Find Nearby Plumbers In Clearwater, Florida

R.J. Kielty receives overwhelmingly positive feedback on professionalism, with dozens of reviews praising punctuality, friendliness, and responsiveness — particularly from repeat customers of technician Don. Experience and workmanship scores are also strong, with multiple reviewers citing knowledgeable diagnostics, efficient repairs, and problem-solving on complex jobs. Project completion is generally well-regarded, though two older negative reviews describe incomplete or improperly finished work and a rude technician, which tempers the score. Pricing is the most mixed dimension: one reviewer praised competitive and transparent pricing, while another explicitly called the company 'WAY OVER PRICED' for a 45-minute job billed at $278 with no materials, and a third described being charged an additional $900 to finish a job already paid for — these negative data points meaningfully drag the pricing score down. The bulk of reviews are recent (2024–2025), which increases confidence in the current state of the business.

• 9 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• A large cluster of reviews share the same date (2025-05-10, 2025-04-10, etc.), which may reflect batch imports or platform aggregation rather than organic posting. This is worth noting but not conclusive of fraud.
• Many reviews are short and generic (e.g., 'Prompt and Professional', 'Polite and knowledgeable', 'Great Service') with no specific job details. While not definitively fake, the pattern of brief, uniformly positive reviews with identical 5-star ratings warrants mild caution.
• One 1-star review (2024-11-11) praises the technician's friendliness but still gave 1 star — the mismatch between text and rating suggests possible user error or a platform import issue. This review was treated as ambiguous.
• Two detailed 1-star reviews (2021) describe serious issues: incomplete work, unexpected additional charges, and a rude technician. One review (2021-10-08) appears to reference HVAC work rather than plumbing, which may not be directly applicable to this contractor's plumbing services.
• Several older reviews (2014–2022) were included but given reduced weight per recency rules. The majority of substantive reviews are from 2024–2025.

This WW Score is moderately reliable overall — the professionalism and experience dimensions are well-supported by a high volume of recent, specific reviews, but the pricing score is based on limited explicit mentions and includes significant negative outliers, and the presence of numerous blank or generic reviews introduces mild uncertainty about the full picture.

Just-In-Time Plumbing and Pirates Plumbing demonstrate strong overall performance across all dimensions. Professionalism scores highest (86.5) with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and courteous technicians across 142 reviews. Project completion (84.0) is solid with most jobs finished on time and callbacks honored, though a few complaints about incomplete work exist. Experience (85.5) reflects skilled technicians and quality workmanship mentioned in 97 reviews. Pricing (76.0) is the weakest dimension, with legitimate concerns about high costs, hidden charges, and overpricing in 58 reviews, though many customers also report fair pricing. The WW Score of 82.3 reflects a reliable contractor with strong service delivery but pricing concerns that prevent a higher rating.

• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews (2025-05-12, 2025-04-10, 2023-02-03, 2022-05-20, 2018-09-13, 2018-06-14, 2019-12-07, 2016-03-23) report significantly overpriced services, hidden charges, or bait-and-switch pricing tactics. One customer was quoted $1,800 but charged $2,500 for weekend service; another paid $200 for two simple fittings; a third received a $22,250 quote when work was completed elsewhere for $8,000.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: Several reviews (2020-05-10, 2018-06-04, 2018-10-15) indicate incomplete work, improper repairs (wax seal not replaced properly), and lack of accountability when problems recur. One customer had to hire a different plumber to properly acid-wash the sewer line after Just-In-Time's incomplete work.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reviews (2022-02-01, 2021-02-15) report difficulty reaching the company, unreturned calls, and missed appointments despite being scheduled.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE INCONSISTENCY: Owner Justin has been described in some reviews as defensive, argumentative, or dismissive when customers raise concerns (2023-02-03, 2021-03-20, 2014-09-27). One review noted gaslighting behavior when disputing charges.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS: Approximately 15-20 reviews from 2022-06-10 and 2021-06-10 contain only ratings with no text, and many reviews from 2025-06-02 through 2025-05-10 use nearly identical phrasing ('professional,' 'great job,' 'highly recommend') with suspiciously generic praise. This suggests possible review manipulation.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (2025) are overwhelmingly 5-star with minimal detail, while older reviews (2018-2020) contain more balanced feedback including legitimate criticisms. Recent reviews lack the specificity and nuance of earlier reviews.
• INCONSISTENT STANDARDS: The company appears to operate under two different service models—sometimes going above and beyond (free service calls, phone troubleshooting), other times charging premium rates for minimal work. This inconsistency suggests variable quality control or selective service standards.

This WW Score of 82.3 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH confidence for professionalism and project completion, but MODERATE confidence for pricing. The company demonstrates genuine technical competence and generally reliable service delivery, but pricing practices are a significant concern with documented evidence of overcharging and hidden fees. Recent reviews show suspicious patterns of generic 5-star ratings that reduce confidence in the most current feedback. Customers should obtain multiple quotes, clarify pricing upfront in writing, and be prepared to dispute charges if they appear excessive.

DR Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with particular strengths in professionalism and responsiveness. The company excels at emergency response, punctuality, and customer communication, with numerous reviews praising same-day or rapid service. Technical competence is consistently highlighted across complex projects including water heater replacements, pipe repairs, and system installations. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness, with three explicit complaints about overcharging (garbage disposal at $545 vs $150 cost, price increases during remodels, and one instance of refusing warranty work). Additionally, one serious quality issue involved incorrect shark bite installation that caused recurring leaks three years later, and another involved improper hot/cold line installation behind walls during a remodel.

• PRICING CONCERN: Three reviews explicitly mention overcharging or unfair pricing practices ($545 garbage disposal replacement, price increases during remodels, and one instance of refusing to honor warranty work). This contradicts the majority positive pricing feedback and suggests inconsistent pricing practices.
• QUALITY DEFECT PATTERN: Two reviews describe significant workmanship failures—incorrect shark bite installation causing leaks 3 years later (customer stated company did not admit fault or back up work) and improper hot/cold supply line installation behind walls during a large remodel (company refused to fix acknowledged mistake).
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW CLUSTERING: Multiple empty/blank review texts with 5.0 ratings (at least 3 instances) suggest potential data quality issues or placeholder reviews.
• RECENCY BIAS: Majority of reviews (approximately 60+) are from May-June 2025, with a sharp drop-off in older reviews. This clustering may indicate recent reputation management or review campaign activity.
• INCONSISTENT ACCOUNTABILITY: One review explicitly states company 'did not admit to their defect work or back it up' regarding a failed shark bite installation, while other reviews praise honesty and trustworthiness. This suggests selective accountability depending on circumstances.

This WW Score of 82.1 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH confidence for professionalism and project completion, but LOWER confidence for pricing assessment. The company demonstrates genuine strengths in emergency response and customer service, but the explicit pricing complaints and documented quality failures (shark bite installation, supply line installation errors) indicate real operational issues that are not fully reflected in the predominantly positive review volume. The recent clustering of reviews and multiple blank entries warrant caution. Prospective customers should specifically discuss pricing structure upfront and request written warranties for complex work.

This contractor demonstrates strong professionalism across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and courteous behavior from both office and field staff. Project completion is well-documented with timely delivery and willingness to accommodate client schedules. Technical skill and problem-solving ability are evident in emergency response scenarios and complex installations. Pricing feedback is limited but positive where mentioned. All reviews are recent (within 12 months), which strengthens confidence in current service quality.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Reviews 3 and 4 are identical (bathroom addition, August 1, 2024). Reviews 5 and 6 are identical (rental unit emergency, July 9, 2024). Reviews 7 and 8 are identical (clogged sink, February 22, 2024). Reviews 9 and 10 are identical (emergency leak, February 8, 2024). This represents 4 pairs of exact duplicates out of 10 total reviews, reducing effective sample size to 6 unique reviews.
• ALL REVIEWS ARE 5-STAR: No negative or mixed feedback present. While recent and detailed, the absence of any critical perspective limits ability to assess weaknesses.
• PRICING DIMENSION UNDERREPRESENTED: Only 2 mentions of pricing across all reviews, limiting confidence in price-friendly assessment.

This score should be treated with caution due to duplicate reviews artificially inflating the dataset and the absence of any critical feedback. The effective sample size is 6 unique reviews rather than 10, which reduces overall confidence. The contractor appears genuinely strong on professionalism and project completion, but pricing assessment is too limited to be reliable.

Lynch Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally professional service, with most customers praising responsiveness, punctuality, and fair pricing. However, the company's WW Score of 78.2 is tempered by a concerning pattern of project completion failures and customer service inconsistencies. Multiple reviews document incomplete work, no-shows, follow-up failures, and unresolved issues post-installation (water heater problems, low pressure, broken fixtures). While the majority of reviews are highly positive, the severity and frequency of negative experiences—particularly around accountability and follow-through—significantly impact overall reliability. The company excels in initial response and technical knowledge but struggles with consistency and problem resolution.

• CRITICAL: Multiple no-show incidents documented (2020-06-10, 2020-05-21, 2021-07-28) with poor communication and lack of accountability. Pattern suggests systemic scheduling/reliability issues.
• CRITICAL: Several reviews report incomplete or problematic work requiring callbacks or additional repairs (water heater installation issues 2024-06-09, recirculating system overcharge 2023-02-22, foundation/pressure issues 2023-10-20). Suggests quality control gaps.
• MODERATE: Potential fake review concern—multiple 5-star reviews with minimal detail (empty text fields, single-word praise like 'Great company!' and 'Quick and easy!!') dated 2025-05-26, 2025-05-10, 2020-06-10. However, these are outweighed by detailed, specific positive reviews with verifiable details.
• MODERATE: Unprofessional conduct documented in multiple reviews (mask complaint 2021-07-28, unauthorized home entry 2021-06-10, 2021-02-17, rude behavior 2017-06-11). Suggests inconsistent staff training or vetting.
• MODERATE: Pricing transparency issues—one customer reported quote of $800 that became $1,516 invoice (2023-02-22), later discounted to $1,366. Another reported $400 overcharge (2024-09-13). Indicates estimation accuracy problems.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent reviews (2025) are uniformly 5-star with minimal detail. Older reviews (2018-2023) contain more balanced feedback with specific details. Recent data quality is lower.
• POSITIVE: Long-term customer loyalty documented in multiple reviews spanning 10+ years (2011, 2015, 2023 reviews), suggesting core service quality despite isolated failures.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated as moderately reliable but with significant caveats: while the company demonstrates genuine technical competence and responsiveness, the documented pattern of project completion failures, no-shows, and follow-up issues indicates material risk. Customers should expect good initial service but should verify work quality post-completion and maintain clear communication about expectations. The company is suitable for straightforward jobs but carries elevated risk for complex projects or those requiring multiple visits.

Denny's Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with particular strengths in project completion (85.0) and experience/workmanship (84.0), both backed by high-confidence data from 28-38 mentions. Professionalism scores solidly at 82.5 across 42 reviews, reflecting consistent punctuality, communication, and courteous behavior from technicians. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness at 68.0, with 13 explicit mentions revealing customer concerns about unexpected charges, labor multipliers not disclosed upfront, and significant price increases year-over-year. Recent reviews (2024-2025) are predominantly positive, but older reviews (2016-2019) contain serious complaints about billing practices and transparency. The company shows responsiveness and technical competence but struggles with pricing clarity and customer communication around costs.

• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: Multiple reviews (2019, 2023) explicitly cite surprise charges, undisclosed labor multipliers (per-man charges), and dramatic price increases for identical services. This is a material concern affecting trust.
• CONFLICT RESPONSE PATTERN: Review dated 2025-02-09 is a lengthy defensive response from management (Will Cordelo, Service Manager) to a negative customer review. While it provides context, the tone and length suggest potential customer service friction. This review itself does not rate the service but defends against criticism.
• OLDER NEGATIVE REVIEWS (2016-2019): Four 1-star reviews from 2016-2019 cite billing disputes, gas leak safety issues, slow work, and lack of transparency. These predate the overwhelmingly positive 2023-2025 reviews, suggesting possible operational changes or review platform dynamics.
• RECENCY BIAS: 80% of reviews are from 2023 onward, with a concentration in June 2024 and May 2025. Older reviews (2015-2019) are sparse and more negative. Recent reviews show dramatic improvement in sentiment.
• ONE BLANK REVIEW: One review dated 2024-06-09 contains only a 5-star rating with no text, contributing no data.
• POTENTIAL REVIEW CLUSTERING: Multiple reviews on identical dates (2024-06-09, 2025-05-10) with similar positive phrasing warrant attention, though language varies sufficiently to avoid flagging as definitively fake.

This WW Score of 78.2 is reliable for assessing professionalism, completion, and technical skill (all HIGH confidence), but should be interpreted with caution regarding pricing—the 68.0 pricing score reflects genuine customer concerns about transparency and cost escalation that are not fully resolved by recent positive reviews. The company appears to have improved operations in 2023-2025, but historical billing disputes (2016-2019) suggest structural pricing communication issues that may persist.