Find Nearby Plumbers In Daytona Beach, Florida

Grimaldi Plumbing shows mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism is supported by multiple mentions of promptness, helpfulness, and politeness, though one review alleges dishonesty and poor communication. Pricing receives moderate support with fair-price mentions balanced against overcharging allegations. Project completion is the weakest area, with one serious unresolved callback issue and one claim of incomplete work, offsetting positive emergency response examples. Technical skill is evident in positive reviews but undermined by the incomplete rough-in incident. The significant recency gap (most reviews are 4+ years old) and the stark polarity between 5-star and 1-star ratings reduce overall confidence.

• Extreme polarity: 3 five-star reviews, 1 three-star, and 1 one-star with no middle ratings suggests potential selection bias or service inconsistency
• Critical unresolved callback issue from 2015 review: customer reports incomplete work and no follow-up after promised investigation
• One review (2024-05-19) makes serious allegations of dishonesty and overcharging with no specific details provided
• Recency concern: 3 of 5 reviews are older than 4 years (2015, 2019, 2020); only 1 review from past 12 months
• Project completion dimension weakened by documented failure to follow through on callback and incomplete rough-in work

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (5 reviews), significant age of most data, extreme rating polarity, and documented project completion failures that were not resolved—these factors suggest the business may have inconsistent service quality or potential accountability issues.

All three reviews consistently praise Bill's responsiveness, communication, and professional demeanor, including on a holiday (New Year's Eve), which strongly supports a high professionalism score. Project completion is well-supported across all reviews, with jobs described as finished promptly and thoroughly even when scope expanded unexpectedly. Experience is evidenced by references to technical competence across plumbing, gas, and septic work, though the sample size is small. Pricing is entirely absent from all reviews, so no score can be assigned to that dimension. The overall WW Score is moderately reliable but should be treated with caution given only three reviews are available.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed — this is the minimum threshold for a WW Score calculation; results should be treated as preliminary.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings, which warrants mild caution, though each review contains specific, credible details (holiday service, remote coordination from Massachusetts, scope expansion) that reduce the likelihood of fake reviews.
• One review is from 2021 and one from 2022, meaning two of three reviews are older than 12 months relative to a 2024 evaluation date — recency weighting is limited.
• Pricing dimension has zero data — this is a meaningful gap and consumers should independently verify cost fairness before hiring.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews with no pricing data available, making it a low-sample, limited-confidence estimate that should not be treated as a definitive assessment of this contractor's overall quality.

This small family-run plumbing business receives generally positive feedback across professionalism and project completion, with reviewers noting punctuality, helpfulness, and follow-through on commitments. The one pricing-related review raises a concern about transparency — the customer felt surprised by a $75 call-out fee on top of the hourly rate, suggesting costs may not be clearly communicated upfront. Workmanship is described as competent but reviews lack detailed technical commentary, limiting confidence in the experience dimension. All reviews are older than 12 months (the most recent being from May 2020), which meaningfully reduces the reliability of this score for current performance. With only 4 reviews total, no dimension reaches full confidence and the WW Score should be treated as a preliminary indicator only.

• All 4 reviews are dated between 2015 and 2020 — none are within the past 12 months. This score may not reflect current performance.
• Only 4 reviews total — insufficient volume to establish high confidence in any dimension.
• The 3-star review explicitly flags a lack of pricing transparency, specifically an undisclosed $75 call-out fee. This is the only pricing data point and pulls the pricing score down significantly.
• Two of the 5-star reviews (2018 and 2019) are brief and lack specific detail, which slightly reduces their evidentiary weight, though they do not appear to be fake — they contain distinct personal context.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, all more than 4 years old, and should be considered a low-confidence preliminary estimate — prospective customers are strongly encouraged to seek more recent references before making a hiring decision.

Benjamin Franklin Plumbing receives consistently strong marks for professionalism, punctuality, and technical competence from a large volume of reviewers, with many customers praising courteous, knowledgeable technicians who arrive on time and explain their work clearly. However, pricing is the single most dominant negative theme across thousands of reviews, with an extraordinary number of customers reporting charges that are two to five times higher than competing plumbers for identical work — a pattern so consistent and widespread it significantly drags down the overall score. Project completion is mixed: while most jobs are finished correctly, a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, warranty disputes, no-shows, and situations where problems were not resolved on the first visit. Experience scores are moderate-to-good, with many technicians demonstrating genuine expertise, but offset by recurring reports of misdiagnosis, unnecessary upselling, and technicians who appeared to lack knowledge for the specific job at hand.

• PRICING CONCERN — Extreme and consistent overpricing is the single most reported issue across this review set, spanning thousands of individual reviews across multiple years and franchise locations. Customers routinely report paying 2x–5x the market rate for standard jobs. This is not isolated; it appears to be a systemic franchise pricing model.
• UPSELLING PATTERN — A very large number of reviews describe aggressive or misleading upselling tactics, including recommending unnecessary full replacements instead of repairs, inflated estimates that drop significantly when the customer pushes back, and high-pressure sales pitches for service contracts.
• FRANCHISE INCONSISTENCY — Reviews span many different franchise locations operating under the Benjamin Franklin Plumbing brand. Quality, pricing, and professionalism vary significantly by location, making aggregate scores less reliable for any single location.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — A significant portion of reviews (estimated 15–20%) contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These blank 5-star reviews are a known pattern associated with review padding. Confidence in the positive score distribution is reduced accordingly.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED — Multiple reviews appear to be exact duplicates (identical text, same or adjacent dates), suggesting possible review manipulation or system errors in the data set.
• WARRANTY AND FOLLOW-THROUGH ISSUES — Dozens of reviews describe warranty disputes, failure to honor service agreements, no-call no-shows on scheduled return visits, and management that was unresponsive to complaints — indicating systemic customer service failures beyond individual technician performance.
• ELDERLY AND VULNERABLE CUSTOMER EXPLOITATION — Multiple reviews explicitly describe situations where elderly or vulnerable customers were quoted prices far above market rate, with some reviewers alleging deliberate targeting of people who lacked knowledge to push back.
• RECENCY NOTE — Reviews span from approximately 2004 to June 2025. The most recent reviews (2025) continue to show the same pricing complaints and mixed service quality as older reviews, suggesting no meaningful improvement over time.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review dataset and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy; however, the score should be interpreted with caution because it aggregates multiple franchise locations under one brand, a significant volume of blank 5-star reviews artificially inflates the raw rating, and the pricing dimension — which is overwhelmingly negative — is the most reliable and consistent signal in the entire dataset.

This aggregated review set covers multiple distinct businesses operating under similar or shared names (Norfolk Plumbing, Rod-O-Matic, Patriot Plumbing across multiple geographic locations including Virginia, California, Florida, Missouri, and others), which severely limits the reliability of a single composite score. The positive reviews — concentrated heavily in 2024–2025 — describe prompt, professional, knowledgeable technicians and fair pricing, with many customers expressing strong loyalty and repeat use. However, a very large volume of deeply negative reviews, particularly associated with the Patriot Plumbing brand operating through home warranty companies (American Home Shield, AHS, HMS, 2-10), describe a consistent and serious pattern of alleged fraud: misdiagnosis to avoid warranty coverage, unnecessary upsell charges, cash-only payment demands, abandoned jobs, failure to return calls, rude or threatening behavior by owners and staff, and work left incomplete or made worse. The pricing dimension is particularly polarized — praised as fair and competitive by direct customers, but condemned as exploitative and deceptive by home warranty customers. Project completion scores are dragged down significantly by numerous accounts of jobs not finished, technicians leaving without completing work, and repeat visits failing to resolve issues.

• CRITICAL: These reviews appear to represent multiple distinct businesses operating under the same or similar names across different U.S. states (Virginia, California, Florida, Missouri, Ohio, and others). A single WW Score is not reliable for this dataset and should not be used to evaluate any single contractor.
• SUSPECTED FAKE OR INCENTIVIZED REVIEWS: A significant cluster of 5-star reviews with no text (rating only) are present throughout the dataset. Additionally, several reviews from the same date batches (e.g., 2025-06-07, 2025-05-26, 2025-04-10, 2023-06-10) appear to be bulk-submitted with generic praise and no specifics, suggesting possible solicited or incentivized review campaigns.
• FRAUD PATTERN DETECTED: A large and consistent pattern across dozens of negative reviews describes Patriot Plumbing (particularly the home warranty-contracted version) deliberately misdiagnosing issues, adding non-covered charges, demanding cash-only payment, and failing to complete work — consistent with a systematic scheme to extract out-of-pocket payments from home warranty customers.
• OWNER CONDUCT WARNINGS: Multiple independent reviewers describe the owner (referred to as Kirk, Steve, or Jimmy depending on location) as verbally abusive, threatening, showing up at customers' homes to demand payment, sending threatening texts, and in one case allegedly cutting a customer's water pressure line in retaliation.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) skew heavily positive and appear to represent different branch locations or operators than the older negative reviews. Older reviews (2018–2023) contain the highest concentration of serious complaints. Recency weighting partially improves the score but does not eliminate the serious concerns.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review describing Mike and Steven fixing a leak behind a shower appears verbatim twice (2024-06-09 and 2023-07-25), suggesting a copy-paste or system duplication.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review about being without a water heater for over a month appears verbatim twice (2022-11-12), suggesting a system duplication.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review about avoiding the company and paying $750 for modifications appears verbatim twice (2020-07-22), suggesting a system duplication.
• NON-PLUMBING REVIEWS PRESENT: Several reviews reference HVAC, electrical, and AC work (Nick's reviews from 2024-06-09), which are outside the scope of plumbing contractor evaluation and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• UNPERMITTED WORK ALLEGATION: At least one reviewer explicitly states Patriot Plumbing performed a full repipe without pulling a permit and that the matter was under investigation by the California State Contractors Board.

This WW Score of 62.1 should be treated with very low confidence as a guide to any single contractor, as the dataset aggregates reviews for multiple distinct businesses across different states and ownership structures; the score reflects a deeply divided customer base where direct-hire customers report largely positive experiences while home warranty-referred customers report a consistent and serious pattern of alleged fraud, incomplete work, and unprofessional conduct.

Suncoast Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 2016–2023. While positive reviews praise Mike's professionalism, fair pricing, and quality workmanship on water heater and valve jobs, multiple negative reviews document serious failures: incomplete work left unfinished for weeks, missed callbacks, unprofessional communication (hanging up on customers), incorrect diagnoses (gas leak misidentified), damaged property (dishwasher door), and overcharging for warranty work. Professionalism scores are dragged down by documented rudeness, poor phone responsiveness, and scheduling failures. Project completion is compromised by abandoned jobs and unresolved issues. Experience is supported by successful technical work when completed, but undermined by diagnostic errors and incomplete repairs. The company appears to deliver quality when engaged but struggles with follow-through, accountability, and customer respect.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are 2017–2021; recent reviews (2023) are predominantly positive. This suggests either improved operations or a shift in customer base, but older complaints are severe and documented.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Same company name but vastly different outcomes across reviews. Some jobs praised as 'impeccable,' others left incomplete for 3+ weeks with no callback.
• CALLBACK FAILURES: Multiple reviews explicitly mention ignored calls, missed follow-up appointments, and lack of communication after initial service.
• DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS: Gas leak case (2018) shows technician failed to identify actual problem, creating safety hazard. Dishwasher case (2020) shows wrong part ordered and damage caused.
• UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT: Documented instances of hanging up on customers, cursing, refusing to provide inspection footage, and dismissive tone ('No Mama this is not an error').
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY: Mixed signals—some reviews praise 'fair pricing,' others report shock at estimates and overcharging for warranty work. Travel time and minimum hour charges not always disclosed upfront.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While based on 16 reviews with substantial mentions across all dimensions, the extreme polarization (five 5-star reviews vs. five 1-star reviews) and documented service failures—particularly incomplete work, missed callbacks, and safety issues—indicate this company is unreliable despite occasional excellence. Recent positive trend is noted but does not offset pattern of accountability failures and unprofessional conduct documented in earlier reviews.