Find Nearby Plumbers In Deltona, Florida

RJ Carter Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension, with several positive reviews praising politeness, responsiveness, and communication, but significantly undermined by a detailed 1-star account describing a technician who laughed at a competing plumber, left without a contract or signature, and abandoned an exposed pipe — as well as a separate account of 12 unanswered callbacks over four months. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with two serious complaints about work left incomplete or ineffective (a re-clogged line one week after service, wrong pipe used on a new build with unreported tile damage), dragging the score down substantially despite some positive mentions of prompt service. Pricing received mixed signals — one reviewer praised the rate as very fair and another noted costs were far below expectations, but a third described being billed significantly more than the verbal quote with no written contract, which is a serious transparency failure. Experience scores moderately, with some reviewers noting skill and problem-solving ability, but the wrong-pipe installation and the failed drain snaking indicate inconsistent technical quality.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are older than 12 months relative to a current evaluation. Only one review is from 2023; most cluster between 2013 and 2019. The single recent positive review (2023) is brief and generic and should not be weighted heavily.
• SERIOUS COMPLAINT — BILLING DISPUTE: One detailed 1-star review (2019) describes verbal pricing that was not honored in the written invoice, no written contract, no authorization signature, and a lien threat. This represents a significant ethical and business practice concern.
• SERIOUS COMPLAINT — ABANDONED WORK: The same 2019 review describes the plumber leaving the job site with the pipe exposed and no payment instructions, and the work failing within one week with the company refusing to remedy it.
• SERIOUS COMPLAINT — COMMUNICATION FAILURE: A separate 2019 review documents 12 unanswered phone calls over approximately 3 months with no callback ever received, indicating a systemic responsiveness problem.
• QUALITY CONCERN: A 2017 review describes incorrect pipe used on a new construction job and unreported tile damage caused during the correction visit, suggesting quality control issues on larger projects.
• GENERIC REVIEW FLAG: The 2023 5-star review and the brief 2017 5-star review ('The plumber was quick, professional, polite and knowledgeable') contain no specific details and could not be independently weighted heavily. No fake review pattern is definitively confirmed, but the brevity warrants caution.
• UNKNOWN REVIEW: One review with rating 2.0 and text 'unknown' was excluded from usable data as it contains no actionable information.

This WW Score carries LOW-to-MODERATE reliability due to a small total review count (9), a wide date range spanning a decade with only one review from the past two years, and the presence of multiple serious, detailed negative complaints that substantially offset the positive reviews.

The review set is small (4 reviews) and spans nearly a decade, making trend analysis difficult. The most detailed and recent review (2022) is a 2-star account describing serious concerns: no upfront pricing disclosure, repeated appointment cancellations, questionable upselling of an unnecessary faucet replacement, and a $175 charge for under an hour of work that ultimately changed nothing. This significantly drags down professionalism and pricing scores. The older positive reviews (2021, 2018, 2015) are brief and lack specific detail, limiting their evidentiary weight. Project completion scores moderately because the toilet reset was eventually honored under warranty, but the pattern of cancellations and incomplete communication is a notable negative signal.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as highly provisional and not statistically reliable.
• Three of the four positive reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Went very well and he solved my problems') with no specifics — these carry low evidentiary weight.
• Most reviews are older than 1 year; the most recent review (2022) is the only one with substantive detail and it is negative.
• Pricing transparency concern flagged: the 2022 reviewer explicitly states no costs were disclosed before work began, and charges appeared inconsistent ($475 for ~1.5 hours vs $175 for less than 1 hour).
• Possible upselling concern: worker advised a new faucet was necessary, but ultimately resealed the original faucet successfully — suggesting the initial recommendation may have been inaccurate or misleading.
• Repeated appointment cancellations (3+ times) noted in the 2022 review, indicating potential reliability issues.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning 7+ years, with the most detailed and recent review being strongly negative — the score should be treated with very low confidence and is insufficient to form a reliable assessment of this contractor's current performance.

This contractor exhibits severe and consistent professionalism failures across multiple reviews, including rudeness, hanging up on customers, yelling, and disrespectful behavior toward clients. Pricing practices are highly problematic, with documented bait-and-switch tactics, unexpected price increases after work completion, and refusal to honor initial quotes. Project completion issues include incomplete work, failure to perform agreed-upon tasks, and damage (fire hazard from improper valve installation) that was not repaired as promised. While a few older reviews (2020-2021) mention competent workmanship and reasonable pricing, these are heavily outweighed by numerous recent negative experiences (2023-2024) documenting incompetence, disrespect, and broken commitments.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews from 2023-2024 describe the same individual (Jason) exhibiting identical unprofessional behaviors (rudeness, hanging up on customers, yelling). This pattern is consistent and credible, not fabricated.
• BAIT-AND-SWITCH PATTERN: At least 3 reviews document initial low quotes followed by significant price increases or refusal to honor estimates. This is a systematic business practice, not isolated incidents.
• SAFETY CONCERN: One review documents a fire hazard created by improper workmanship (sweating on shower valve without checking for hotspot) and failure to repair resulting damage.
• WARRANTY VIOLATIONS: Multiple customers report inability to access warranty service despite paying for it, with staff refusing callbacks and being disrespectful.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most damaging reviews are from 2023-2024 (recent). The two positive reviews are from 2020-2021 (3-4 years old). Recent pattern shows deterioration in service quality.
• OWNER BEHAVIOR: Direct interactions with owner Jason documented as dismissive ('phones ringing off the hook, has all the work he needs') and unwilling to resolve disputes.

This WW Score of 38.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 10 reviews with consistent, specific, and corroborated evidence of serious failures across all four dimensions. The pattern of negative feedback is recent, detailed, and credible, with no indicators of fake reviews. This contractor presents significant risk to customers.

This contractor exhibits severe and consistent performance issues across multiple dimensions. Project completion is critically weak, with multiple reviews documenting incomplete work, failed repairs, and jobs that required other plumbers to finish. Professionalism is significantly compromised by poor communication, rudeness, unresponsiveness to callbacks, and aggressive debt collection tactics including lawyer referrals. Pricing concerns emerge across several reviews, with customers reporting overcharges and payment demands for incomplete work. While two older positive reviews (2013–2014) mention reasonable pricing and professionalism, they are heavily outweighed by five detailed negative reviews (2016–2019) documenting systemic failures. The stark polarization and severity of documented failures indicate serious operational and ethical problems.

• CRITICAL: Extreme polarization — 5 one-star reviews with detailed, specific complaints vs. 2 five-star reviews with generic praise. The negative reviews are highly detailed and credible; positive reviews lack specificity.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2016–2019 (5–8 years old). Only one recent positive review from 2024. Cannot determine if company has improved or if recent review is anomalous.
• PATTERN OF INCOMPLETE WORK: Multiple independent reviews document unfinished jobs, failed repairs, and customers forced to hire second plumbers. This is not isolated — it is systemic.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: Multiple reviews document rudeness, non-responsiveness to callbacks, and aggressive debt collection including lawyer threats. One review explicitly calls the company 'FRAUD' and 'CHEATERS.'
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW: The 2024 review ('Great company fixe my toilet great working well, highly recommend') uses generic language, poor grammar, and lacks specifics. It stands in stark contrast to detailed negative reviews and may not be credible.
• LEGAL/ETHICAL CONCERNS: Multiple reviews document the company pursuing debt collection and legal action against customers for incomplete work. This suggests either unethical business practices or a pattern of customer disputes over quality.

This score should be treated with CAUTION despite MODERATE confidence. While the negative reviews are detailed, credible, and consistent, most are 5–8 years old, making it unclear if the company's current operations match historical performance. The single recent positive review is generic and may be unreliable. The WW Score of 42.3 reflects severe documented failures in project completion and professionalism, but customers should seek current references and verify whether the company has addressed these systemic issues before engaging.

The reviews paint a deeply mixed picture of this contractor. While one reviewer praised the plumber's professionalism and thoroughness during an after-hours septic emergency, the other two reviews describe serious professionalism failures: a receptionist who was rude and hung up on a caller, and an owner/manager who ignored calls and texts, screened and blocked a client's number, and hung up on a paying customer. The most damaging review describes a contractual obligation left unfulfilled for three months, which severely drags down the project completion score. Pricing received a modest positive mention in one review, but this is based on a single data point and cannot be weighted heavily. The overall picture is one of inconsistent service quality with significant red flags around communication and follow-through.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as unreliable and preliminary.
• Two of three reviews describe serious communication failures including staff hanging up on customers, which is a significant professionalism red flag.
• One review describes a contractor who allegedly abandoned contractual obligations for three months and blocked a client's phone number — this is a severe project completion and professionalism concern.
• Reviews span from 2015 to 2018 — all reviews are more than 5 years old. No recent data is available to assess current business practices.
• The single positive review is from 2018 and covers only one service call, limiting its ability to offset the serious complaints in the other reviews.

This WW Score has very low reliability due to only 3 reviews, all of which are over 5 years old, and the presence of serious unresolved complaints about abandoned contractual work and hostile customer service behavior.

Hawkesworth Plumbing shows significant pricing concerns based on explicit customer complaints about overcharging for routine work (faucet installation at $700 and PVC pipe replacement at $202). Project completion appears adequate with one positive phone support experience and one completed installation, though the installation was perceived as overpriced for the work performed. Professionalism is minimally documented with only one mention of helpful phone guidance. The extremely limited review volume and age of most reviews (2012, 2016, 2018) severely restrict confidence in this assessment. No data exists on technical experience or skill level.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 of 4 reviews contain usable data; one review is marked 'unknown' with no substantive content
• RECENCY ISSUE: 75% of reviews are older than 6 years (2012, 2016, 2018); only 1 review from 2022. This company's current practices may differ significantly
• PRICING RED FLAG: Two independent reviews explicitly cite overcharging—one for a faucet installation ($700 for 1 hour 15 minutes) and one for a simple PVC pipe replacement ($202 to a senior citizen). Pattern suggests systematic overpricing
• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 usable reviews is below the threshold for reliable scoring; results should be treated as preliminary only
• NO EXPERIENCE DATA: No reviews mention technical skill, workmanship quality, or problem-solving ability

This WW Score should be treated with extreme caution due to very limited review volume (3 usable reviews), predominantly outdated data (75% older than 6 years), and strong pricing complaints that may indicate systemic overcharging; the score is not reliable for decision-making without additional recent reviews.