Find Nearby Plumbers In Daytona Beach, Florida

Weems Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across dimensions. Professionalism is severely compromised by multiple no-shows, missed appointments, poor communication, and unprofessional office staff behavior—though some technicians (Marco, Armando, Dale, Mark) received praise. Project completion is problematic, with documented cases of abandoned work, extended delays, and failure to honor callbacks. Pricing is a major concern, with customers reporting bait-and-quote tactics, unexpected price increases, and charges perceived as excessive for residential work. Technical experience and workmanship quality are the strongest dimension, with skilled problem-solving noted when work is actually completed. The company's performance appears highly dependent on which technician is assigned and whether the job is small or large-scale.

• CRITICAL: Multiple documented no-shows and missed appointments across different years (2023, 2020, 2016, 2017) suggest systemic scheduling/reliability issues, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING RED FLAG: Pattern of quote-bait behavior documented—initial low quotes followed by significant price increases or refusal to honor original estimates. Customer in 2021 review explicitly states this is a deliberate business practice ('charges outrageous rates for basic plumbing work').
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERN: Office staff behavior flagged negatively in multiple reviews (2024, 2020, 2016). One 2024 review alleges potential theft/billing fraud by office staff.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RISK: Two reviews (2018, 2017) document major projects abandoned or severely delayed (5-month delay on house replumb; motel re-pipe incomplete with tenant loss). Suggests company may lack capacity for large jobs.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Stark contrast between 5-star reviews praising specific technicians (Marco, Armando, Dale, Mark) and 1-star reviews citing owner Herb directly. Suggests quality is highly variable and dependent on personnel assigned.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews are 2020-2024 (recent); older positive reviews (2015-2018) may reflect different business practices or standards.
• NO FAKE REVIEW INDICATORS: Reviews show genuine specificity, varied language, and credible detail. No suspicious patterns detected.

This WW Score of 62.8 should be treated with MODERATE confidence but interpreted as a warning signal. The company demonstrates genuine technical competence but is severely undermined by chronic reliability, communication, and pricing integrity issues. Customers should obtain detailed written quotes, confirm scheduling 24 hours prior, and consider alternatives for large projects or time-sensitive work.

TJ Plumbing shows severe and consistent deficiencies in professionalism and project completion, which are the two most heavily weighted dimensions. Multiple reviews document poor communication, missed appointments, no-shows without notification, and unresponsiveness to callbacks—patterns that appear across different time periods. Project completion issues include incomplete work, refusal to correct mistakes, and failure to follow customer specifications. While some reviews praise technical skill and fair pricing on successful jobs, the frequency and severity of negative experiences substantially outweigh positive ones. The company demonstrates inconsistent reliability and customer service.

• CRITICAL: Systematic pattern of no-shows and missed appointments documented in at least 4 separate reviews (2020-08-28, 2020-09-14, 2020-06-10, 2020-02-06), indicating operational dysfunction rather than isolated incidents.
• CRITICAL: Multiple complaints about poor communication and unresponsiveness to phone calls and callbacks across different years (2016, 2020, 2021), suggesting chronic management issue.
• CRITICAL: Documented instances of work not completed as specified or to customer requirements (2023-09-27 review: shower valves placed in wrong location, tub valves installed incorrectly; 2016-12-25 review: improper duct installation, overbilling, rude response to complaints).
• CRITICAL: Refusal to correct mistakes or honor callbacks (2023-09-27: 'TJ Plumbing refused to come correct their mistakes').
• Price inconsistency flagged: One review (2018-04-11) documents rapid hourly rate increases ($80-85 to $149.95 within 9 months), raising fairness concerns.
• Several reviews lack text content (3 blank reviews with ratings), reducing data quality slightly.
• Oldest review from 2000 is likely data error and excluded from recency analysis; most negative reviews cluster in 2020-2023 period, indicating ongoing issues.
• No evidence of fake reviews detected; complaints are specific, detailed, and corroborated across multiple independent reviewers.

This WW Score of 52.3 should be trusted with moderate-to-high confidence. The score is driven by consistent, detailed, and corroborated negative feedback across multiple dimensions spanning several years, particularly regarding professionalism and project completion. While some positive reviews acknowledge technical competence and fair pricing on completed jobs, the systematic nature of operational failures (no-shows, poor communication, incomplete work, refusal to correct mistakes) represents a material risk to customers. This company presents significant reliability concerns and should be approached with caution.

This contractor's review record is deeply mixed, with serious recurring complaints dragging down multiple dimensions. Professionalism is heavily penalized by multiple no-shows, a tech entering a woman's room without knocking, dismissive office staff, an owner who abandoned a job mid-completion in anger, and billing disputes — these are not minor issues. Project completion is similarly damaged by an abandoned sewer job, a broken septic pipe left unrepaired, a water heater old unit not removed as promised, and repeated missed appointments. Pricing receives a moderate score because some reviewers praised competitive estimates and fair value, while others reported overbilling for time and a final invoice that ballooned from $2,800 to $4,000. Experience scores somewhat better, as several reviewers acknowledged the work itself was technically competent when completed, and one reviewer noted the contractor correctly identified a problem another company missed entirely. The overall WW Score reflects a contractor with real technical capability undermined by serious and repeated failures in reliability, professionalism, and job follow-through.

• Multiple reviews describe abandoned or incomplete work, which is a serious pattern and not isolated incidents.
• A deeply concerning incident was reported in which a technician entered a woman's room without knocking while she was undressed, and the office staff blamed the victim rather than addressing the complaint appropriately.
• Billing irregularities appear in multiple reviews: one job went from $2,800 to $4,000 with a lien placed on the customer's home; another customer was charged for time the technician was not actively working.
• The owner reportedly left a job unfinished after becoming angry with the customer, leaving a kitchen drain disconnected on a Friday afternoon.
• Most reviews are older than 3 years, with the most recent usable review dated April 2021. Only one review falls within the past 12 months relative to a 2024 analysis window, significantly limiting recency confidence.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary substantially in tone, detail, rating, and content, suggesting authentic submissions.

The WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a reasonable volume of reviews with substantive detail, but is tempered by the age of most reviews and the absence of any recent data to confirm whether service quality has improved or declined.

This contractor's review profile is sharply divided between strongly positive and strongly negative experiences, making scoring difficult. On the positive side, multiple reviewers praised promptness, friendliness, and professional conduct, and several noted satisfactory workmanship. However, two serious negative reviews — one describing vulgar and threatening language from the owner and another describing a last-minute schedule abandonment that delayed a new construction project by two weeks — significantly drag down professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing received mixed signals: one reviewer praised fair pricing while another described an aggressive and rude response when they sourced cheaper fixtures. The overall picture is of an inconsistent contractor with real red flags around owner conduct and reliability.

• Two reviews explicitly describe the owner (Ben) as rude, threatening, or using vulgar language — this is a serious professionalism red flag that cannot be dismissed.
• One review describes a critical failure in project completion: the contractor did not inform the customer he was cancelling scheduled work until 6 days before the start date, causing a 2-week delay on a new construction home.
• Review dates span from 2011 to 2022 — the majority of reviews are more than 5 years old. Only one review (2022) falls within the past 3 years, severely limiting recency reliability.
• The positive reviews tend to be brief and generic (e.g., 'prompt, courteous and professional', 'excellent work', 'arrived on time') with limited specific detail, which reduces their evidentiary weight.
• Small sample size of only 7 reviews means individual outliers — both positive and negative — have outsized influence on the score. Treat all dimension scores with caution.

This WW Score should be treated with significant caution: the sample size is very small (7 reviews), most reviews are outdated (pre-2020), and the presence of two serious conduct-related complaints from different reviewers introduces meaningful risk that cannot be offset by the positive reviews.

Aloha Plumbing has a mixed record across all four dimensions. On the positive side, two older reviews praise prompt arrival, honest pricing advice, and solid workmanship on aged plumbing. However, a significant negative review from 2020 describes serious workmanship failures — missing a P-trap, uneven hot/cold lines — combined with a non-refundable $100 estimate fee and a refusal to return to fix errors without an additional charge, which heavily penalizes both project completion and pricing scores. Professionalism scores are dragged down by the reported unwillingness to honor a callback at no cost. The most recent review (2023) is positive but brief and lacks detail, limiting its scoring impact.

• Two of the four reviews are over 10 years old (2011, 2012) and should be weighted minimally; only one review is within the past 12 months.
• The 2023 review is very brief and generic with no specific details about the work performed, limiting its evidentiary value.
• The 1-star review from 2020 describes a serious workmanship failure (missing P-trap, uneven supply lines) and a refusal to remedy errors without additional charge — this is a significant red flag for both quality and customer service.
• Small sample size of only 4 reviews spanning over a decade makes it impossible to assess current, consistent performance with confidence.

This WW Score has LOW reliability due to only 4 reviews spanning 12+ years, a heavily skewed recency profile, and one detailed negative review describing both workmanship defects and poor complaint resolution that materially impacts multiple dimensions.

The three reviews present a sharply divided picture of this contractor. The two positive reviews (both from 2019) praise responsiveness, professionalism, and quality of work, while the most recent review (January 2024) describes serious failures including no callbacks for six weeks, abandoned trenches that killed grass, and poor cleanliness. The recency weighting significantly drags down scores, as the only recent data point is a damning 1-star review. Pricing was never mentioned in any review, so that dimension cannot be scored. Project completion is particularly concerning given the 2024 review's description of unfinished trench work and prolonged abandonment of the job.

• RECENCY WARNING: The two positive reviews are both from 2019 (over 5 years old). The only recent review (2024) is a 1-star complaint describing serious issues. Recent performance appears to have declined significantly.
• NO PRICING DATA: Not a single review mentions cost, quotes, or value. The pricing dimension cannot be scored at all.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 3 reviews total. This is the minimum threshold for a WW Score calculation and results should be treated with extreme caution.
• ABANDONED WORK FLAG: The 2024 review explicitly describes trenches left open long enough to kill grass and six weeks of no communication — a serious project completion failure that warrants strong caution for prospective customers.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 5 years, with the sole recent data point being a severe complaint; the score should be considered highly unreliable and prospective customers should seek significantly more current evidence before hiring.