not significantly affect scoring but is noted.
• ONE REVIEW (2020-01-17) describes a technician who dismissed a legitimate complaint and showed apathy — this was scored negatively against both professionalism and project completion dimensions.
• ONE REVIEW (2018-11-23) describes a technician who refused to complete a recall job and demanded an additional fee — scored negatively against project completion and professionalism.
• ONE REVIEW (2019-05-31) describes a pricing complaint — a quote of $750 just to pull a toilet, perceived as an attempted hustle — scored negatively against pricing.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence of fake or padded reviews in the 2020–2021 cluster, a clear recent decline in reliability, and recurring systemic failures in project completion and responsiveness that represent genuine risk to prospective customers.

CB Lucas has a strong base of loyal, long-term customers who consistently praise individual technicians — particularly Bill, Eric, Troy, and Dennis — for being knowledgeable, professional, courteous, and responsive. However, the review set contains a significant cluster of serious negative experiences that meaningfully drag down all four dimensions: these include a bait-and-switch pricing complaint, an unresolved faulty installation causing mold and structural damage over two years, a failure to follow through on a scheduled repair call, unauthorized credit card charges, and an 8-month parts delay with alleged dishonesty about warranty status. Project completion and professionalism scores are most impacted, as multiple negative reviews describe abandoned follow-through, poor communication from management, and rude supervisors. Pricing scores are mixed — many customers praise value and competitive quotes, but at least two reviews cite unexpected or excessive charges. The overall picture is a company with genuinely skilled field technicians but recurring systemic failures in management responsiveness, follow-through on complex jobs, and customer communication.

• 9 reviews in the dataset contain no review text — only a star rating (all 5-star). These blank reviews provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring. Their presence slightly inflates the apparent star rating and may reflect incomplete submissions or padding.
• Two reviews appear to be near-duplicate submissions from the same customer (1-star, dated 2025-05-10 and 2024-06-18) describing the same $8k heat pump replacement complaint about an unreplaced air cabinet and unanswered emails. This was counted as one unique complaint to avoid double-weighting.
• Several 5-star reviews from June 2023 reference the same technician 'Bill' in very similar phrasing across multiple reviews posted on the same date (2023-06-10). While the details vary enough to suggest real customers, the clustering of same-day, same-technician reviews warrants mild caution about potential solicited review batching.
• A meaningful number of reviews predate 2020 (approximately 12 reviews from 2012–2016). Per recency rules, these were given reduced weight. The older reviews are predominantly positive, which means the true current performance picture — informed more by 2019–2025 reviews — is somewhat lower than the historical average suggests.
• The most severe negative reviews (mold/structural damage, unauthorized charges, bait-and-switch pricing, 8-month parts delay with alleged warranty fraud) involve management-level failures attributed specifically to Michael Lucas and other supervisors, suggesting a pattern of poor escalation handling rather than isolated technician errors.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over a decade, with sufficient mentions across all four dimensions to carry HIGH confidence; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given the presence of several serious, detailed negative reviews describing systemic management failures, incomplete work, and billing disputes that represent material risk to prospective customers.

G&J Contractor demonstrates solid performance across all measured dimensions, with particular strength in technical expertise and project completion. Professionalism scores are strong but tempered by one significant appointment-handling failure and a minor complaint about shoe removal protocol. Pricing feedback is consistently positive where mentioned, though limited in volume. The contractor shows responsiveness, punctuality, and quality workmanship in completed projects. However, the small sample size and concentration of 5-star reviews warrant moderate confidence in the overall score.

• Only 5 reviews analyzed — sample size is small and limits statistical reliability
• Three of five reviews are 5-star ratings with enthusiastic language; while specific details are provided, the concentration of perfect scores warrants caution
• One critical failure in professionalism (Review 2024-10-22): contractor refused to honor appointment due to communication protocol dispute — this is a serious red flag for reliability
• Recency is good: all reviews from past 4 months (July-October 2024)
• Pricing dimension based on only 2 mentions; confidence in pricing score is limited

This WW Score of 84.3 should be treated with moderate caution due to the small sample size (5 reviews) and the presence of one serious professionalism failure that contradicts otherwise positive feedback; the score reflects current performance but additional reviews would significantly strengthen confidence in this assessment.