Find Nearby Plumbers In Cutler Bay, Florida

This contractor has a mixed record across a very small review set. Three older positive reviews praise the owner Julio for being communicative, knowledgeable, clean, and thorough, which supports moderate scores in professionalism and experience. However, the most recent review (April 2024) is a serious 1-star complaint describing ignored warranty callbacks, work failures confirmed by other plumbers, and a complete breakdown in post-job communication — this heavily drags down the project completion score. Pricing was mentioned positively in only one review, making that dimension low confidence. The single most recent data point is a significant red flag that outweighs some of the older praise.

• RECENCY WARNING: The most recent review (April 2024) is a 1-star complaint alleging ignored warranty calls, failed workmanship confirmed by third-party plumbers, and unresponsiveness — this is the most current signal and carries elevated weight.
• SMALL SAMPLE WARNING: Only 5 reviews total. Scores are based on very limited data and should not be treated as statistically reliable.
• RECENCY IMBALANCE: Three of the four positive reviews are from 2021–2023, with one undated positive from January 2024. The contractor's recent behavior (2024) appears to diverge negatively from earlier performance.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERN: The 1-star review explicitly cites work failures months after completion and a refusal to honor a stated 1-year guarantee — a direct and serious project completion failure.
• POSSIBLE PATTERN: The positive reviews share some generic praise language ('highly recommend', 'very clean', 'very nice') but do include specific details (owner name, pipe lining process, kitchen area), so fake review suspicion is LOW but noted.

This WW Score has LOW overall reliability due to only 5 reviews, a wide date range spanning 2021–2024, and a critical recent negative review that directly contradicts the positive older reviews on key dimensions like project completion and responsiveness.

Professionalism receives a moderate score driven by two positive reviews praising courtesy, communication, and punctuality, offset by one negative review describing poor workmanship and no mention of professional conduct. Pricing is a clear weak point: one reviewer explicitly called the charges excessive for minimal materials and time, and a second noted the final cost exceeded the original estimate, while only one reviewer praised upfront pricing. Project completion is mixed — one reviewer required a callback to redo a poorly sealed toilet, and another noted the job took longer than expected, which meaningfully drags this critical dimension down. Experience scores conservatively given one explicit complaint about a 'horrendous job' requiring a redo, balanced against one reviewer noting a 'fantastic job,' leaving the overall picture uncertain with only limited data.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and unreliable until more reviews are available.
• One review is from 2021 and may not reflect current service quality; recency weighting applied mentally but limited data prevents strong conclusions.
• The 1-star review describes a callback situation (failed toilet reseal) which is a concrete, specific complaint and was weighted seriously in project_completion and experience scoring.
• The 5-star rating on the second review (longer than expected, charged more) appears inconsistent with the review text content, suggesting possible rating inflation or reviewer leniency — scored based on text, not star rating.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning over two years and should be considered low-reliability; a minimum of 8–10 recent reviews would be needed to produce a trustworthy assessment of this contractor.

With only 4 reviews spanning 2009–2016, this dataset is too small to calculate a reliable WW Score. The reviews present a deeply contradictory picture: one detailed, positive review from 2016 praises Tom's professionalism, fair pricing, quality workmanship, and character; however, three older reviews (2009–2014) document serious failures including no-shows without explanation, a price overrun of 102% above the original quote with no notice, and alleged non-payment of bills. The extreme recency gap and conflicting narratives make it impossible to determine current reliability.

• CRITICAL: Only 4 reviews total — below minimum threshold for reliable scoring
• SEVERE RECENCY ISSUE: Most negative reviews are 7–15 years old (2009–2014); single positive review is from 2016. No recent reviews to assess current business practices
• CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE: One highly detailed positive review conflicts sharply with three older negative reviews documenting serious failures (no-shows, price overruns, non-payment). Cannot reconcile without more recent data
• PRICE OVERRUN RED FLAG: 2011 review documents 102% cost overrun ($3,000–$3,500 quoted vs. $7,069 invoiced) with no change order or notice — suggests potential billing practices issue
• PROFESSIONALISM FAILURES: Two reviews document no-shows without explanation or follow-up (2014), raising serious questions about reliability and communication
• BUSINESS NAME CHANGE: Review mentions transition from 'Tom Connolly' to 'the dunwoody plumber' / 'Zoom Plumbing' — unclear if same entity or rebranding after negative history
• INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR CONFIDENCE: With only 1–3 mentions per dimension and extreme age disparity, all scores carry LIMITED or MODERATE confidence at best

This score should NOT be trusted for decision-making. The dataset is too small (4 reviews), too old (most from 2009–2014), and too contradictory to provide meaningful guidance. Any contractor selection based on this analysis alone would be high-risk. Current customer references and recent work samples are essential before engaging this contractor.

All three reviews are severely negative, describing King City Plumbing as dishonest, unprofessional, and incompetent. Reviewers report fraudulent bidding practices, shoddy workmanship, overcharging, incomplete projects, property damage, and aggressive worker behavior. The company was permanently banned from a major building after being caught red-handed committing fraud. However, with only 3 total reviews and all from 2012–2014 (10+ years old), this dataset is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The extreme negativity is consistent across all reviews, but recency is critically lacking.

• CRITICAL: All reviews are from 2012–2014 (10+ years old). No recent data available to assess current operations or whether company practices have changed.
• CRITICAL: Only 3 reviews total. Minimum threshold for reliable scoring is typically 5+ reviews.
• SEVERE PATTERN: All three reviews describe fraud, dishonesty, and incompetence. One review explicitly states the company was permanently banned from a building after being caught committing fraud.
• WORKER CONDUCT: One review describes a worker with 'anger issues' who broke property in a rage, suggesting serious personnel management problems.
• FINANCIAL MISCONDUCT: Multiple reviews allege overcharging, low-ball bidding to win contracts followed by fraud, and padding estimates with unnecessary services.
• PROJECT ABANDONMENT: Reviews describe incomplete work, missing deliverables, and property damage not remedied.

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume (3 reviews) and severe recency issues (all reviews 10+ years old). While the reviews are uniformly damning and describe serious misconduct including fraud and property damage, the age of the data makes it impossible to assess whether King City Plumbing's current operations reflect these historical practices. Do not rely on this analysis for decision-making without seeking current, recent reviews.

Both reviews are positive and speak to Carlos and his team being prompt, communicative, and personable, supporting a reasonable professionalism score. Pricing is explicitly called out as reasonable and a fraction of expected cost in one review, suggesting good value. The second review describes a complete, well-executed rerouting job with no damage to the home, supporting a strong project completion score. Technical skill is evidenced by use of camera inspection equipment and a creative rerouting solution. However, with only 2 reviews total, all scores must be treated as highly provisional and low-confidence.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are 5-star with no negative feedback; while the second review contains specific detail that adds credibility, the small sample size makes it impossible to assess consistency.
• Review dates are from 2020 and 2022 — both are older than 12 months from a typical 2024 analysis date, meaning recency weighting is a concern and current performance cannot be confirmed.
• Sample size is too small to detect or rule out fake review patterns with any confidence.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both over 2 years old, and should not be considered a reliable indicator of this contractor's current or consistent performance.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. The reviews present a stark contradiction: one 1-star review documents catastrophic project failure with refusal to address sewage backup issues post-completion, while one 5-star review praises punctuality, problem-solving, and fair pricing. This extreme polarity and minimal sample size prevent reliable scoring.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews provided — insufficient data for reliable WW Score calculation (minimum 3 required)
• EXTREME POLARITY: Reviews are contradictory (1-star vs 5-star) with no middle ground, suggesting either highly inconsistent service or potential data quality issues
• RECENCY CONCERN: Positive review is from April 2024 (7 months old); negative review is from November 2024 (recent). Recent failure is more indicative of current service quality
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: Negative review explicitly documents incomplete work (sewage backup not resolved) and refusal to honor callback obligation — this is a critical failure
• SAMPLE SIZE: With only 2 reviews, confidence in any dimension is inherently LIMITED regardless of mention count

This score cannot be calculated and should not be used for decision-making. The sample size of 2 reviews is far too small, and the extreme contradiction between reviews suggests either severe service inconsistency or data reliability concerns. The recent catastrophic failure documented in the November 2024 review is particularly concerning and warrants direct investigation before engaging this contractor.