Find Nearby Plumbers In Clearwater, Florida

This leak detection service demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism, with multiple reviews praising quick identification of problems, knowledgeable technicians (particularly Sonny and John), and willingness to help without unnecessary upselling. However, pricing feedback is mixed: while some customers appreciated fair rates compared to competitors, one recent review (Nov 2024) expressed frustration about a $150 diagnostic fee for a non-plumbing issue, creating ambiguity around service scope clarity. Project completion is solid with customers reporting accurate leak location identification and timely service, though the Nov 2024 review suggests potential scope-of-service communication issues. The score is tempered by recency concerns—most positive reviews are 2–8 years old, with only 2 reviews from 2024.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 8 of 10 reviews are older than 2 years (2013–2021). Only 2 reviews from 2024. Recent negative review (Nov 2024) contradicts older pattern and may indicate service quality or communication changes.
• SCOPE CLARITY ISSUE: Nov 2024 review reveals customer confusion about whether company detects only plumbing leaks or all leaks. Ad copy may be misleading or unclear. This is a material business practice concern.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Positive reviews mention 'reasonable' and 'fair' pricing; Nov 2024 review calls $150 diagnostic fee a 'cheat' for non-plumbing issue. Suggests pricing model or expectations may not be clearly communicated upfront.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Several older reviews (2013, 2016, 2017, 2018) contain minimal specific detail and read somewhat formulaic ('Highly recommend,' '10/10,' 'Worth every penny'). Combined with age, reduces confidence in older data.
• SINGLE NEGATIVE REVIEW: The Nov 2024 review is the only 1-star rating and stands in stark contrast to 9 five-star reviews. This polarization warrants caution—either service quality has declined or customer expectations/communication has broken down.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While technical expertise and professionalism appear genuinely strong based on consistent positive feedback, the heavy weighting toward reviews older than 2 years, combined with a recent negative experience highlighting scope-of-service confusion, suggests the current service experience may differ from historical reputation. Recommend requesting recent references and clarifying service scope in writing before engaging.

TB Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with responsive communication and punctual service mentioned across multiple reviews. However, a severe 1-star review from June 2024 reveals critical failures in follow-through, communication, and project completion—the customer was left without hot water for over two weeks with no diagnosis or quote provided. Pricing feedback is mixed, with one review noting 'high end' costs while another praised 'great price.' The company shows technical competence in completed jobs but the recent complaint suggests inconsistent execution and accountability. The WW Score reflects strong historical performance undermined by a recent, detailed negative experience indicating systemic communication and follow-through problems.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Four reviews are from November 2022 and January 2023 (1.5–2 years old). The most recent review (August 2024) is generic praise with no specifics. The most detailed and credible review is the 1-star from June 2024, which documents a serious service failure with specific dates and names.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple 5-star reviews from November 8, 2022 (three reviews posted same day with similar enthusiastic language but varying specificity) and the August 2024 review lack detail and may be inflated. The June 2024 1-star review is highly detailed and credible by contrast.
• CRITICAL SERVICE FAILURE: The June 2024 review documents a 16-day failure to communicate diagnosis, provide quotes, or follow through on warranty claim submission. This is a severe professionalism and project completion failure that contradicts the positive historical reviews.
• INCONSISTENCY ALERT: Stark contrast between glowing older reviews and the recent detailed complaint suggests either significant service degradation or inconsistent quality depending on technician/circumstances.

This score should be treated with caution. While historical reviews suggest competent service, the recent detailed complaint of communication failure and abandonment raises serious concerns about reliability and consistency. The score is pulled down appropriately by the June 2024 incident, but the small sample size (7 reviews) and age of most positive reviews (2+ years) limit confidence. Recent customer experience appears to contradict historical reputation.

Harris Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, and skilled workmanship across 42 and 26 mentions respectively. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with multiple detailed complaints about excessive charges, lack of transparent quotes, and perceived gouging (18 mentions). Project completion shows moderate reliability with several instances of abandoned jobs, incomplete work, and follow-up failures, though many jobs are completed satisfactorily. The company exhibits high variability in service quality and customer experience, suggesting inconsistent execution or personnel performance.

• CRITICAL: Multiple credible reports of abandoned jobs and non-responsiveness (reviews from 2024-03-01, 2018-05-22, 2018-01-29, 2016-05-02). These are serious red flags indicating potential systemic issues with follow-through and accountability.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Detailed complaints about overcharging appear consistently across multiple years (2023-08-05: $1,300 for 2.5-hour water heater install; 2015-04-11: $560 for vanity connections; 2014-05-22: $650 for minor toilet work). These are specific, quantified grievances, not vague complaints.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: Multiple reviews cite defective workmanship requiring callbacks or rework (2021-01-05: improper installation of recirculation system; 2020-10-22: leak from improperly tightened valves causing water damage; 2020-06-10: non-functioning sink handle and leaking bathtub handle).
• CUSTOMER SERVICE INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between glowing reviews praising Alicia, Steve, Jason, and others versus scathing reviews citing rude staff (Michelle), unresponsiveness, and dismissive behavior. Suggests significant personnel-dependent variability.
• RECENCY PATTERN: Most recent negative reviews (2024, 2023) involve non-responsiveness and abandoned work, while older reviews (2005-2011) are uniformly positive. This may indicate business decline or change in ownership/management.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several reviews from 2021-06-10 and 2019-06-11 are suspiciously clustered on identical dates with generic praise. However, these are balanced by detailed, specific positive reviews, so confidence in fake review detection is limited.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the company demonstrates genuine strengths in professionalism and technical skill (supported by high-mention counts), the presence of multiple credible reports of abandoned jobs, significant pricing disputes, and quality control failures indicates serious operational risks. The wide variance in customer experience and the pattern of recent negative reviews suggest the company may be unreliable for critical work. Recommend obtaining detailed written quotes, checking recent references, and considering alternative providers for high-value projects.

Thomas Flynn demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous demeanor across 24 mentions. His technical expertise and workmanship quality are well-documented across 13 mentions, earning an 88.0 score. Project completion is solid at 82.0 based on 18 mentions, though some callbacks and follow-ups were needed. However, pricing is a significant weakness at 62.5 based on 9 explicit mentions—multiple customers describe him as expensive, with specific complaints about overcharging for routine work ($265 toilet repair, $1,118 water heater installation). The most damaging review details a $4,000 shower project with a critical measurement error and poor accountability. The WW Score of 76.8 reflects strong execution and reliability offset by legitimate pricing concerns and one severe quality/integrity issue.

• PRICING CONCERN: Nine reviews explicitly mention high costs. Multiple customers describe him as 'expensive' or 'rip off.' One customer was quoted $265 for a toilet repair they felt should cost $150-175. Another paid $1,118 for a water heater installation. This pattern is consistent and credible, not isolated complaints.
• CRITICAL QUALITY/INTEGRITY ISSUE: One detailed 1-star review (2019-01-16) describes a $4,000 shower project where Flynn failed to measure a fixture correctly, resulting in installation of a wrong-sized fixture. The customer alleges Flynn fabricated an excuse about missing instructions and showed poor accountability. This is a serious allegation of dishonesty and lack of quality control on a major project.
• CANCELLATION/NO-SHOW: One 1-star review (2023-10-01) reports Flynn canceled a scheduled appointment on the day of service, wasting the customer's blocked time.
• NON-RESPONSIVENESS: One 1-star review (2023-01-24) reports no callback after two calls.
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERNS: Multiple reviews contain generic praise with minimal detail ('unknown', dots only, 'Excellent service and price' with no specifics). Seven reviews have 'unknown' or placeholder text as content, suggesting possible fake or auto-generated reviews. However, the detailed positive reviews appear authentic with specific project descriptions.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Most reviews are from 2012-2016 (8+ years old). Only 3 reviews are from 2023 or recent years, and these include two 1-star complaints (cancellation, non-responsiveness) and one 5-star. Recent data is limited and mixed.
• CONTRADICTION IN PRICING NARRATIVE: Some reviews praise 'reasonable' or 'fair' pricing while others call him expensive. This suggests pricing may vary by project type or customer expectations, or that some positive reviews may not reflect actual pricing experience.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While professionalism and experience scores are well-supported by 24 and 13 mentions respectively, the pricing weakness (only 9 mentions) and one serious integrity allegation significantly impact trustworthiness. The age of most reviews (8+ years) and presence of suspicious placeholder reviews further reduce confidence. Recent reviews show deterioration in responsiveness and reliability. Customers seeking Flynn should prioritize getting detailed written quotes and verifying references for large projects.

Formula Plumbing demonstrates solid professionalism with responsive communication and quick dispatch times, earning an 82 on this dimension across 4 reviews. However, pricing concerns significantly drag the overall score, with explicit complaints about overcharging ($1,000 for water heater swap) and a $265 diagnostic fee that did not resolve the issue, resulting in a 55 pricing score. Project completion is mixed: while most jobs were finished, one review noted water damage to carpet during repairs and another involved an unresolved problem requiring external service. Technical skill appears competent based on diagnostic accuracy and repair quality, but the limited mention count (3) constrains confidence. The 2023–2024 recency of most reviews provides reasonable currency.

• Pricing is a significant weakness with multiple explicit complaints about overcharging and non-transparent fees; the $265 diagnostic charge without resolution is particularly problematic.
• One review (2022-05-27) suggests potential business transition/communication failure regarding company takeover, which may indicate organizational issues.
• Water damage incident (2023-02-04) suggests quality control gaps in job execution despite otherwise positive feedback.
• One review (2024-07-05) is from a non-customer (did not hire), which limits its weight but still reflects pricing perception in the market.

This score should be treated with moderate caution due to the small sample size (5 reviews) and mixed sentiment; pricing emerges as a genuine concern backed by multiple explicit complaints, while professionalism and completion are more variable and warrant verification before hiring.

Dan Driver Plumbing has a strong overall reputation built on consistent praise for professionalism, punctuality, and knowledgeable technicians across multiple reviews spanning many years. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and transparent, with several reviewers specifically noting that final bills matched estimates — a meaningful trust signal. However, one notable negative review from 2023 describes a shower installation project that doubled in cost due to mistakes, and a 2017 review reports a no-show with no return calls, both of which meaningfully temper the project completion and professionalism scores. The bulk of detailed, specific reviews are older than 12 months, with only a handful from 2024, which limits confidence in the current state of the business. One review ('so happy! so relieved!') is vague and generic, offering no scorable detail.

• Several reviews are very old (2012–2018) and may not reflect current service quality. The majority of substantive reviews predate 2024.
• One review ('so happy! so relieved! the team was fabulous! wow and fast!!!!') is highly generic with no specific details — it contributes little scorable evidence and may be low-quality or inflated.
• One review ('unknown', 5 stars, 2015) contains no usable content and was excluded from scoring.
• One review ('Very well. The problem seems to be solved.', 2017) and one ('It went very well', 2012) are too vague to score on any dimension.
• A 2023 review explicitly warns about cost doubling due to plumber mistakes on a shower installation — this is a significant project completion and experience flag.
• A 2017 review reports a no-show for scheduled appointments and no return calls — a direct professionalism and project completion failure.
• No fake review patterns detected; language and specifics vary sufficiently across reviews.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability: the volume of reviews is modest, many are significantly dated, and two credible negative reviews introduce meaningful risk signals that prevent a high-confidence endorsement.