Find Nearby Plumbers In Coral Springs, Florida

Milan and Son Plumbing shows a mixed but generally positive track record across a very small review set. Professionalism scores moderately well, with multiple reviewers praising courteous, friendly, and responsive behavior — including same-day communication and follow-through — though one review flags unprofessional conduct by a company vehicle driver (littering). Project completion is the most concerning dimension: one reviewer explicitly states the job was never completed and money was lost, which significantly drags down an otherwise positive signal from other reviewers who report successful, timely work. Experience is supported by a few reviews noting efficient, skilled work including a water heater installation and a complex pipe repair, but the sample is too small to draw firm conclusions. Pricing is mentioned only once, with a positive note about staying within budget, making that score low-confidence.

• CRITICAL: One reviewer explicitly reports job abandonment and financial loss with no resolution — this is a serious red flag for project completion reliability.
• All reviews are dated between 2016 and 2018 — none are within the past 12 months. This score may not reflect current business performance.
• Review set is very small (5 reviews total). Scores and the WW Score should be treated as highly provisional.
• The 1-star littering review contains no information about plumbing work quality and was excluded from dimension scoring but noted as a professionalism concern.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in tone, detail level, and rating, suggesting authentic submissions.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning 2016–2018, with no recent data available, making it LOW reliability — treat all scores as directional indicators only and seek more current references before hiring.

Two of the three reviews are strongly positive, praising punctuality, transparency, honesty, and professional conduct from a technician named Eli. However, a 1-star review explicitly alleges the contractor is not licensed and accuses them of deceptive pricing practices, which is a serious red flag that significantly tempers the otherwise positive picture. The licensing allegation in particular directly undermines confidence in the experience and professionalism dimensions. With only 3 reviews spanning roughly two years, the dataset is too small to draw reliable conclusions, and the single negative review carries disproportionate weight given the low total volume.

• SERIOUS FLAG: One reviewer explicitly states the contractor is 'not licensed' — if accurate, this is a critical legal and safety concern that should be independently verified before hiring.
• PRICING CONCERN: The 1-star review accuses the contractor of deceptive pricing ('digging in your pocket'), which directly contradicts the positive reviews praising transparency. This conflict cannot be resolved with only 3 reviews.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 3 reviews are available, making any score highly unreliable. A single negative review represents 33% of all feedback.
• RECENCY CONCERN: All three reviews are from 2020–2021, meaning no reviews exist from the past 3+ years. Business quality and licensing status may have changed significantly since then.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW AWARENESS: The two positive reviews use somewhat generic praise language, though they do include specific details (technician name 'Eli', referral source 'Cohen Plumbing') that reduce — but do not eliminate — concern about authenticity.

This WW Score carries very low reliability due to the minimal review count (3 total), the presence of a serious unresolved licensing allegation, and the fact that all reviews are over 3 years old — this score should not be used as a meaningful basis for hiring decisions without further independent verification.

DAG Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Positive reviews praise punctuality, politeness, honesty, and technical competence, while a significant cluster of negative reviews describes inexperienced technicians, failed repairs, dismissive office staff, and unresolved follow-through issues. Project completion is the weakest area, with multiple reviewers explicitly stating that jobs were left incomplete, mistakes were refused to be corrected, or promised callbacks never materialized. Pricing feedback is similarly split — some customers found pricing fair and transparent, while others reported unexpected upcharges, a mandatory 4% credit card fee with no alternatives, and charges for work that did not resolve the problem. The volume and specificity of negative reviews prevent any dimension from scoring above the mid-range.

• Significant recency concern: the two most recent reviews (2024 and 2023) include one negative and one positive, but the majority of positive reviews are from 2016–2020, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.
• The negative reviews are notably more detailed and specific than several of the positive reviews, which increases their credibility weight.
• Two positive reviews from 2016 are over 8 years old and carry minimal weight in the current assessment.
• No fake review patterns detected — both positive and negative reviews contain specific details, names, and scenarios that appear authentic.

This WW Score is based on 11 reviews spanning 2016–2024 with usable data across all four dimensions, yielding HIGH confidence in the score directionally, though the wide date range and clear service quality decline over time mean the score should be interpreted cautiously — recent performance appears meaningfully worse than historical performance.

This contractor's review record is deeply polarized: a large cluster of enthusiastic 5-star reviews praising individual technicians (Bo, Gavin, Ace, Alan, Jordan) for professionalism, punctuality, and cleanliness sits alongside a substantial and detailed body of 1-star reviews citing severe price gouging, abandoned jobs, no-shows, and dishonest billing practices. Pricing is the single most damaging dimension, with dozens of reviewers explicitly describing quotes that were two to five times competitor rates, refusals to provide itemized breakdowns, and bait-and-switch quoting behavior. Project completion is also significantly undermined by multiple accounts of work left incomplete, guarantees not honored, and technicians failing to show up after confirmed appointments. Professionalism scores moderately because individual technicians frequently receive praise for courtesy and cleanliness, but management and office conduct repeatedly draws sharp criticism for dismissiveness, threats, and broken commitments. Experience is mixed, with some reviewers praising diagnostic skill while others describe technicians unable to complete standard installations or misdiagnosing problems that competitors resolved quickly and cheaply.

• SUSPECTED REVIEW CLUSTERING: A dense group of 5-star reviews from 2018-2019 repeatedly name the same technician 'Bo' and use similar phrasing ('shoe covers', 'professional and courteous', 'highly recommend'). While not conclusively fake, the pattern warrants caution and these reviews may inflate the professionalism and experience scores.
• COMPANY NAME INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference at least three distinct business names — 'Rapid Rooter', 'Rhino Rooter', and 'Roto Rooter'. It is possible some reviews describe different companies or a rebranding. Scores may reflect mixed entities.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2021-2023) are predominantly 1-star and focus heavily on price gouging and no-shows, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time. The positive review cluster is concentrated in 2017-2019 and should be weighted accordingly.
• MANAGEMENT CONDUCT: Multiple independent reviewers describe the owner or manager threatening legal action in response to negative reviews, refusing to provide itemized quotes, and failing to honor verbal commitments. This is a significant red flag beyond normal service complaints.
• ABANDONED WORK: At least three reviews explicitly describe technicians leaving jobs incomplete and still charging for the visit, which is a serious project completion failure.
• PRICE GOUGING PATTERN: Pricing complaints are not isolated — they span from 2008 through 2023 across multiple reviewers with specific dollar figures cited, indicating a systemic rather than occasional issue.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (75 reviews) with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically reliable; however, the suspected clustering of similar 5-star reviews in 2018-2019 and the possible multi-entity naming issue introduce meaningful uncertainty, and prospective customers should weight the detailed negative reviews — particularly those from 2021-2023 — heavily when making a hiring decision.

This contractor's review history tells a deeply divided story split across two distinct time periods. Reviews from 2011 through 2020 consistently praise Richard and All Pro Pools for professionalism, communication, technical knowledge, and timely project completion. However, the two most recent reviews from early 2023 describe a serious and alarming pattern: projects abandoned after months or years of delays, deposits taken with no work completed, and the owner becoming unreachable. Project completion receives the heaviest scoring penalty because abandonment is the most severe failure in that dimension, and the two recent 1-star reviews explicitly describe it. Professionalism is similarly dragged down by the reported pattern of stopped communication and ghosting clients. The older positive reviews prevent scores from bottoming out entirely, but the recency weighting required by Rule 6 means the 2023 complaints carry disproportionate importance.

• RECENCY WARNING: The two most recent reviews (Jan–Feb 2023) both describe project abandonment and financial loss. These are the most current data points and must be weighted most heavily per Rule 6.
• SEVERE PATTERN FLAG: Multiple 1-star reviews describe near-identical experiences — deposit paid, project stalled for 1–2 years, owner stopped answering calls, project abandoned. This is a consistent and credible pattern of contractor misconduct, not isolated incidents.
• TEMPORAL SPLIT: All 5-star reviews are from 2014–2020. All 1-star reviews are from 2023. This suggests a possible significant decline in business reliability or operational capacity in recent years.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW CONCERN (MINOR): Two 5-star reviews posted within 3 days of each other in April 2020 use similar language around professionalism and follow-through. While not conclusive, this warrants mild skepticism about those two specific reviews.
• FINANCIAL HARM REPORTED: At least two reviewers explicitly state monetary loss due to deposits paid and work not performed. This elevates the severity of the negative reviews beyond typical dissatisfaction.

This WW Score has MODERATE overall reliability — the volume of reviews is low (9 total), the positive reviews are largely outdated (2011–2020), and the two most recent reviews describe serious misconduct including project abandonment and financial loss, which significantly undermines confidence in this contractor's current performance.

The review set is deeply polarized, with a cluster of enthusiastic 5-star reviews offset by a significant number of detailed 1-star complaints that describe serious issues including uncertified plumbers, incomplete and incorrect work, overcharging, hidden billing practices, and verbally abusive ownership. Professionalism scores were dragged down substantially by multiple accounts of rude and argumentative owner behavior, credit card pre-authorization concerns, and a phone message refusing all new work. Pricing received negative mentions for overcharging and a $330 bill for an unresolved toilet leak, partially offset by a few reviewers who praised fair and transparent quotes. Project completion is a major concern, with at least two reviews describing work left unfinished or done incorrectly multiple times, including a water heater installed in the wrong location twice. Experience scores reflect a mixed picture: some reviewers praised knowledgeable and skilled plumbers, while others explicitly stated that the company employs uncertified or non-journeyman plumbers and that work had to be redone by a competing company.

• OWNERSHIP CHANGE WARNING: Multiple reviews explicitly note the company changed ownership, and negative reviews are concentrated in the post-ownership-change period. Positive reviews may largely reflect the prior owner's reputation and should not be attributed to the current business.
• POTENTIAL FAKE OR GENERIC REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews use vague, non-specific praise ('best employees,' 'fast reliable service,' 'highest recommendation') with no job details, names, or specifics. These may not reflect genuine customer experiences.
• LEGAL/LICENSING CONCERN: Two separate reviewers allege the company employs uncertified or non-journeyman plumbers and that the company may be operating illegally. One reviewer warns of potential property liens for homeowners.
• RECENCY WARNING: All reviews are from 2015–2018. No reviews from the past 12 months (relative to the most recent date in the dataset) are present. The current state of the business is unknown and this score should not be treated as current.
• ONE BLANK REVIEW: One review contained no text (5-star, 2017). It was excluded from usable data as it provides no scorable information.
• INSIDER REVIEW: One review is from a former 14-year employee announcing their departure and new business. This review is not a customer experience and was excluded from dimension scoring, though it corroborates the ownership change narrative.

This WW Score carries LOW practical reliability due to a confirmed ownership change that splits the review history into two distinct business eras, credible allegations of unlicensed work, a complete absence of recent reviews, and a polarized review pattern that suggests the current business may perform significantly worse than the aggregate score implies.