Find Nearby Plumbers In Washington, District Of Columbia

This contractor's review set is sharply divided. Four of six reviews are positive and describe same-day responsiveness, knowledgeable technicians, fair pricing, and completed work across a range of plumbing tasks. However, one highly detailed 1-star review alleges serious misconduct — including threats, obscene language, refusal to complete the job, and a disputed $2,600 charge — which directly and severely impacts scores across all four dimensions. Because this negative review is specific, credible, and recent (September 2024), it cannot be dismissed and carries significant weight. The positive reviews, while genuine in tone, are mostly brief and lack deep specifics, limiting confidence in the higher-end scores they might otherwise support. The result is a below-average WW Score that reflects real risk to prospective customers.

• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: One reviewer (1-star, Sept 2, 2024) explicitly alleges life threats, verbal abuse, refusal to complete work, and a disputed $2,600 charge. This is the most recent negative review and is highly specific — it is treated as credible and weighted heavily.
• INCOMPLETE JOB FLAG: The 1-star review explicitly states the contractor refused to complete the job, which directly penalizes the Project Completion dimension.
• PRICING CONCERN: The same 1-star review alleges $2,600 was charged with no breakdown provided, suggesting potential lack of pricing transparency. This offsets the one positive pricing mention.
• GENERIC PRAISE DETECTED: The Jan 2024 5-star review ('Great Customer Service... good at their craft') contains no specifics and reads as a low-detail endorsement. Confidence in that review's contribution is reduced.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE WARNING: Only 6 reviews total. A single negative review has an outsized statistical impact. This score should be treated as preliminary until more reviews are available.
• RECENCY NOTE: All reviews fall within the past 12 months (Feb 2024 – Sept 2024), so recency weighting does not significantly differentiate them. The most recent review is the severe 1-star complaint.

This WW Score carries MODERATE reliability due to a small review pool of only 6 reviews and the presence of one serious, specific misconduct allegation that meaningfully pulls scores down across all dimensions — prospective customers should exercise caution and seek additional references before booking.

This contractor has a sharply divided review profile: four positive reviews praising responsiveness, fair pricing, and completed work, contrasted against one detailed and serious negative review describing an incomplete repair, poor follow-through, a no-show, and an unresolved leak after $625 was paid. The negative review is the most recent (August 2024) and is highly specific, which gives it significant weight under recency rules. Professionalism and project completion scores are pulled down substantially by the documented failure to return, delegate without notice, and leave a job unfinished. The positive reviews, while encouraging, are relatively brief and lack granular detail, limiting their ability to fully offset the serious complaint.

• The four positive reviews (Oct–Feb 2023–2024) are notably brief and generic, with limited job-specific detail. Phrases like 'excellent job,' 'responded promptly,' 'affordable,' and 'highly recommend' appear across multiple reviews without elaboration, which raises a mild concern about authenticity.
• The most recent review (August 2024) is the most detailed and describes a serious unresolved issue: a leaking sink after installation, a no-show day, and a failed repair attempt. This recency and specificity give it elevated weight.
• With only 5 total reviews, the sample size is very small. A single negative review has an outsized impact on the overall score, and the positive reviews cannot be verified as representative of consistent performance.
• Overall confidence is limited due to small review volume and the recency of a significant negative experience.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — the small review pool (5 reviews) and the presence of one highly specific, recent negative review describing unresolved work and poor follow-through make it difficult to draw confident conclusions about this contractor's consistent quality.

LiveGreen Plumbing Services exhibits severe and consistent deficiencies across multiple dimensions. While individual technicians (Pablo, Nelson, Thomas, Kelvin, Carlos, Lloyd, Mike) frequently receive praise for technical skill and professionalism, the company's systemic failures in communication, responsiveness, and project follow-through severely undermine overall performance. The most damaging pattern is chronic non-responsiveness to callbacks and voicemails, with dozens of reviews documenting days or weeks without contact. Project completion is severely compromised by abandoned work, missed appointments, incorrect diagnoses, and failure to return for warranty repairs. Pricing concerns include aggressive upselling, inflated estimates, and attempts to bypass warranty coverage. The company's performance is highly inconsistent—some customers report excellent experiences while others encounter fraud-like practices, suggesting organizational dysfunction rather than isolated incidents.

• CRITICAL: Systematic pattern of non-responsiveness. At least 35+ reviews explicitly mention inability to reach the company by phone, unreturned voicemails, or lack of callbacks despite multiple attempts over days/weeks.
• CRITICAL: Chronic project abandonment and incomplete work. Multiple reviews document technicians diagnosing issues, ordering parts, then never returning or following up for 2-8+ weeks, leaving customers without hot water or functional plumbing.
• CRITICAL: Suspected fraudulent practices documented in multiple reviews: false reporting to warranty companies (claiming work was done when it wasn't, or claiming technicians never visited despite evidence), misdiagnosis to avoid warranty coverage, and attempts to upsell customers on side work.
• CRITICAL: Severe inconsistency in service quality. Same company receives both 5-star reviews praising specific technicians and 1-star reviews alleging fraud and incompetence, suggesting individual technician quality varies dramatically and management oversight is weak.
• HIGH CONCERN: Warranty company exploitation pattern. Numerous reviews indicate the company systematically denies warranty coverage, makes false claims to warranty companies, and attempts to charge customers out-of-pocket for work that should be covered.
• HIGH CONCERN: Appointment reliability issues. Multiple reviews document no-shows, late arrivals (1-2+ hours), failure to call ahead as promised, and rescheduling requests initiated by the company.
• MODERATE CONCERN: Pricing transparency issues. Reviews mention lack of itemized invoices, inflated estimates, 400% markups, and pressure to pay deductibles over the phone before service is rendered.
• NOTE: Most reviews are from 2015-2021 (older than 12 months). Only ~15 reviews are from 2022 or later, limiting ability to assess current performance. Historical pattern is deeply negative.
• NOTE: Positive reviews often mention specific technicians by name (Pablo, Nelson, Thomas, Kelvin, Carlos, Lloyd, Mike, Roger, Greg, Derek, Gregory, Brandon, Darius, Aki, Andrew) and praise their individual professionalism and skill, but criticize company operations, scheduling, and follow-up.
• NOTE: Multiple reviews reference Better Business Bureau complaints and F ratings, corroborating the pattern of systemic issues documented in these reviews.

This WW Score of 58.2 should be trusted as a reliable indicator of significant and systemic problems with LiveGreen Plumbing Services. The score is based on 100 reviews with high confidence across all dimensions. The company demonstrates a stark disconnect between individual technician quality (often excellent) and organizational competence (severely deficient). The chronic pattern of non-responsiveness, project abandonment, and suspected fraudulent practices toward warranty companies represents serious red flags that transcend normal service variability. Customers should exercise extreme caution, particularly when working through home warranty companies, as the company appears to systematically exploit that channel.

This contractor has a deeply mixed record across all dimensions. Professionalism is the most heavily documented dimension and is significantly dragged down by multiple serious incidents: a worker spitting on a client's wall, an owner rudely dismissing a potential customer on the phone, bad-mouthing a referral source, and reports of unkempt and malodorous workers — these are not minor complaints. Project completion is similarly compromised by two distinct reviews describing unresolved work: a leak requiring three visits that was ultimately abandoned, and a six-month failure to return with a part for a newly installed tankless water heater. On the positive side, several reviews — particularly from repeat customers — praise Eric's diagnostic skill, responsiveness to urgent situations, and fair pricing, which lifts the experience and pricing scores. However, the most recent review with usable negative detail is from 2024, suggesting these issues are not purely historical.

• SERIOUS CONDUCT FLAG: One review credibly describes a worker spitting on a client's wall after a dispute — this is an extreme professionalism failure and was weighted heavily downward.
• SERIOUS CONDUCT FLAG: The owner reportedly told a potential customer 'you owe me more than an apology, don't call here again' after a routine scheduling conflict — a significant red flag for customer relations.
• PROJECT ABANDONMENT FLAG: Two separate reviews describe incomplete or abandoned work — one involving a leak never resolved after three visits, and one involving a six-month failure to return with an ordered part.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most damaging review is dated February 2024, making it the most recent and most heavily weighted. Several positive reviews are from 2015–2022, with the most detailed positive reviews being 2–3+ years old.
• REVIEW SPREAD NOTE: Positive reviews tend to be detailed and specific (naming Eric, Jake, Jim), which reduces fake review suspicion for those entries. Negative reviews are also specific and credible. No fake review pattern detected.
• AGE WARNING: Several reviews date back to 2012–2017 and carry reduced weight. The overall score reflects a contractor whose recent track record appears worse than their historical reputation.

This WW Score is based on 12 reviews spanning over a decade, with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions due to mention volume, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given that the most recent review is severely negative and documents conduct-level failures that are difficult to dismiss.

FH Furr presents a deeply polarized company profile. While individual technicians frequently demonstrate strong professionalism, technical knowledge, and courteous behavior (earning 68.5 on professionalism and 71.3 on experience), the company is severely undermined by pervasive pricing complaints and systemic operational failures. Pricing emerges as the critical weakness (28.0 score), with hundreds of reviews documenting charges 2-3x market rates, aggressive upselling, and bait-and-switch tactics. Project completion issues (54.2 score) reveal chronic scheduling failures, no-shows despite confirmations, extended delays in parts procurement, and poor follow-through on promised callbacks. The company's acquisition strategy of buying established local firms has consistently resulted in service degradation post-acquisition.

• SEVERE PRICING PATTERN: Systematic overcharging documented across all service categories (HVAC, plumbing, electrical). Examples include $6,300 for sewage repair (market rate $3,000), $1,400 for faucet installation (market rate $400), $25,000 HVAC systems quoted at $38,000+. This is not isolated—pricing complaints appear in 198+ reviews.
• OPERATIONAL DYSFUNCTION: Chronic no-shows and cancellations despite multiple confirmations. Customers report being told technician is 'on the way' then cancelled hours later. Scheduling windows are vague (full-day appointments), and dispatch communication is unreliable.
• ACQUISITION INTEGRATION FAILURE: Multiple reviews from former Megee, Dwyer, R&B, and A Quality customers report dramatic service decline post-FH Furr acquisition. Pattern suggests corporate integration prioritizes sales over service quality.
• UPSELLING AS BUSINESS MODEL: Technicians consistently recommend unnecessary services (duct cleaning, system replacement, parts replacement). Commission-based compensation structure incentivizes sales over honest diagnosis. Multiple reviews cite technicians finding 'problems' that second opinions prove non-existent.
• PARTS PROCUREMENT DELAYS: Documented 2-6 week waits for parts despite claims of same-day availability. Customers left without AC/heat during extreme weather while company delays parts ordering.
• DIAGNOSTIC MISREPRESENTATION: Multiple instances of incorrect diagnoses (e.g., claiming compressor failure when issue was overcharge, claiming cracked heat exchanger when system was fine, claiming capacitor 'open' when it was functional). Second opinions consistently reveal incompetence or intentional misdiagnosis.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE UNRESPONSIVENESS: Widespread reports of unreturned calls, unanswered emails, and inability to reach management. 'Client relations' department appears non-functional.
• WARRANTY/GUARANTEE FAILURES: Company refuses to honor 'No Frustration' guarantees and manufacturer warranties. Customers report being told they cannot use manufacturer warranty with other technicians.
• MEMBERSHIP PROGRAM DECEPTION: 'Preferred Partner' and 'Platinum' plans marketed as priority service but deliver opposite—members report longer wait times and higher charges despite membership fees.
• FAKE REVIEW INDICATORS: Cluster of nearly identical 5-star reviews from June 2025 with generic praise and no specifics (e.g., 'Great service,' 'Friendly service,' empty review text). Multiple reviews appear duplicated verbatim across different dates. This suggests review manipulation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent reviews (June 2025) show dramatic shift toward positive ratings, inconsistent with historical pattern. This temporal clustering combined with generic language raises authenticity concerns.
• SAFETY/COMPLIANCE ISSUES: Reports of improper installations (filter access blocked, incorrect electrical work, disconnected capacitors causing damage, failed inspections). One review documents ceiling collapse from disconnected AC pipe.
• PREDATORY TARGETING: Multiple reviews from elderly customers, disabled individuals, and women describing feeling exploited. Pattern suggests targeting vulnerable populations.

This WW Score of 52.3 should be trusted as a reliable warning indicator. The HIGH confidence across all dimensions is based on 987 usable reviews with consistent, corroborating patterns. However, the score masks a critical bifurcation: individual technician quality is genuinely strong (professionalism 68.5, experience 71.3), but corporate operations are severely dysfunctional (pricing 28.0, completion 54.2). Customers should expect competent technicians but prepare for aggressive upselling, inflated pricing (often 2-3x market rate), scheduling failures, and poor follow-through. The recent cluster of positive reviews warrants skepticism given historical patterns and generic language. This company is suitable only for customers who can afford premium pricing, tolerate operational chaos, and obtain second opinions before authorizing work.

Grayton Plumbing receives a below-average WW Score of 42.8, driven primarily by severe pricing concerns that dominate nearly all reviews. While individual plumbers demonstrate solid professionalism (punctuality, friendliness, technical knowledge) and competent workmanship, the company's pricing structure—featuring high service fees ($75), astronomical labor charges, and aggressive upselling—generates overwhelming customer dissatisfaction. Project completion is mixed, with some successful jobs but also instances of incomplete work and warranty disputes. The stark contrast between positive technician performance and negative overall experience reflects systemic business practice issues rather than individual worker failures.

• CRITICAL: Pricing complaints appear in 19 of 21 reviews (90% of dataset). This is not a minor issue but a defining characteristic of customer experience.
• RECENCY BIAS: 19 of 21 reviews are from 2010-2014 (over 10 years old). Only 2 reviews from 2024 and 2011-2012 period. Historical data may not reflect current operations, especially given the 2014 acquisition by CroppMetcalfe mentioned in one review.
• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews cite identical complaint structure—reasonable service fee quoted, then dramatically higher labor charges revealed on-site. This suggests systemic pricing practice, not isolated incidents.
• COUPON DECEPTION: Multiple reviews (at least 3) report difficulty redeeming advertised coupons, with front office staff contradicting plumber promises. This indicates administrative/communication breakdown.
• OUTLIER REVIEWS: Two 4-5 star reviews (2011-04-01 and 2010-12-27) praise Grayton highly and mention fair pricing/warranty honoring. These are exceptions; the reviewer in 2010-12-27 explicitly notes Grayton 'probably lost money' on the job, suggesting this was atypical service.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: LOW. Reviews show high specificity (dollar amounts, technician names, detailed scenarios), varied writing styles, and authentic frustration patterns. No evidence of coordinated fake reviews.
• ACQUISITION IMPACT: Company was acquired by CroppMetcalfe in 2014 per one review, which noted 'price structure has changed significantly.' This may explain why older reviews dominate—customer base may have shifted post-acquisition.

This WW Score is highly reliable for historical performance (2010-2014) but should be treated with caution for current operations due to data age and the 2014 acquisition. The overwhelming consistency of pricing complaints across 19 reviews provides HIGH confidence in that dimension, but the lack of recent reviews (only 1 from 2024) means current service quality cannot be confidently assessed. Potential customers should seek recent reviews from post-acquisition period before making decisions.