Find Nearby Plumbers In Washington, District Of Columbia

Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension across all five reviews and presents a mixed picture: four reviews describe courteous, punctual, and communicative technicians, while one 1-star review from November 2024 describes a technician who was rude and condescending to a female customer and tracked dirty boots into the home — a serious concern that meaningfully pulls the professionalism score down. Pricing is mentioned in only two reviews, both positively noting fair quotes and no upselling, but the limited sample warrants caution. Project completion scores well, with multiple reviewers confirming same-day resolution and thorough follow-through, though the 1-star reviewer's underlying issue was not clearly resolved. Experience is rated positively across the reviews that mention it, with technicians praised for quick diagnosis, clear explanations, and skilled workmanship.

• The November 2024 1-star review describes gender-based condescension by a technician — the reviewer explicitly notes the technician's attitude changed when the male homeowner was present. This is a serious professionalism and conduct concern and is weighted heavily.
• One review (George, December 2022) is over 1 year old and is given reduced weight per recency rules.
• The sample size of 5 reviews is very small. Scores and the WW Score should be treated as preliminary and may shift significantly with additional reviews.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in detail, tone, rating, and specificity, and name different technicians (Michael Smith, Jorge, George).

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews, which is too small a sample for high confidence; the score should be treated as a directional indicator only, and the serious conduct complaint in the most recent review is a meaningful red flag that prospective customers should weigh carefully.

Myers & Myers Plumbing receives strong praise across most reviews for responsiveness, quality workmanship, and the owner's hands-on involvement, with multiple reviewers highlighting successful repairs and installations completed efficiently. However, a detailed 1-star review from June 2024 significantly tempers the scores, documenting a late arrival, failure to bring required parts, poor communication, and a $125 charge for zero work performed — a serious professionalism and project completion failure. Pricing is generally described as reasonable and fair, but the disputed invoice in the negative review introduces meaningful concern about billing transparency. Experience scores are supported by multiple reviewers noting successful resolution of problems others could not fix, keeping that dimension relatively strong. Overall, the contractor shows genuine capability but has at least one documented instance of poor follow-through and questionable billing practices that cannot be ignored.

• One review (June 2024, 1-star) documents a late arrival of 1.5 hours, failure to bring required parts, and charging $125 for no work performed — this is a significant red flag for both professionalism and project completion.
• The negative reviewer provided screenshots of communications to support their claims, lending credibility to the complaint and reducing the reliability of the otherwise uniformly positive reviews.
• Five of the seven reviews are 5-star with broadly positive language and limited granular detail, which warrants mild caution, though most do reference specific jobs or interactions, reducing the likelihood of fabrication.
• Review volume is low (7 total), which limits statistical reliability. Scores should be interpreted with caution until more reviews are available.
• All reviews fall within the past 12 months (March 2024 – September 2024), which is a positive indicator for recency relevance.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a small but recent review set (7 reviews, all within 12 months) that includes one well-documented negative experience which meaningfully offsets the otherwise positive pattern; additional reviews would substantially improve confidence.

Junior's Plumbing (now Precision Plumbing) demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with most technicians receiving praise for politeness, punctuality, and skill. However, the company is significantly hampered by inconsistent project completion and follow-through, with multiple reports of no-shows, incomplete diagnoses, unresponsive callbacks, and unresolved issues. Pricing feedback is mixed—some customers report fair value and competitive rates, while others cite inflated or opaque quotes. A serious allegation of theft during a service call in December 2023, combined with poor handling of customer complaints, raises significant trust concerns. The company's responsiveness varies dramatically across reviews.

• CRITICAL: Theft allegation (2023-12-17) — customer reported missing items from basement storage during service; company initially denied second van's presence but GPS later confirmed it; customer filed sheriff's report. This is a serious integrity issue.
• Multiple no-show/no-call incidents (2017-07-28, 2017-05-16) — scheduled appointments missed with poor communication and confusion about appointment times.
• Incomplete work and poor diagnosis (2015-09-08) — technician failed to properly diagnose backed-up drain, left job incomplete, and receptionist was reportedly rude and hung up on customer.
• Inconsistent follow-through on callbacks and promised work (2017-05-16, 2015-09-08) — customers report never hearing back after initial service.
• One review (2013-06-07) describes abandoned installation and employee termination; owner eventually made full refund after BBB complaint.
• Receptionist/office staff conduct issues noted in multiple reviews (2015-09-08, 2019-03-05) — described as rude and dismissive.
• Recency concern: Most positive reviews are from 2015–2020; recent reviews (2023, 2021) include serious complaints and lower ratings.
• No pattern of fake reviews detected; reviews show genuine variation in experience and specific details.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the company demonstrates technical competence and professionalism in many interactions, serious red flags including a theft allegation, multiple no-shows, incomplete work, and poor complaint handling significantly undermine trustworthiness. The recent negative reviews (2023, 2021) suggest deterioration in service quality. Customers should exercise heightened vigilance and verify references before engaging this company.

Steve Miller Plumbing shows strong technical expertise and problem-solving ability, with multiple reviews praising his skill and knowledge. However, the score is significantly dragged down by serious pricing concerns (one review cited nearly $1,000 for 2.5 hours of work) and critical failures in project completion and professionalism, including no-shows on two separate occasions and poor customer interaction. Long-term customers report reliability and honesty, but recent reviews reveal inconsistent service quality and potential attitude issues. The business appears to have experienced a decline in service standards over time.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2012–2019 (6–11 years old). The two most recent reviews (2023 and 2011) are both highly negative, suggesting possible service degradation or inconsistency over time.
• CONFLICTING PATTERNS: Stark contrast between glowing long-term customer testimonials and severe complaints about no-shows, overpricing, and unprofessional behavior. This suggests either highly variable service quality or different experiences across different customer segments.
• NO-SHOW INCIDENTS: Two separate instances of failure to honor appointments (2011 reviews) represent critical project completion failures.
• PRICING RED FLAG: 2023 review explicitly warns about 2–3x markup on going rates; 2012 review praises cost-consciousness. This inconsistency warrants caution.
• ATTITUDE CONCERNS: Multiple mentions of blunt/no-nonsense demeanor; one review reports cursing at customer. Professionalism score reflects mixed signals.

This score should be treated with caution due to significant recency bias (most positive reviews are 6+ years old), conflicting service quality patterns, and a concerning trend toward negative recent experiences. The WW Score reflects historical reputation but may not accurately predict current service quality.

Odemz Plumbing shows a strong pattern of positive customer experiences across professionalism, responsiveness, and technical knowledge, with many reviewers praising punctuality, clear communication, and same-day or rapid response times. However, three serious negative reviews significantly weigh down the scores, particularly for project completion and experience — one describing improperly sloped drain pipes that violated code and a refusal to fix them, one describing a water heater installation left incomplete with no follow-up after full payment, and one describing a reverse osmosis installation that caused basement flooding and required thousands of dollars in repairs by another company. These are not minor complaints; they describe fundamental workmanship failures and unresponsiveness after payment. Pricing feedback is generally positive among those who mentioned it, though one reviewer chose a competitor for a lower price. The majority of reviews are from 2020, with only a handful from 2021–2024, meaning the most recent data is limited and the bulk of positive reviews are over three years old.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: A cluster of 10 reviews posted between November 3–9, 2020 all carry 5-star ratings with generic praise ('professional,' 'knowledgeable,' 'prompt') and very little specific detail. Several use nearly identical language patterns. This raises suspicion of review padding or solicited reviews and reduces confidence in the positive score base.
• SERIOUS WORKMANSHIP FAILURES: Three independent negative reviews (2021, 2022, 2023) describe distinct, serious failures — substandard pipe installation not meeting code, incomplete gas line work with no follow-through after full payment, and a water leak caused during installation. These are credible, detailed, and specific.
• ABANDONMENT / NON-RESPONSIVENESS: One reviewer explicitly states Raymond stopped returning calls after being paid in full, leaving the job incomplete. A second negative reviewer (Odemz as subcontractor) describes the plumber refusing to fix code-violating work and filing a mechanics lien. These are significant red flags for project completion reliability.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of reviews (approximately 14 of 24) are from November–December 2020, making them over 3 years old. Only 4 reviews are from 2023–2024. The most recent reviews include both a positive and a negative experience, providing insufficient data to confirm current performance trends.
• SCORE CONSERVATISM APPLIED: Due to the fake review cluster concern and the severity of the three negative reviews, scores have been held conservative rather than inflated by the volume of generic 5-star reviews.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the high volume of mentions provides statistical coverage, but the credibility of a significant portion of positive reviews is questionable due to suspected review padding, and three detailed negative reviews describing serious workmanship and follow-through failures meaningfully offset the otherwise positive picture.

Mike Jones receives strong praise across most reviews for punctuality, responsiveness, and willingness to go the extra mile — including late-evening calls and same-day service — which drives a solid professionalism score. However, one detailed 1-star review from 2022 significantly tempers the scores across all dimensions, describing persistent leaks after multiple visits, poor workmanship, a dirty job site, unsecured piping, and unfinished requested work. Project completion is the most impacted dimension, as the negative review directly contradicts the otherwise positive pattern of job follow-through. Experience scores are similarly moderated because the 1-star review explicitly criticizes the quality of workmanship, even though the majority of other reviewers describe Mike as knowledgeable and skilled. Pricing data is sparse, with only two reviews mentioning it, so that dimension carries limited confidence.

• One highly detailed 1-star review (2022-10-25) describes multiple unresolved leaks, poor workmanship, unsecured pipe, dirty job site, and incomplete scope — this is a significant quality signal and was weighted heavily against the otherwise positive reviews.
• Several positive reviews are brief and lack specific detail (e.g., 'great guy and great crew,' 'very knowledgeable and reliable'), which limits their evidentiary value and slightly reduces confidence in the high scores.
• The most recent reviews are from 2022; no reviews from 2023 or 2024 are present, meaning the score may not reflect current performance. Recency is a concern.
• The review set is small (9 reviews), which limits statistical reliability. The WW Score should be interpreted with caution given the low volume.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability overall — the review volume is low, the most recent data is from 2022, and one detailed negative review introduces meaningful uncertainty that prevents a high-confidence positive assessment.