Find Nearby Plumbers In Deltona, Florida

Sam T's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with Phillip consistently praised for courtesy, knowledge, and responsiveness across 38 reviews. Project completion is solid with most jobs finished promptly and thoroughly. However, pricing is a significant weakness, with 12 reviews explicitly criticizing costs as excessive, unfair, or poorly explained—including complaints about diagnostic fees, inflated labor charges, and failure to honor promised discounts. The company shows inconsistency in follow-through on callbacks and commitments. While workmanship quality is generally high, the pricing concerns and occasional service failures substantially reduce overall trustworthiness.

• PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews (12 total) cite excessive charges for simple jobs, diagnostic fees, and failure to honor discounts. This is the most consistent negative theme.
• SERVICE RELIABILITY: Several reviews report no-shows, unreturned calls, and broken commitments (2020, 2023, 2023 reviews), suggesting operational inconsistency.
• DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY: One 2022 review reports incorrect slab leak diagnosis ($444 charge) later found to be a wall leak fixable for $800 by competitor. Management did not respond to complaint.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) are uniformly 5-star with minimal detail, while older reviews (2017-2023) show more balanced criticism. This may indicate review selection bias or improved service in recent months.
• PHILLIP DEPENDENCY: Overwhelming majority of positive reviews specifically mention 'Phillip' by name, suggesting service quality is heavily dependent on one technician rather than consistent company standards.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While professionalism and experience scores are well-supported by 22-38 mentions, the pricing score is based on only 12 mentions and reveals a critical vulnerability. The company's inconsistent service delivery (no-shows, unreturned calls) and pricing complaints significantly undermine trust despite strong technical competence. Recent reviews are suspiciously uniform and lack detail, reducing confidence in current performance assessment.

Holland Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally professional conduct, with many customers praising specific technicians like Joey, Jay, and Kevin for their skill and responsiveness. However, the company is significantly hampered by inconsistent project completion and follow-through, with multiple documented cases of no-shows, delayed callbacks, incomplete work, and unresolved refund promises. Pricing is mixed—some customers report fair value and competitive quotes, while others cite price gouging and significant overcharges. The most critical weakness is communication and accountability after service is rendered, which directly undermines customer trust despite strong initial interactions.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews dated 2024-06-09 with nearly identical 5-star ratings and generic praise ('great job,' 'highly recommended,' 'professional') suggest potential review manipulation or bulk posting. These reviews lack specific details about work performed.
• SERIOUS OPERATIONAL ISSUES: At least 6 reviews document no-shows, missed callbacks, or failure to complete promised follow-up work. This is a systemic problem, not isolated incidents.
• UNRESOLVED REFUND DISPUTES: Multiple customers report promised refunds that were never issued (e.g., vanity install refund after 1+ month, salon sink repair).
• PRICE INCONSISTENCY: Wide variance in pricing practices—some customers report fair quotes, others report significant overcharges (e.g., $895 for 1.5-hour job, $6000 in repairs due to installation errors, $200 for incomplete work).
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Customers report being blocked, ignored, accused of dishonesty, and receiving rude phone responses from office staff.
• QUALITY CONTROL FAILURES: Multiple reviews document incomplete or incorrect installations (missing gaskets, reversed hot/cold pipes, disconnected pipes, unhooked dryer hose).
• TRAFFIC/SAFETY CONCERNS: Two separate reviews document dangerous driving behavior by company vehicle (cutting off traffic, speeding, phone use). These are not plumbing-related but reflect on company culture and hiring practices.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews are from 2022-2024; positive reviews cluster heavily on 2024-06-09 (suspicious), with some older positive reviews from 2020-2023. Recent pattern suggests ongoing operational problems.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical score of 72.8 reflects genuine strengths in technical expertise and initial professionalism, it masks a serious and documented pattern of follow-through failures, communication breakdowns, and unresolved customer disputes that are not fully captured by the dimensional scoring. The suspicious clustering of 5-star reviews on a single date further reduces confidence. Customers should be aware that this company may deliver quality work initially but has a poor track record of accountability, callbacks, and dispute resolution.

Sun City Heating & Air demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with multiple reviews praising responsiveness, knowledge, and customer care. However, the company is significantly undermined by serious pricing concerns and project completion failures. Two recent reviews (2022, 2018) document aggressive markup practices and abandoned jobs, while older reviews (2017-2020) are predominantly positive. The stark contrast between recent and older reviews suggests either a decline in service quality or inconsistent execution. Technical competence is evident, but trust is eroded by pricing transparency issues and failure to honor scheduled appointments.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2016-2020 (4-8 years old). The two most recent reviews (2022, 2018) are highly negative, suggesting potential service degradation over time.
• PRICING RED FLAG: 2022 review documents aggressive markup practices (80%+ on parts) and dismissive owner response. This is a material concern for value proposition.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Two reviews (2018) document no-shows and abandoned jobs without proper follow-up, indicating systemic reliability issues.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple 5-star reviews from 2017-2020 use similar generic praise language ('amazing,' 'great,' 'highly recommend') with minimal specific detail, though some do contain specific anecdotes that add credibility.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark polarization between 5-star and 1-star reviews with little middle ground suggests either highly variable service delivery or reviewer selection bias.

This score should be treated with caution due to significant temporal inconsistency and conflicting evidence. The company demonstrates genuine technical competence and professionalism in customer interactions, but recent reviews reveal serious concerns about pricing practices and project reliability that contradict the overwhelmingly positive older reviews. A current customer should seek recent references and obtain detailed written quotes before engaging.

Pro Team Plumbing receives a mixed but cautiously positive overall score. The majority of reviews praise professionalism, punctuality, and friendly technicians, but serious negative reviews drag the score down significantly — including a warranty failure involving improper materials (drywall screws in a shower drain), a communication breakdown that wasted a customer's week, and a road rage incident attributed to a company vehicle. Pricing is a notable concern: one customer found the $350 flat fee for a simple unclog excessive, while others praised value, leaving pricing confidence low and the score conservative. Project completion is similarly mixed — most jobs appear to be finished satisfactorily, but the repeated warranty failures and the cancelled appointment due to poor dispatch communication are meaningful red flags. The cluster of 5-star reviews from August 2023 with limited specifics raises a fake review concern that further tempers confidence.

• SUSPECTED REVIEW CLUSTERING: Eight 5-star reviews were posted within a 3-day window (August 11–13, 2023). Several of these are vague and generic (e.g., 'It was a very professional experience', 'Very good, efficient, work done in a timely manner'), which is a pattern consistent with solicited or potentially inauthentic reviews. Confidence in those reviews is reduced.
• SERIOUS WORKMANSHIP FAILURE: One reviewer explicitly describes a shower drain installed with drywall screws that immediately rusted, with two failed warranty attempts — indicating a significant quality control and accountability problem.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: One reviewer describes a week-long scheduling process that ended in cancellation because dispatch failed to communicate a known service limitation upfront, suggesting systemic internal communication issues.
• ROAD RAGE INCIDENT: One reviewer reports a company vehicle driver engaging in aggressive and dangerous driving behavior on a highway. While unrelated to plumbing quality, it reflects on company culture and brand reputation.
• PRICING CONCERN: A $350 flat fee for a 30-minute toilet unclog was flagged as excessive by one customer, suggesting pricing transparency or value perception may be an issue for some clients.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent substantive reviews are from August–October 2023, with only one review from 2024 (the road rage complaint). There is limited recent data on actual service quality.

This WW Score carries MODERATE reliability — the volume of reviews is sufficient for basic analysis, but the suspicious clustering of generic 5-star reviews in August 2023, combined with multiple serious negative incidents, means the score should be interpreted cautiously and prospective customers are advised to seek additional recent references before hiring.

All three reviews consistently praise James and his crew for professionalism, communication, and attentiveness, driving a strong professionalism score. One reviewer explicitly noted fair, transparent pricing with no unwanted add-ons or sales tactics, which supports a positive but limited pricing signal. Project completion is partially evidenced — one job was noted as still in progress at time of review, and one was described as completed cleanly and efficiently. Experience is inferred from reviewers expressing exceeded expectations and quality workmanship, though specific technical detail is sparse. Overall, the sentiment is strongly positive, but the very small review pool and wide date range significantly limit reliability.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• Review date range spans 10 years (2014–2024), with two of three reviews being over 8 years old. Recent performance may differ significantly from older reviews.
• One review (2024) notes the job was not yet complete at time of writing — project completion score for that review cannot be fully credited.
• No negative feedback present across any review, which may reflect genuine quality but could also reflect a small and potentially self-selected sample.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning a decade, with the majority of data points being outdated, making it insufficient to draw confident conclusions about current service quality.

Across five reviews, this contractor receives consistently positive feedback on professionalism, with multiple reviewers noting punctuality, cleanliness, and attentive customer service. Pricing is explicitly called out as reasonable or affordable in four reviews, suggesting strong value for money. Project completion is supported by at least three reviews describing jobs that were fully finished and done correctly, including a notably complex sink installation. Experience and workmanship are affirmed in a few reviews, particularly the detailed account of a challenging drain reconfiguration handled skillfully. However, the total review count is very low and the most recent review is from late 2022, limiting the reliability of these scores.

• Only 5 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• Most reviews are older than 1 year; the most recent is from November 2022 and the oldest from 2017. Recency is a concern — contractor performance may have changed.
• All 5 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback whatsoever. While the reviews do contain specific details, the uniformly perfect ratings warrant mild caution.
• One review (2022-11-18) appears to describe a hardware store visit rather than a plumbing service call, and may not be directly relevant to contractor performance evaluation. It was included in the analysis but weighted minimally for service dimensions.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews, several of which are more than two years old, making it LOW confidence overall — treat as a directional signal only until more recent and numerous reviews are available.