Find Nearby Plumbers In Coral Springs, Florida

All four reviews speak positively about Chris at Red Light Plumbing, consistently highlighting his honesty, dependability, and professionalism — including proactive phone communication before a service visit and a fully stocked truck. Two reviews explicitly mention reasonable or fair pricing, supporting a solid but conservatively scored pricing dimension. Project completion is supported by three reviews describing successful resolution of real plumbing issues including a water leak and a hot water heater failure. Experience is reinforced across all four reviews with specific references to quality workmanship, not cutting corners, and technical problem-solving ability. However, the total review count is very low and all reviews are older than 12 months, which limits the reliability of this score.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• All reviews are dated between 2017 and 2022; none are within the past 12 months. Recent performance cannot be assessed.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback. While the reviews do contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformly perfect ratings warrant mild caution.
• One review comes from a real estate professional who has referred Chris multiple times — this may reflect a referral relationship rather than an independent customer experience.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, all older than 12 months, and should be considered a limited-confidence snapshot that requires more recent and voluminous review data before it can be fully trusted.

This contractor shows mixed performance across dimensions with significant data limitations. Professionalism scores moderately at 70 due to explicit praise in two reviews but undermined by one complaint of unprofessional behavior and serious concerns about non-responsiveness (unanswered calls/unreturned messages). Experience and project completion are rated higher based on positive feedback about technical skill and job follow-through, but pricing is a clear weakness with evidence of overcharging. The WW Score of 72.3 reflects a contractor with demonstrated technical ability but concerning gaps in communication, responsiveness, and pricing transparency. All scores are based on very few mentions (1–3 per dimension), making this assessment unreliable.

• CRITICAL: One review (2018-05-08) explicitly states the contractor does not pick up the phone or return calls—a severe professionalism and responsiveness failure that directly contradicts positive reviews from 2016–2017.
• One review is essentially blank (single period, 5-star rating from 2017-09-05)—appears to be spam or placeholder and was excluded from scoring.
• All reviews are older than 12 months (oldest from 2014, most recent from 2018). No recent data available to assess current performance.
• Only 5 reviews total with 1 unusable—sample size is very small and insufficient for reliable scoring.
• Pricing complaint (2014) explicitly mentions overcharging and upselling (bathroom renovation from simple leak repair), suggesting potential aggressive sales tactics.

This WW Score should be treated with significant caution due to very small sample size (4 usable reviews), all data older than 6+ years, and a critical unresolved contradiction regarding responsiveness that suggests either past service failure or outdated information.

Moody Plumbing has a deeply polarized review profile spanning over a decade. On the positive side, a large number of reviewers praise individual technicians and the owner Joe for being professional, courteous, knowledgeable, and responsive — with many repeat customers citing consistent quality. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension: a substantial and recurring pattern of complaints about price gouging, bait-and-switch quoting, undisclosed price increases, charging for incomplete or failed work, and billing disputes significantly drags down the pricing score. Project completion is also mixed — while many jobs are completed well and on time, there are notable failures including abandoned work, unresolved callbacks, jobs that required multiple return visits, and at least one allegation of a $100,000 job left unfinished. Experience scores moderately well overall, with many reviewers citing skilled diagnostics and quality workmanship, but offset by incidents of technicians unable to identify basic problems, improper installations, and damage left unrepaired. The overall WW Score of 68.4 reflects a contractor with genuine strengths in professionalism and technical skill but serious, repeated, and credible concerns around pricing transparency and job follow-through.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH SEVERITY: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2013–2024) describe bait-and-switch pricing, undisclosed price increases, charging for service calls when no work was performed, and billing significantly above quoted amounts. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: At least 3 reviews describe jobs that were not completed or required multiple return visits to fix the same problem. One review alleges a $100,000 job was abandoned entirely. Another describes a toilet repair that was never resolved despite multiple technician visits totaling $550.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews cite rude or dismissive office staff, failure to return calls, missed appointments without notification, and unapologetic responses to legitimate complaints. This is a recurring theme across multiple years.
• DAMAGE WITHOUT REMEDIATION: At least two reviews describe physical damage caused during service (scratched toilet, cracked attic panel, knocked-out recessed light, improperly cut drywall) that was not repaired or acknowledged by the company.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2010 to 2024. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) continue to show both strong positive and strong negative experiences, indicating the mixed quality profile is ongoing and not improving consistently.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews vary significantly in length, detail, specificity, tone, and rating. Named technicians (Joe, Tom, Martin, AJ, Matt, Wayne, Mario, Angel, Jared, Sebastian, Victor, Marc, Ronnie, Rich, Jim, Seb, Edison) appear across many reviews, lending authenticity. No coordinated fake review pattern identified.
• SCORE CONFIDENCE NOTE: Despite HIGH confidence labels due to mention volume, the pricing score of 52 should be treated as a serious warning signal. The volume and specificity of pricing complaints across many years is unusually high for a contractor with otherwise positive workmanship reviews.

This WW Score is based on 110 reviews spanning 14 years with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable — however, the deeply polarized nature of the reviews means the score masks significant risk, particularly around pricing transparency and job completion, and prospective customers should read negative reviews carefully before hiring.

Plumbing by Tyson has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most contested area: multiple positive reviews praise punctuality, communication, and attitude, but two detailed negative reviews describe no-shows without notice, a plumber abandoning a job, and an owner being verbally aggressive with a customer on the phone. Pricing is similarly split — several reviewers call it fair and transparent, while one detailed negative review describes what they characterize as predatory service call charges and inflated fees for repeat visits to fix the contractor's own errors. Project completion is a significant concern: two reviews explicitly describe unresolved callbacks, one escalating to flood damage and an insurance claim, and another describing a faucet installation left loose and then over-tightened. Experience scores moderately well among satisfied customers who describe neat, thorough, and knowledgeable work, but is undermined by accounts of sloppy faucet installation and unresolved leaks. The score reflects a contractor with genuine capability but a pattern of serious service failures that cannot be dismissed.

• RECENCY NOTE: Three of the five most positive reviews are dated 2019 or earlier, which is more than 5 years ago. The two most recent reviews (2024) include one strongly negative review, suggesting possible service quality decline over time.
• SERIOUS COMPLETION FAILURE: One review (2019-12-27) describes months of ignored callback requests, resulting in flood damage and an insurance claim — this is a high-severity flag for project completion reliability.
• PRICING MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: One detailed 2024 review alleges a $75 surprise service call charge for a one-minute visit, and a $250 charge to a friend for a 5-minute fix of the contractor's own prior work. These are specific, credible, and serious allegations.
• PROFESSIONALISM FAILURE: One review describes the owner yelling at a customer on the phone and fabricating claims that the customer was rude, while the contractor's own employee contradicted the owner's account on-site.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: One reviewer explicitly states the contractor stood them up on two separate days with no call or communication — a direct professionalism failure.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW-MODERATE: The cluster of five 5-star reviews dated within a 3-month window in mid-2019 (May–July) with generic praise and limited specifics warrants mild scrutiny, though some do include specific job details. No definitive fake review pattern confirmed, but noted.

This WW Score is based on 11 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions and carries HIGH confidence in its directional accuracy; however, the score reflects a genuinely polarized contractor where strong positive experiences coexist with serious, credible allegations of pricing abuse, abandoned work, and unprofessional conduct — prospective customers should weigh the negative reviews carefully rather than relying on the aggregate score alone.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews. Positive reviews (5 from 2018-2019) consistently praise professionalism, fair pricing, timely completion, and quality workmanship. However, negative reviews (3 from 2018-2021) document serious failures: no-shows without communication, broken promises regarding warranties and credits, and unprofessional staff behavior. The most recent negative review (2021) indicates reliability issues persist. While technical skill appears solid when work is completed, professionalism and project completion are undermined by documented failures to show up and honor commitments.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2018-2019 (3-5 years old). Most recent reviews (2021, 2020) are negative, suggesting potential service deterioration over time.
• RELIABILITY PATTERN: Multiple reviews document no-shows and failure to communicate (2021, 2018), indicating systemic professionalism issues.
• WARRANTY/CREDIT DISPUTE: 2021 review documents explicit broken promise regarding warranty credit, raising concerns about follow-through and honesty.
• STAFF INCONSISTENCY: Positive reviews mention 'Henry' and 'Andre' favorably; negative reviews cite 'Michelle' (co-owner) with severe professionalism complaints, suggesting inconsistent service quality depending on who handles the job.
• SMALL SAMPLE WITH POLARIZATION: 8 reviews split sharply (5 five-star, 3 one-star) with no middle ratings, which is atypical and warrants caution.

This score should be treated with caution due to stark polarization, recency bias toward negative reviews, and documented patterns of no-shows and broken promises that suggest reliability issues may be ongoing despite past positive work quality.

Kyle Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across all dimensions. While professionalism scores reasonably well (72) with many positive mentions of courteous, on-time technicians like Moses, Eddie, and Andrew, this is heavily offset by severe pricing concerns (48). Numerous reviews explicitly cite hidden fees (truck supply fee, undisclosed charges), overpricing on parts and labor, and lack of transparent pricing breakdowns. Project completion is problematic (65), with multiple reports of incomplete work, no-shows on callbacks, and abandoned jobs. Experience quality is mixed (68)—some technicians are highly skilled problem-solvers, while others are described as poorly trained, lazy, or incompetent. The company's downward trend is evident in recent reviews (2023-2024) compared to earlier years, suggesting deteriorating service standards.

• CRITICAL: Systematic pricing issues across 18+ reviews. Hidden 'truck supply fee' ($9) automatically added to invoices without disclosure. Multiple customers report being overcharged for parts and labor with refusal to provide transparent breakdowns. This appears to be company policy, not isolated incidents.
• CRITICAL: Project completion failures in recent reviews (2023-2024). Multiple reports of no-shows on callback appointments, abandoned work (plumber left with customer's shower handle and never returned), and incomplete repairs that fail shortly after completion.
• Pattern of inconsistent technician quality. Company admits to sending 'new' and 'poorly trained' technicians. Some reviews praise specific technicians (Moses, Eddie, Andrew) while others describe technicians as lazy, incompetent, or lacking knowledge of company procedures.
• Callback and responsiveness failures. Multiple customers report leaving messages with no return calls, being told to call back with credit card information, and scheduling delays of days to weeks.
• Recency concern: Most negative reviews cluster in 2023-2024 (recent) and 2018-2022 (mid-period), suggesting company quality has declined significantly from earlier years (2013-2017 had more positive reviews).
• Warranty and follow-up issues. Reports of work failing within weeks/months with company refusing responsibility. One customer reports shower cartridge installed backwards (hot/cold reversed) with three no-shows for correction.
• Potential pattern of upselling. Multiple reviews describe technicians recommending expensive replacements (full toilet replacement, new garbage disposal) when simpler repairs might suffice, and company refusing to provide cost estimates upfront.

This WW Score of 62.8 should be treated with MODERATE confidence but interpreted as a warning signal. While the score reflects genuine inconsistency, the systematic nature of pricing complaints and recent project completion failures suggest the true customer experience may be worse than the score indicates. The company appears to have deteriorated significantly in recent years. Prospective customers should be cautious and obtain detailed written quotes with transparent parts/labor breakdown before engaging services.