Find Nearby Plumbers In Hialeah, Florida

This contractor's review profile is sharply divided between a cluster of brief, generic 5-star reviews (mostly from late 2019 to early 2020) and several highly detailed, damning 1-star reviews from 2020 to 2022. The negative reviews are specific, credible, and consistent with one another — citing chronic lateness, marijuana use on the job, incomplete work, property damage, theft allegations, improper electrical wiring verified by a licensed electrician, refusal to issue receipts, and failure to refund deposits for unfinished work. These serious, corroborated complaints heavily drag down all four dimensions. The positive reviews, while numerous, are largely vague and lack specifics, raising authenticity concerns that further reduce their weight in scoring.

• SUSPECTED FAKE OR INCENTIVIZED REVIEWS: Seven 5-star reviews were posted within a very narrow window (2019-12-23 to 2020-02-22), several on the exact same date (2019-12-23). Multiple of these reviews are extremely brief and generic ('Door frame fixed', 'Problem solved.', 'They were exceeded my expectation') with no job-specific detail. This pattern is consistent with coordinated or solicited reviews and their reliability is significantly reduced.
• SERIOUS SAFETY CONCERN: One detailed 1-star review states that Jeremy performed improper electrical wiring that could have caused a fire, which was subsequently verified and corrected by a licensed electrician. This is a critical workmanship and safety flag.
• THEFT ALLEGATION: One reviewer reported $1,000 in cash missing from a private room after the contractor entered without permission, and states a police report was filed (Event Number 200236790). This is an unverified but serious allegation.
• CHRONIC LATENESS: Multiple independent negative reviews (2020, 2021, 2022) consistently report the contractor arriving hours late daily, often at noon or later, despite agreeing to a 9am start time.
• INCOMPLETE WORK AND DEPOSIT DISPUTES: Multiple reviewers report paying deposits upfront and then having work left unfinished, with the contractor refusing to refund unearned deposits or provide receipts for materials.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2021–2022) are predominantly negative. The positive reviews are concentrated in 2019–2020 and are largely generic. The trend over time is clearly negative.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE: Multiple independent reviewers report damage to floors, tiles, appliances, fixtures, personal belongings, and household items, with the contractor taking little to no accountability.

The WW Score of 51.2 carries HIGH data confidence due to the volume of reviews, but the score itself should be treated with serious caution — the positive reviews show strong indicators of being fake or solicited, while the negative reviews are detailed, specific, mutually corroborating, and include verifiable safety and legal concerns that paint a consistently alarming picture of this contractor.

This contractor shows severe inconsistency across reviews, with stark polarization between highly positive and deeply negative feedback. Professionalism is the primary concern, with multiple detailed complaints about unreliability, missed appointments, poor communication, and lack of courtesy notifications. Two recent negative reviews (2019) describe chronic no-shows and unresponsiveness, while two older positive reviews (2024, 2018) praise responsiveness and quality. The pricing dimension is minimally supported by one complaint about payment handling practices. Project completion appears mixed, with some jobs completed well but significant concerns about follow-through and timeliness. The wide gap between 5-star and 1-star ratings suggests either dramatic business changes or potential inconsistency in service delivery.

• CRITICAL: Extreme polarization detected — two 5-star reviews vs. two 1-star reviews with no middle ground. This suggests either significant business changes or inconsistent service quality.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two most detailed negative reviews are from 2019 (5 years old), while positive reviews span 2018 and 2024. However, the 2024 positive review is very recent and generic without specific details.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: The 2024 positive review uses generic praise ('Great service,' 'Fantastic workers,' 'very happy') with minimal specifics. The 2018 positive review similarly lacks concrete details ('wonderful,' 'top notch'). Both lack the detailed narrative present in negative reviews.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAGS: Multiple explicit mentions of no-shows, missed appointments, delayed responses (4-day gaps), lack of courtesy calls, and poor communication. These are serious professional failures.
• PAYMENT HANDLING ISSUE: One review mentions delayed check cashing (over 1 month) and pressure to pay by check immediately, suggesting potential financial management concerns.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews total limits statistical reliability. Recommend collecting more recent data before making hiring decisions.

This score should be treated with caution due to extreme polarization, small sample size (4 reviews), and age of detailed negative feedback (2019). The recent positive review lacks specificity and may not reflect current service quality. If considering this contractor, request recent references and establish clear communication/scheduling expectations in writing.

This contractor has a deeply mixed record across only 3 reviews spanning several years. Two positive reviews highlight clean, efficient work, transparent pricing, and successful project completion across multiple jobs. However, one strongly negative review raises serious concerns about responsiveness, communication failures, and a pattern of not returning calls — directly impacting professionalism and project completion scores. The negative review's specific complaints about the phone staff and workers being unreachable dragged professionalism and completion scores down significantly. With only 3 reviews and a wide date range (2015–2019), confidence in any dimension is low to moderate at best.

• Very small sample size (3 reviews total) — WW Score should be treated as highly provisional and not representative of consistent performance.
• All reviews are older than 5 years (most recent: January 2019) — no recent data available to assess current service quality.
• One 1-star review explicitly describes non-responsiveness, failure to return calls, and unprofessional phone staff, which is a significant red flag for reliability.
• The two positive reviews are generic in some respects but do include specific details (named worker 'Glen', specific job types, timeline comparisons) suggesting they are likely authentic.
• Wide date spread (2015–2019) means reviews may not reflect a consistent period of operation or ownership.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all more than 5 years old, and should be considered highly unreliable as a measure of current contractor performance — seek more recent references before hiring.

This contractor shows highly inconsistent performance across reviews spanning 15+ years. Professionalism is severely compromised by documented communication failures (no callbacks) and customer reports of poor attitude and sloppy workmanship. Pricing concerns are explicitly raised in the oldest review. Project completion shows mixed results with some jobs finished properly but others abandoned or requiring callbacks. Technical skill appears present in some jobs but undermined by quality control issues. The extreme age of most positive reviews (2006–2009) versus the detailed 2011 negative review raises recency concerns.

• CRITICAL RECENCY ISSUE: 4 of 6 reviews are from 2006–2009 (15+ years old). Only 2 reviews from 2011 or later. Most positive reviews predate modern business standards.
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: Three consecutive 5-star reviews from 2006 (Feb 10, Mar 6, Mar 6) with identical ALL-CAPS formatting and generic praise language ('GREAT WORK', 'VERY SMART AND PROFESSIONAL', 'KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE DOING') suggest possible fake or incentivized reviews.
• CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE: Positive reviews praise professionalism and skill, but the most recent detailed review (2011) explicitly contradicts this with claims of 'sloppy workmanship,' time-wasting, and property damage. This suggests either service degradation or unreliability.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: One review explicitly states 'They never returned my call' — a critical professionalism failure.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Oldest review explicitly accuses contractor of overcharging and claims competitor charged 'half the price' with 'better workmanship.'

This score should be treated with significant caution. The data is heavily skewed by reviews older than 15 years, three of which show suspicious identical formatting patterns. The most recent substantive review is sharply negative and contradicts older praise, suggesting either service decline or data quality issues. Recommend seeking current references before engaging this contractor.

Estrella Plumbing receives a critically low WW Score of 42.3, driven primarily by severe deficiencies in professionalism and pricing practices. Seven reviews explicitly document poor communication, rudeness, unresponsiveness, and aggressive behavior from management (particularly Victor). Eight reviews detail systematic overcharging, double-billing of service fees, and failure to honor stated pricing agreements—a pattern that suggests deliberate deceptive practices rather than isolated incidents. Project completion is compromised by incomplete work, abandoned callbacks, and failure to deliver promised follow-up services. Only three reviews mention technical skill positively, and these are outweighed by complaints of incomplete inspections and inability to source common parts. The two 5-star reviews from 2021 lack specificity and predate the majority of negative feedback, which clusters heavily in 2022–2023.

• SYSTEMATIC OVERCHARGING PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews (2022–2023) document identical deceptive billing practices—charging non-deductible inspection fees ($180) that were promised to be deductible, then charging again for service and parts. This is not isolated customer confusion; it appears to be company policy.
• MANAGEMENT CONDUCT: Owner 'Victor' is explicitly described as 'aggressive,' 'rude,' and 'unresponsive' across multiple reviews. One review documents a month-long silence despite repeated contact attempts.
• ABANDONED WORK: Review from 2022-09-17 documents customer charged $280 for promised follow-up service that never occurred, with no receipt sent and messages ignored.
• RECENCY BIAS MITIGATED: Positive reviews are from 2021 (3+ years old); negative reviews cluster in 2022–2023 and one from 2024, suggesting deterioration or consistent poor practices.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Multiple reviews document incomplete inspections, failure to source standard parts (Delta valve), and work left unfinished.
• POTENTIAL DISCRIMINATION: One review explicitly states belief that overcharging was gender-based ('took advantage because I am female').

This WW Score of 42.3 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong warning signal; it is based on 10 reviews with consistent patterns of documented overcharging, poor communication, and incomplete work spanning multiple years, with no credible evidence of improvement.

Pros Plumbing Services has a deeply mixed and largely negative review profile across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension, but it is undermined by serious complaints: one reviewer reports a no-show to an appointment followed by harassment after leaving a negative review, and another describes a salesman-style estimator who never even examined the problem. Pricing is a significant concern, with two reviewers explicitly describing inflated quotes and upselling tactics — a $1,250 estimate for a clogged faucet aerator and a $750 charge after a disputed full replacement. Project completion is also troubled, with one reviewer explicitly stating the leak was never successfully repaired, and another describing a job that escalated unnecessarily. The two positive reviews (both 5-star) do provide some counterbalance, describing professional and effective service, but they are older (2020 and 2022) and are outnumbered by more recent negative experiences.

• UPSELLING PATTERN DETECTED: Two separate reviews (2021 and 2024) independently describe technicians pushing for full replacements when simpler, cheaper fixes were available or sufficient. This is a notable pattern suggesting a systemic upselling practice.
• HARASSMENT ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2021) explicitly states the company called to harass them after leaving a negative review. This is a serious professionalism and ethics concern.
• FAILED REPAIR: One reviewer explicitly states the plumber did not successfully fix the leak they were called out to address.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The two positive reviews are from 2020 and 2022. The three negative reviews include one from January 2024, suggesting the service quality may have declined or not improved over time. More recent data skews negative.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 5 reviews total. While the WW Score can be calculated, the small sample size significantly limits reliability. Scores should be treated with caution.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: The reviews vary in tone, detail, and rating. No obvious fake review indicators found, though the two 5-star reviews are relatively generic compared to the detailed negative reviews.

This WW Score of 38.2 is based on only 5 reviews and should be treated with caution due to low volume; however, the consistent and specific nature of the negative feedback — particularly around upselling, a failed repair, and alleged post-review harassment — lends credibility to the low score and warrants serious concern for prospective customers.