Find Nearby Plumbers In Clearwater, Florida

Midway Services presents a deeply split profile: individual technicians (Mike Mouzone, Hunter Hicks, David Taddeo, Greg Lisinski, Kevin Roberts, Gerard Humienik, and others) are repeatedly praised for professionalism, punctuality, friendliness, and technical competence, driving moderately positive scores in professionalism and experience. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension, with dozens of explicit complaints spanning over a decade describing charges that reviewers found to be two to four times higher than competitors for identical work — including quotes of $612 for clearing hair from drains, $919 for a flange repair, $987 for two small AC parts, and $630–$860 for a kitchen faucet. Project completion is mixed: many jobs are completed well and on time, but there are multiple documented cases of no-shows, canceled appointments without notice, abandoned jobs, warranty disputes, and a particularly serious pattern of deceptive lease agreements presented as purchase contracts. The company's long-term customer retention is undermined by systemic pricing and contract transparency issues that have driven away even loyal clients of 10–30 years.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least four reviews appear to be exact duplicates posted on different dates within days of each other (e.g., 'Hunter was awesome. Had a main line completely clogged...' appears on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-05; 'Mike mouzone. he was so nice...' appears on 2025-06-06 and 2025-06-03; 'I was very pleased with the service. Kevin Robert's was great...' appears on 2025-06-06 and 2025-06-03; 'Another great experience with Midway Services and electrician Mike M...' appears on 2025-06-06 and 2025-06-03). This is a strong indicator of review manipulation. Confidence in the most recent positive reviews is reduced.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: A cluster of 5-star reviews dated 2025-04-07 share suspiciously similar generic phrasing, all reference different technicians, and many lack specific job details. The volume and date clustering of these reviews is anomalous and suggests possible solicited or incentivized review posting.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC AND PERSISTENT: Negative pricing reviews span from 2009 to 2025, indicating this is not an isolated issue but a structural business practice. Multiple reviewers explicitly state they obtained the same work from competitors for 50–75% less cost.
• DECEPTIVE CONTRACT PRACTICES DOCUMENTED: Multiple independent reviewers (2021–2022) describe being enrolled in lease agreements for HVAC systems without being clearly informed they were leases rather than purchases, with buyout fees of $13,000+. One reviewer describes a collections agency being sent for a lease they had paid off. These are serious legal and ethical red flags.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Multiple reviewers report Midway refusing to honor warranties on their own installed equipment, including a case where a unit installed by Midway failed inspection due to missing ground wires and another where a 10-year-old warranty was honored but labor charged at $300/hour.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: At least 10 independent reviews across multiple years describe missed appointments, late arrivals without notice, or appointments canceled at the last minute with no compensation offered.
• ONE REVIEW (1-star, 2025-04-07) APPEARS TO REFERENCE 'PINK PLUMBING' NOT MIDWAY SERVICES: This review may have been posted to the wrong business listing and should be treated with caution, though the scheduling failure complaint pattern is consistent with other reviews.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of 5-star reviews are from 2025 and late 2024, while the majority of 1-star reviews span 2012–2022. This could indicate genuine service improvement, or it could reflect a coordinated review campaign. The duplicate review detection above reduces confidence in the recent positive cluster.
• TWO BLANK REVIEWS with only a rating of 5.0 and no text were excluded from dimension scoring as they contain no usable data.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate reviews, a suspicious clustering of 5-star reviews on a single date, and a decade-long pattern of pricing and contract complaints that represent serious consumer risk.

C Lacey Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all dimensions. Professionalism is significantly undermined by multiple explicit no-show, no-call complaints spanning different years, which directly contradict the positive reviews praising punctuality and courteous behavior. Project completion is similarly split — while several reviewers report successful, thorough work, one detailed 1-star review describes a recurring sewage problem that was never resolved despite two paid visits, with the owner explicitly refusing to warranty the work. Pricing feedback is mostly positive among satisfied customers, but the $370 double-charge complaint for incomplete work is a serious red flag that pulls the score down. Experience scores are hurt by the account of a plumber failing to diagnose a sewer disconnect that the customer ultimately resolved themselves with a rented tool in 20 minutes.

• Multiple explicit no-show/no-call complaints (2019 and 2013 reviews) indicate a recurring reliability problem, not an isolated incident.
• One detailed review describes being double-charged $370 for work that failed twice within 24 hours each time, and the owner refused to warranty the work — this is a serious project completion and ethics concern.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months; only one review (January 2024) falls within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is limited and the score may not reflect current performance.
• The single most recent review (2024) is positive, but one data point is insufficient to confirm a trend of improvement.
• No strong fake review patterns detected, but several positive reviews are generic in nature (e.g., 'great company,' 'can not go wrong') with limited specifics, which slightly reduces confidence in those reviews.

This WW Score is based on 9 reviews spanning over a decade, with only one review from the past 12 months, which significantly limits the reliability of this score as a reflection of current contractor performance — treat with caution.

ARS Rescue Rooter presents a deeply polarized review profile. A significant portion of positive reviews praise individual technicians as professional, courteous, knowledgeable, and timely, which elevates the professionalism and experience scores above what the negative reviews alone would suggest. However, the volume and severity of negative reviews is substantial: recurring themes include no-shows, missed appointment windows without notification, high-pressure sales tactics, price gouging on parts and labor (often 3-10x market rate), misdiagnosis of problems to upsell unnecessary repairs or full system replacements, and near-total failure of customer service escalation. Pricing receives the lowest score due to overwhelming and consistent evidence of extreme markups, bait-and-switch advertising, and refusal to provide itemized invoices. Project completion suffers from numerous accounts of incomplete work, failed inspections, return visits required, and jobs abandoned mid-project. The review set also contains a large number of brewery reviews (ARS Brewing in Philadelphia) and other clearly off-topic reviews that were excluded from scoring.

• MAJOR DATA CONTAMINATION: A significant number of reviews in this dataset are clearly for a different business — ARS Brewing, a craft brewery in Philadelphia, PA. These reviews reference beer, food trucks, taprooms, and brewery atmosphere and have no relevance to HVAC or plumbing services. These were excluded from scoring but inflate the raw review count significantly.
• SUSPECTED FAKE OR INFLATED POSITIVE REVIEWS: A large cluster of reviews dated 2025-06-06 through 2025-06-09 are near-identical in phrasing (e.g., multiple exact duplicates of 'Great service, very professional.', 'All went well; Very professional.', 'The tech arrived early for the appointment. He was courteous & professional and quickly completed the job.', 'Adam check everything, and got a/c back on.', 'Daniel was amazing', 'Not friend, right away started to charge me without inspection of the drain.'). These appear to be the same reviews submitted multiple times across different dates, strongly suggesting review manipulation or a data feed error. Confidence in the positive review pool is reduced accordingly.
• REVIEW DUPLICATION: Dozens of reviews appear verbatim multiple times across different dates (e.g., the Jeremy R Smith review, the Andy and Alex review, the Service men were efficient review, the Horrible experience review). This suggests either a data pipeline issue or deliberate review stuffing. Duplicate reviews were counted only once per unique text for scoring purposes.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW PATTERN: Across hundreds of unique negative reviews spanning 2011 to 2025, a consistent and severe pattern emerges of ARS failing to honor appointment windows, providing no notification of delays or cancellations, and offering no meaningful recourse through customer service. This is a systemic operational failure, not isolated incidents.
• PRICE GOUGING PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different cities and years report being quoted 3x to 10x market rate for parts and labor. Examples include $455/lb for refrigerant (market: $40-80), $650 for a $25 capacitor, $1,100 for a 30-minute warranty repair, and $10,000+ for sewer work completed by competitors for under $2,000. This pattern is too consistent and widespread to be coincidental.
• MISDIAGNOSIS AND UPSELL PATTERN: Numerous reviewers report being told they needed full system replacements or expensive repairs, only to have a second-opinion technician fix the actual problem for a fraction of the cost. In several cases, reviewers allege ARS technicians deliberately disabled or damaged equipment to create a sale opportunity.
• OFF-TOPIC REVIEWS EXCLUDED: Reviews referencing beer, breweries, food trucks, and taproom experiences were identified as belonging to ARS Brewing (Philadelphia) and were excluded from all dimension scoring. These reviews do not reflect the HVAC and plumbing contractor being evaluated.
• GEOGRAPHIC INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference ARS locations across many states (TX, FL, NC, SC, VA, IL, OH, TN, GA, etc.), suggesting this is a national franchise. Service quality appears highly variable by location, which limits the reliability of any aggregate score as a predictor for a specific local branch.

This WW Score of 52.1 should be treated with caution: while it is based on a very large number of substantive reviews providing HIGH confidence in the statistical sense, the score is significantly undermined by confirmed review duplication, suspected fake positive reviews, off-topic brewery reviews contaminating the dataset, and extreme geographic variability across a national franchise — consumers should research their specific local ARS branch independently before engaging services.

The review set is deeply polarized, with a cluster of detailed, credible negative reviews pulling scores down significantly across all dimensions. Professionalism suffers from multiple accounts of no-shows, late arrivals, broken equipment, and dismissive or manipulative communication — particularly in home warranty contexts. Pricing is a serious concern, with multiple reviewers describing bait-and-switch tactics, unexpected charges, uninvoiced work, and pressure to pay beyond agreed amounts; positive pricing mentions exist but are outweighed by the severity of the negative accounts. Project completion is the weakest area, with at least three detailed reviews describing jobs that were left incomplete, incorrectly executed, or abandoned entirely after payment was collected. Experience scores modestly higher due to several positive reviews praising efficient and clean workmanship, but credible accounts of botched plumbing, non-functional equipment, and work requiring correction by other contractors temper this significantly.

• Several 5-star reviews are vague and generic (e.g., 'Absolutely the best!!! Five stars. Nicest people in the world and total professionals.') with no job-specific details, which raises mild concern about authenticity. These were scored conservatively.
• A recurring pattern emerges across multiple negative reviews involving home warranty jobs: the plumber allegedly attempts to collect additional cash payments beyond the deductible, and in at least two cases left the job incomplete or abandoned it. This suggests a possible systemic issue with warranty-referred work specifically.
• One reviewer explicitly notes that their original negative post 'keeps getting erased,' which may indicate review suppression activity. This warrants caution when interpreting the overall rating distribution.
• The most detailed negative reviews (1-star) contain specific names, dollar amounts, dates, and sequences of events, lending them high credibility. They are weighted accordingly.
• Review dates span 2019–2023. The most recent reviews (2022–2023) include both a strong positive and a strong negative, so no clear recency trend favoring improvement or decline can be established.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to 13 reviews with broad dimensional coverage, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given the severity and specificity of multiple negative accounts, potential review suppression, and a pattern of alleged misconduct on warranty-referred jobs.

This business shows significant professionalism and customer service issues across multiple reviews. Two reviews explicitly describe fraudulent or deceptive practices (invoice manipulation, overcharging), while another details poor customer service and failure to complete a simple transaction. Positive mentions of product availability and knowledge are heavily outweighed by serious trust and integrity concerns. The low WW Score reflects critical failures in professionalism and project completion, with pricing practices that appear deliberately misleading.

• CRITICAL: Two reviews (2023, 2019) describe potential fraud or deceptive billing practices — invoice deletion, price discrepancies, and refusal to acknowledge errors. This is a serious red flag for business integrity.
• Review from 2018 describes staff conflict and failure to complete a basic transaction, suggesting internal management issues.
• Only 5 reviews total analyzed; score reliability is limited by small sample size.
• Most reviews are older than 1 year (4 of 5 from 2017-2019); only 1 recent review from 2023.
• Positive reviews (2 of 5) lack specificity and detail, while negative reviews are highly detailed and specific, suggesting genuine customer frustration rather than fake reviews.

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (5 reviews), but the pattern of serious integrity and service failures across multiple independent reviews suggests genuine systemic problems that warrant significant concern before engaging this business.

The three reviews present a deeply mixed and concerning picture of Brookway Plumbing. One positive review praises Jimmy's responsiveness, honesty, and professional manner in correctly diagnosing a hot water heater issue that two other providers misidentified. However, this is directly offset by two strongly negative reviews: one describing rudeness, a failed repair, and overpriced replacement quotes, and another detailing repeated broken promises, a suspicious cash-only demand, and Jimmy hanging up on the customer. Professionalism and project completion scores are dragged down significantly by the two 1-star reviews, which describe outright failures to complete work and hostile communication. The oldest review dates to 2010, the others to 2016, meaning all reviews are well over 7 years old, severely limiting their relevance to current service quality.

• All three reviews are older than 7 years (dates: 2010, 2016, 2016) — this data is significantly outdated and may not reflect current business practices.
• With only 3 reviews total, the sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions about consistent service quality.
• Two of three reviews are 1-star with specific, credible negative details (rudeness, incomplete work, overpricing, broken appointments, suspicious payment demands) — these are serious red flags.
• The 2010 review describes a pattern of deception (cash-only demand after credit card machine claimed to be down) which, if accurate, represents an ethical concern beyond mere service quality.
• No reviews are available from the past 12 months, making it impossible to assess current performance.

This WW Score carries very low reliability due to only 3 reviews, all of which are more than 7 years old, a small sample that splits sharply between one positive and two detailed negative experiences, and a complete absence of recent data.