Find Nearby Plumbers In Hialeah, Florida

All Plumbing has a large and long-running review history that reveals a genuinely mixed picture. Professionalism scores moderately well overall — the majority of reviewers praise courteous, communicative technicians — but a meaningful minority of reviews (roughly 20-25%) describe serious failures including no-shows without notification, rude staff, language barriers preventing communication, and outright dismissive management responses to complaints. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple detailed negative reviews describe charges that reviewers found significantly above market rate, inconsistent quoting, billing disputes, and instances where customers felt taken advantage of, including a vulnerable elderly customer; while many positive reviews mention fair or reasonable pricing, the volume and specificity of pricing complaints prevents a high score. Project completion is similarly split — many reviews praise efficient, same-day or next-day resolution, but a notable cluster of reviews describes incomplete work, misdiagnoses requiring a second company, abandoned jobs, and failure to follow up on callbacks. Experience scores slightly higher because the majority of reviewers who comment on technical skill are positive, with several reviews specifically praising expert diagnosis and problem-solving, though a handful of reviews describe outright incompetence or incorrect diagnoses that cost customers additional money.

• VOLUME AND SPAN WARNING: Reviews span from approximately 2009 to 2025 across what appears to be multiple distinct contractor entities or franchise locations (references to Angel Miranda in Vallejo CA, Kabir/Kewin in Arlington VA, Shaban/Apex on Thumbtack, and others). Scores may reflect an aggregated pool of different businesses operating under similar or related names rather than a single contractor. This significantly reduces the reliability of any single composite score.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — UNDATED REVIEWS: Approximately 16 reviews have no date (listed as 'None'). Several of these are suspiciously brief, generic, and uniformly 5-star with vague praise ('Super professional', 'Great experience', 'Ali is great to work with'). These undated reviews show patterns consistent with solicited or fabricated reviews and have been treated with reduced weight.
• BLANK/CONTENT-FREE REVIEWS: Approximately 10 reviews contain no text whatsoever (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent dated reviews (2025) are predominantly positive and short-form, while many of the most detailed negative reviews date from 2013–2021. The score reflects the full corpus; if only 2024–2025 reviews are considered, professionalism and completion scores would be modestly higher.
• MANAGEMENT/CUSTOMER SERVICE PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews across different years describe the same pattern of rude or dismissive management responses when complaints are raised. This is a systemic flag, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY FLAG: Several reviews describe being quoted one price and then charged significantly more upon job completion, or discovering post-service that the work was unnecessary or overpriced. This pattern appears across multiple years and locations.

This WW Score carries HIGH statistical confidence due to the large review volume, but its practical reliability is MODERATE at best because the reviews appear to span multiple distinct contractor entities or locations operating under related names, making it impossible to attribute all scores to a single business with certainty.

This aggregated review set spans multiple businesses operating under similar names (A Plus Plumbing, AAA Paradise Plumbing, A2Z Atomic Plumbing, and others), which significantly complicates scoring reliability. The majority of reviews are strongly positive, praising prompt response times, courteous technicians, and solid workmanship across hundreds of jobs. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — roughly 15-18% of substantive reviews — describe serious failures including incomplete repairs, no-shows, billing disputes, hidden charges, rude owner behavior, and work that caused additional damage. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers citing rates they considered excessive or non-transparent, and several describing being charged without prior quotes. Project completion is also dragged down by recurring complaints about jobs left unfinished, callbacks not honored, and technicians failing to return as promised.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to span several distinct businesses (A Plus Plumbing in multiple states, AAA Paradise Plumbing, A2Z Atomic Plumbing, Mr. Plumber). Scores reflect an aggregate and may not represent any single contractor accurately.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A large cluster of reviews share the date 2024-06-09 and 2023-06-10 with generic, non-specific praise and no job details. This pattern is consistent with review padding. Confidence in the positive score direction is reduced accordingly.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — NOTABLE: One review (2024-06-09) is an elaborate original poem praising the company with no factual service details. This is atypical and may indicate a solicited or fabricated review.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2009 to 2025. A substantial portion of reviews predate 2022 and were given reduced weighting. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) contain both strong positives and several serious negatives.
• REPEATED NEGATIVE PATTERNS: Multiple independent reviewers across different time periods describe the same failure modes — no-shows, unreturned calls, incomplete work, and billing disputes — suggesting these are systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.
• OWNER CONDUCT: At least three separate reviews explicitly describe the owner (referenced as Sal or Steve in different reviews) as rude, threatening, or dishonest. This is a significant professionalism flag.
• BILLING TRANSPARENCY: Multiple reviewers report being charged without prior quotes, receiving unexpected fees, or discovering overcharges. This materially suppresses the pricing score.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Several reviews describe technicians leaving jobs unfinished, failing to return with parts, or not honoring verbal commitments to complete work at no extra charge.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be treated with caution as a contractor-level assessment because the reviews likely represent multiple distinct business entities, contain suspected padded or fake reviews, and show systemic negative patterns that the high volume of generic positive reviews may be obscuring.

Plumber Mike's has a strong base of positive reviews praising courteous, punctual, and communicative technicians — particularly named individuals like Joe, Kevin, Lonnie, Manny, and Byron — which drives a solid professionalism score. However, pricing is the most consistently flagged concern across the review history, with multiple customers explicitly stating they felt overcharged, received non-itemized receipts, or were quoted prices far above competitors, pulling the pricing dimension down significantly. Project completion is generally positive, with many reviews confirming jobs were finished on time and as promised, but a meaningful minority of negative reviews describe incomplete work, return visits needed, or jobs abandoned mid-service, preventing a higher score. Experience scores moderately well, with many reviewers praising technical knowledge and problem-solving, but offset by several credible accounts of shoddy workmanship, incorrect diagnoses, and substandard installations. The overall WW Score of 72.1 reflects a company with genuine strengths in responsiveness and staff demeanor, but meaningful and recurring weaknesses in pricing transparency and workmanship consistency.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 4 sets of near-identical or fully identical reviews were found (e.g., the 'kitchen renovation' review appears 3 times across different dates; the 'sewer hookup' review appears 3 times; the 'septic to sewer hookup' review appears twice; the 'untrustworthy and dishonest' water heater review appears 3 times). This pattern strongly suggests review manipulation — either the same person submitted multiple times or reviews were artificially boosted. Confidence in the positive review pool is reduced accordingly.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: Several 5-star reviews from the same date cluster (2024-06-09) share generic praise language with no specific job details, which is consistent with coordinated review posting.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC AND SPAN THE FULL REVIEW HISTORY (2012–2024): Multiple independent reviewers across many years explicitly describe being overcharged, receiving non-itemized invoices, being quoted one price and charged another, or being told by other plumbers they paid significantly more than market rate. This is not isolated and materially impacts the pricing score.
• SERIOUS CONDUCT ALLEGATIONS: One review (2013-10-07) alleges a technician threatened physical harm to a customer who mentioned leaving a negative review. Another review (2023-06-10) alleges unlicensed workers were sent and a pipe was broken. Another (2017-11-29) alleges a technician behaved inappropriately in front of a customer's wife. These are unverified but serious and noted for transparency.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive detail are from 2012–2021. Reviews from 2022–2025 are fewer and include both strong positives and notable negatives. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) are generally positive but include the duplicate/suspicious cluster from June 2024.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Several reviews contain no text and only a star rating (both 1-star and 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• INCOMPLETE JOB / CALLBACK FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe work that was not completed correctly on the first visit, toilets still leaking after repair, pipes not secured, holes left in walls, and the owner reportedly telling at least one dissatisfied customer never to call again rather than resolving the issue.

This WW Score is based on a very large review dataset spanning over a decade and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but should be interpreted with caution due to confirmed duplicate reviews suggesting artificial inflation of the positive review pool, systemic and multi-year pricing complaints, and several serious unresolved conduct allegations.

The review corpus spans multiple businesses operating under similar or overlapping names (All Around Plumbing, All Counties Plumbing, John's Plumbing), which significantly complicates scoring reliability. Professionalism scores moderately well overall — the majority of reviews praise punctuality, courtesy, and communication — but is substantially dragged down by a recurring and serious pattern of no-shows: multiple independent reviewers across different time periods report technicians failing to appear for scheduled appointments without notice, which is a critical professionalism failure. Pricing is mixed: many reviewers cite fair or reasonable pricing, but several credible negative reviews describe hidden charges, quotes that ballooned dramatically, and one reviewer alleging a $350 estimate fee followed by a quote more than double competitors. Project completion is the most concerning dimension — multiple reviews describe jobs started but never finished, deposits taken with no return, warranty claims ignored for months, and at least one case of a technician causing additional damage and abandoning the site. Experience scores highest among the four dimensions, with many reviewers praising diagnostic skill, technical knowledge, and quality workmanship, though offset by at least two reviews describing incorrect or substandard work requiring remediation.

• MULTIPLE BUSINESS IDENTITY ISSUE: Reviews appear to span at least three distinct businesses — 'All Around Plumbing', 'All Counties Plumbing', and 'John's Plumbing' — with different owners (Karel, Lindell, Philip, Yohendry). Scores may conflate unrelated companies, reducing reliability.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A significant cluster of reviews dated 2024-06-09 and 2025-05-10 share identical dates with no specific detail, generic praise, and no job description. Several blank reviews (rating only, no text) are present throughout. These patterns are consistent with review padding.
• REPEATED NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 6 independent reviewers across different years (2020, 2023, 2025) explicitly report technicians failing to appear for scheduled appointments without notification. This is a systemic reliability concern, not isolated incidents.
• ABANDONED WORK / PAYMENT FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2020, 2024) describe contractors taking deposits or full payment and never returning to complete work. One review describes a contractor digging a hole, breaking a pipe, and disappearing. One review describes being billed for a job the company never attended.
• WARRANTY DISHONORING: At least one detailed review (2025-01-10) describes All Counties Plumbing refusing to honor a 3-year warranty after 1 year, ignoring calls for 2 months.
• BILLING MISCONDUCT: One detailed 2015 review describes the company attempting to collect a prior owner's debt by changing the name on an invoice, then hanging up on the customer when disputed. Owner never followed up.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive, but the negative reviews are distributed across all time periods including 2025, suggesting ongoing issues rather than historical problems that have been resolved.
• 35 reviews contain no text (rating only) and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• SCORE CONFIDENCE CAVEAT: Despite HIGH confidence labels (driven by mention volume), the mixed-entity nature of this review set and the presence of suspected padded reviews mean the WW Score should be interpreted with caution.

This WW Score carries LIMITED practical reliability due to the likely commingling of reviews from multiple distinct businesses, a credible pattern of fake or padded reviews inflating positive sentiment, and serious recurring negative patterns (no-shows, abandoned jobs, billing disputes) that suggest systemic operational failures at one or more of the entities represented in this review set.

Garner Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally positive customer interactions, with most recent positive reviews praising responsiveness, friendliness, and fair pricing. However, the score is tempered by significant professionalism inconsistencies—including one severely negative experience with rude phone behavior and multiple project completion failures (missed appointments, abandoned work, non-communication). The business appears to have experienced quality degradation over time, with older reviews (2010–2012) predominantly positive but more recent reviews (2012–2017) showing operational and communication breakdowns. The presence of both 5-star and 1-star ratings for similar service types suggests inconsistent service delivery, possibly due to staffing changes or business transitions mentioned in one review.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 7+ years old (2010–2012). Only 2 reviews from 2015 onward. Current business status and consistency unknown.
• QUALITY DEGRADATION PATTERN: Positive reviews cluster in 2010–2012; negative reviews appear in 2012–2013. Suggests possible business transition or staffing issues.
• PROFESSIONALISM INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between reviews praising 'extremely courteous' service and one review describing 'very unprofessional' and 'rude' phone behavior. Suggests inconsistent staff or variable service quality.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURE: One detailed 1-star review documents abandoned shower surround project with zero follow-up communication over weeks. Directly contradicts claims of reliability.
• COMMUNICATION GAPS: Multiple reviews mention difficulty reaching the business (disconnected number, no response to calls/texts), undermining professionalism score.
• ONE EMPTY REVIEW: Review dated 2014-01-25 contains only a period (.) with 5-star rating—appears to be placeholder or spam; excluded from narrative analysis but counted in total.
• POTENTIAL OWNERSHIP/STAFFING CHANGES: One review explicitly notes uncertainty about whether 'Mr. Garner' still owns/operates the business, suggesting possible transition that may explain quality variance.

This score should be treated with caution due to data age (most reviews 7+ years old), significant inconsistency in service quality across reviews, and evidence of business operational changes. The MODERATE overall confidence reflects conflicting evidence: strong technical skills and responsiveness in older reviews are undermined by documented professionalism failures and project abandonment. Current reliability of this business cannot be confidently assessed from available data.

Hanlon Plumbing shows mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism scores 78 based on 7 mentions highlighting responsiveness, politeness, and efficiency, though two reviews cite poor phone attitude and lack of follow-through. Pricing averages 68 across 5 mentions—while several customers praise reasonable rates, one customer was charged $580 for incomplete work and quoted $1200 for additional work, creating significant pricing concerns. Project completion scores 72 based on 6 mentions; multiple jobs were completed successfully, but two critical failures (clog not cleared, sewage overflow, failure to locate existing cleanout) substantially lower this dimension. Experience scores 82 based on 5 mentions of skilled, knowledgeable technicians, though the same failures indicate inconsistent technical execution. The company's performance appears highly variable, with strong positive reviews offset by serious service failures.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 5 of 9 reviews are older than 5 years (2015-2019). Only 2 reviews from past 3 years. Recent data is limited.
• CRITICAL SERVICE FAILURES: Two 1-star reviews document significant failures—incomplete clog removal, sewage overflow into walls, failure to locate existing cleanout, and poor customer service recovery. These are not minor issues.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: One customer charged $580 for incomplete work and quoted $1200 for additional work, while others praise 'reasonable' pricing. Suggests pricing may vary significantly or lack transparency.
• CALLBACK/WARRANTY CONCERN: Review from 2018 indicates customer was charged 3x original price for callback to fix failed work, suggesting no warranty or guarantee on initial service.
• POTENTIAL POSITIVE BIAS: Multiple 5-star reviews use similar generic praise language ('reliable,' 'professional,' 'honest') with minimal specific detail, though this may reflect genuine satisfaction rather than fake reviews.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited recent data (only 2 reviews in past 3 years) and significant documented service failures that contradict positive reviews, suggesting inconsistent quality and potential customer service issues that may not be fully captured by the aggregate score.