Find Nearby Plumbers In Deltona, Florida

This contractor's reviews paint a deeply concerning picture across nearly all dimensions. Professionalism is the most heavily flagged area, with multiple reviews describing rude, aggressive, and dismissive behavior from technicians — including one incident where workers refused to leave the premises and another where a company blocked a customer's phone number after causing property damage. Pricing is a significant concern as well, with two reviewers explicitly describing being overcharged or ripped off, including an $800 charge for under one hour of work requiring no digging. Project completion is mixed: two positive reviews describe successful repairs, but two negative reviews describe work that either caused new damage or had to be entirely redone within months. The few positive reviews — primarily from 2021 — describe knowledgeable and professional technicians, suggesting inconsistency in staff quality rather than a uniformly skilled workforce.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The three most recent reviews (2023–2024) are all 1-star. The two positive reviews with detail are from late 2021, over 2.5 years ago. Current performance appears significantly worse than historical performance.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE INCIDENT: One reviewer (2020) explicitly states the technician caused sewage to flow into their garage, the company refused to remedy the situation, and then blocked the customer's phone number — a serious liability and conduct flag.
• PRICING ABUSE FLAG: Two separate reviewers explicitly allege price gouging or being taken advantage of, including a documented $800 charge for less than one hour of work with no digging required.
• WORKER CONDUCT FLAG: One reviewer describes workers refusing to leave the premises after being asked, yelling at customers for payment before work was complete, and requiring a field supervisor to intervene — suggesting a pattern of aggressive behavior.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURE: One reviewer had the same job redone by another company for $370 after Mr. Rooter charged $2,000 for work that failed within 8 months, indicating potential quality control issues.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 7 reviews total. Scores should be treated with caution despite some HIGH confidence labels, as the small sample size limits statistical reliability.

This WW Score of 34.2 is based on only 7 reviews spanning 4 years, but the consistency of serious complaints across professionalism, pricing, and project completion — particularly in the most recent reviews — gives moderate reliability to the conclusion that this contractor currently poses significant risk to consumers.

This contractor demonstrates severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by repeated no-shows, failure to communicate delays, hung-up calls, and language barriers that impede customer communication. Project completion is severely hampered by repeated failed attempts at the same work, abandoned appointments, and inability to complete basic installations correctly. Pricing is exploitative, with a $175 labor charge for one hour of work on a $30 faucet installation. Technical experience is questionable, with documented inability to properly install water heaters and basic plumbing fixtures. All four reviews are from 2016–2022 and consistently report the same failure patterns.

• CRITICAL: All four reviews are uniformly negative (1-star ratings) with consistent patterns of no-shows, poor communication, and incomplete work. This is not a fake review pattern but rather a genuine pattern of systemic service failure.
• Review dates span 2016–2022 (6+ years), indicating long-standing operational problems rather than isolated incidents.
• Multiple independent complaints about the same core issues (no-shows, communication failures, incomplete work) across different time periods suggests structural business problems.
• Language barrier mentioned as impediment to customer communication.
• Pricing complaint is explicit and specific ($175 for 1 hour labor on $30 faucet), indicating potential overcharging practices.

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient data (only 4 reviews), but the available evidence overwhelmingly indicates severe and persistent service failures across professionalism, completion, and pricing. This contractor should be considered high-risk based on the consistency and severity of complaints.

This contractor cannot be reliably scored due to insufficient review volume (only 3 reviews) and severe data quality issues. The reviews span 15 years (2007–2022), with the oldest review being 17 years old, limiting relevance. Two reviews describe serious professional misconduct: intoxicated driving with hit-and-run behavior, uninsured operation, and refusal to honor warranty work. The third review documents incomplete repairs and poor responsiveness. No pricing information is available. The extreme severity and consistency of negative findings across all three reviews suggests a pattern of serious business and ethical failures, but the small sample size and age of data prevent a statistically reliable WW Score calculation.

• CRITICAL: Business license cancelled in 1996 per first review — contractor may not be legally operating
• CRITICAL: First review describes criminal conduct (intoxicated driving, hit-and-run, uninsured vehicle operation) — this is a legal/safety red flag, not a service quality issue
• CRITICAL: Second review documents refusal to honor warranty on installed equipment (tankless water heater) — potential breach of contract
• CRITICAL: Review dates span 15 years (2007–2022) with oldest review from 2007 — data is severely outdated and may not reflect current operations
• All three reviews are 1-star with no positive mentions — pattern is consistent but sample size is too small for statistical confidence
• No reviews mention pricing, making Price Friendly dimension unscoreable

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=3, minimum threshold is typically 5+) and severe recency issues (oldest review is 17 years old). The consistent pattern of serious professional and legal failures across all available reviews is concerning, but the small sample and outdated data prevent a trustworthy WW Score. Do not rely on this analysis for contractor selection — seek current references and verify business licensing status independently.

Service One demonstrates severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by rude technician behavior, poor communication (making repairs without consultation), and unresponsive management. Pricing practices are predatory, with inflated quotes ($750 for toilet repair vs. $160 handyman cost), aggressive upselling, and unwillingness to honor warranty obligations. Project completion is undermined by technicians exacerbating problems rather than solving them and company refusal to take accountability. Technical expertise is questionable given repeated failures to diagnose and fix root causes (white gunk clogging AC system). All three reviews are uniformly negative with specific, detailed complaints rather than generic criticism.

• All three reviews are 1-star ratings with consistent themes of poor service, suggesting systemic issues rather than isolated incidents
• Reviews span 2022-2023, indicating problems are not recent anomalies but ongoing patterns
• Multiple reviews describe company refusing to take responsibility for mistakes and warranty failures
• Evidence of aggressive sales tactics and bill padding (seeking to 'build up the bill,' charging $800 for cleaning when problem was systemic)
• Insufficient review volume (n=3) limits statistical reliability, but consistency of negative feedback is notable

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (fewer than 3 usable reviews would normally trigger rejection, but exactly 3 reviews are present). However, the three reviews available show remarkably consistent and specific negative patterns across professionalism, pricing, and completion dimensions, suggesting genuine systemic problems rather than random variation. Any engagement with this contractor carries substantial risk based on available evidence.

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 3 reviews were analyzed, falling below the minimum threshold of 5 reviews needed for confidence. Two reviews (from 2020 and 2018) contain serious allegations: incomplete work on a leak repair, dismissive co-owner behavior, and poor receptionist communication regarding pricing concerns. One review (from 2016) is unrelated to actual service quality and appears to praise only a random act of kindness by a truck driver. All dimensions are based on very limited mentions (1–2 each), making any aggregate score unreliable.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold for reliable scoring
• RECENCY ISSUE: Reviews are 4–8 years old (2016–2020); no recent data available
• FAKE REVIEW DETECTED: Review dated 2016-07-15 does not assess actual service quality; reviewer explicitly states 'I can't speak to their service' and praises only a random act of kindness unrelated to plumbing work
• SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS: Two 1-star reviews allege incomplete work (leak not fixed), dismissive management, and poor customer service communication
• INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE: Each dimension mentioned in only 1–2 reviews; confidence levels are all LIMITED or lower

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=3, minimum 5 required), extreme age of reviews (4–8 years old with no recent data), presence of a non-service-related review, and very limited mentions per dimension. Any score derived would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

All three reviews are uniformly positive (5-star ratings) with consistent praise for professionalism, speed, and work quality. Professionalism is mentioned across all reviews, highlighting punctuality, politeness, and communication. Project completion is strongly supported with explicit mentions of work being finished completely and efficiently. Pricing is mentioned only once as 'super affordable.' However, the extremely small sample size (n=3) combined with suspiciously uniform language patterns and lack of any critical feedback limits confidence in these scores.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 reviews analyzed — insufficient for reliable WW Score calculation per Step 4 guidelines
• SUSPICIOUS PATTERN: All reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback or specific complaints — unusually uniform sentiment
• LANGUAGE REPETITION: Phrases like 'super professional,' 'fast,' and 'polite' appear across multiple reviews with similar structure, suggesting possible review manipulation or template-based responses
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two of three reviews are from 2020 (3+ years old); only one review from 2023 provides recent data
• LIMITED PRICING DATA: Only 1 review mentions pricing; insufficient to establish fair pricing assessment
• GENERIC PRAISE: Reviews lack specific technical details about workmanship or problem-solving, relying instead on general compliments

This score should NOT be trusted for decision-making. The sample size is far too small (n=3), review dates are predominantly outdated (2020), and the uniformly positive language with no substantive criticism raises concerns about review authenticity. A minimum of 10-15 recent, diverse reviews is required for a reliable WW Score.