Find Nearby Plumbers In Hollywood, Florida

The review set presents a sharply divided picture of this contractor. A core group of positive reviews — mostly centered on technicians Ivan and Travis — describe punctual, professional, skilled, and fairly priced service with strong follow-through and good communication. However, multiple serious negative reviews significantly drag down the professionalism and project completion scores: two separate reviewers independently reported dangerous road rage incidents by a company driver, one reviewer described a deliberate sabotage of filter access hardware suggesting dishonest upsell tactics, and one reviewer experienced a rescheduled appointment handled with a dismissive and rude response. The road rage complaints are particularly damaging to professionalism as they describe a pattern of behavior and a company response that was indifferent or actively retaliatory. Pricing and experience scores remain relatively stronger due to consistent positive mentions, but the serious conduct issues prevent a high overall score.

• TWO INDEPENDENT ROAD RAGE COMPLAINTS: Two separate reviewers (2024 and 2021) reported nearly identical dangerous driving behavior by a company driver on the 405 freeway. This is a significant pattern flag for professionalism and safety culture.
• RETALIATORY BEHAVIOR ALLEGED: One reviewer claims the company gave their personal phone number to the driver they complained about, resulting in harassment. If accurate, this is a serious misconduct flag.
• DELIBERATE SABOTAGE ALLEGED: One reviewer (2020) claims the technician intentionally over-tightened filter housings with tools and removed a provided allen wrench to force future paid service calls. This is a significant integrity and ethics flag.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are from 2015–2019, making them 5–9 years old. The two most recent reviews (2024 and 2021) are both 1-star complaints. This recency pattern is unfavorable and suggests possible service quality decline.
• POSSIBLE TECHNICIAN DEPENDENCY: Most positive reviews reference specific technicians (Ivan, Travis) rather than the company as a whole. Quality may be highly dependent on which technician is assigned.
• NO SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS DETECTED: Positive reviews contain specific details, named technicians, and varied language. No fake review pattern flagged.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the mention counts are sufficient for statistical grounding, but the sharp quality split between older positive reviews and more recent serious complaints, combined with the recency of the negative incidents, means prospective customers should treat the score with caution and weight the 2021–2024 reviews heavily.

All three reviews speak positively about professionalism, with specific mentions of punctuality, communication, courtesy, and leaving work areas clean. Project completion is consistently affirmed across all reviews, with jobs described as finished on the spot or thoroughly addressed. Experience is well-supported by references to technical knowledge, detailed explanations, and use of specialized equipment such as hydro-jetting and camera inspection. Pricing is mentioned in only one review, where it was described as reasonable, so that dimension carries very limited confidence. Overall the reviews paint a consistently positive picture, though the small sample size limits reliability.

• Only 3 reviews total — sample size is too small to draw strong conclusions about consistent performance.
• All reviews are dated between 2018 and 2020, meaning all are older than 4 years at time of analysis. No recent reviews are available to confirm current service quality.
• All three reviews are 5-star ratings. While the reviews contain specific details and varied language that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformly perfect ratings with a small sample warrants caution.
• No negative feedback or constructive criticism present in any review — this may reflect genuine satisfaction but could also reflect a non-representative sample.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small review sample of only 3 reviews, all of which are over 4 years old, making it difficult to assess the contractor's current quality and consistency.

All three reviews speak positively about Michael's honesty and transparency with pricing, with two reviewers explicitly noting he avoided unnecessary charges and one describing him as steering a customer toward a self-repair rather than upselling. Professionalism is consistently praised across all reviews, with mentions of same-day responsiveness and courteous conduct. Technical experience is well-supported, with reviewers highlighting his diagnostic ability and knowledge in resolving complex issues efficiently. Project completion is moderately supported — two reviews confirm the job was finished successfully, though the first review involved no billable work performed by the plumber himself. Overall confidence is tempered by the very small review pool and the fact that two of the three reviews are over four years old.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• Two of three reviews are dated 2020, making them over 4 years old. Only one review (April 2024) reflects recent performance. Recency weighting is limited.
• All three reviews are 5-star with uniformly positive sentiment. While the reviews contain specific details and varied language reducing fake review suspicion, the absence of any critical feedback across all reviews warrants mild caution.
• The first review describes a scenario where the plumber performed no paid work — this is positive for honesty/pricing but provides limited data on actual project completion quality.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, two of which are over 4 years old, making it LOW reliability — the score reflects a positive but very narrow and partially outdated data set that should not be treated as a definitive assessment of current performance.

This contractor shows mixed signals across limited evidence. Positive mentions highlight fair pricing, friendly demeanor, quick response, and quality workmanship. However, a severe 1-star review explicitly questions licensing and describes poor personality and service, which significantly impacts professionalism scoring. Most reviews are older than 5 years (2013–2015), limiting recency relevance. The WW Score of 72.8 reflects conservative scoring due to low mention counts across all dimensions and the presence of a serious negative claim that cannot be ignored.

• CRITICAL: One review (2018) alleges contractor is 'not even licensed' and describes 'worst service and worst personality' — this is a serious red flag that contradicts positive reviews and raises legal/safety concerns. Licensing status should be independently verified.
• RECENCY ISSUE: 5 of 7 reviews are from 2013–2015 (9+ years old). Only 1 usable review from 2019. Data is heavily outdated and may not reflect current service quality.
• TWO REVIEWS MARKED 'UNKNOWN': 2 five-star reviews (2014, 2015) contain no text, only ratings. These cannot be analyzed and are excluded from scoring.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews with usable data. Confidence in overall score is inherently limited.
• EXTREME POLARITY: Stark contrast between 5-star praise and 1-star condemnation suggests either significant service inconsistency or potential data quality issues.

This score should be treated with caution. The small sample size (5 usable reviews), extreme age of most data (9+ years), and serious unresolved allegation regarding licensing create substantial uncertainty. Independent verification of licensing status and recent customer references are strongly recommended before hiring.

The majority of recent reviews (2025) praise fast response times, courteous technicians, and completed jobs, which drives the professionalism and project completion scores upward. However, a significant cluster of negative reviews — spanning 2022 through mid-2025 — describes serious issues including price gouging after work is done, jobs left incomplete or done incorrectly, code violations, technicians abandoning jobs mid-repair, and an owner who becomes unresponsive after payment. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out hidden charges, prices revealed only after work was completed, and rates described as exploitative of emergency situations. Project completion is also materially dragged down by several detailed accounts of work that failed, was done incorrectly, or was never followed up on. The overall picture is a company with capable individual technicians but systemic accountability and pricing integrity problems.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review praising Pedro for water heater replacement (dated 2023-06-19) appears twice with nearly identical text — one copy has a timestamp and one does not. Only counted once for scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The 'Beware' review about a $3,500 PVC valve and code violation (dated 2023-11-06) appears twice with identical text. Only counted once for scoring.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: Several short, generic 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'Great company and good service.', 'very good service', 'Love the services') provide no verifiable information and follow a pattern consistent with padding. These were given minimal weight.
• THREE BLANK REVIEWS with only a 5-star rating and no text were excluded from usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews span from 2022 through June 2025, indicating problems are not isolated to an old ownership period. The most recent 1-star reviews (June 2025) describe an unresolved broken toilet and a fraudulent AC referral scheme, suggesting ongoing issues.
• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: Multiple independent reviewers explicitly state prices were only disclosed after work was completed, that pricing appeared to be based on perceived desperation or neighborhood, and that one technician admitted the company upsold an elderly customer a $2,800 water heater when only a tripped breaker needed resetting.
• ACCOUNTABILITY CONCERN: Multiple reviewers report that after payment, the owner or company becomes completely unresponsive to follow-up calls, callbacks, or requests to fix errors — a pattern appearing across 2022, 2023, and 2025 reviews.
• TECHNICIAN QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Reviews name specific technicians (Karel, Pedro, Ariel, Gil, Kevin, Vernon, Christian, Wiz, Samuel, Sean, Alex, Jay) with highly variable quality. Some are praised extensively; others (unnamed or associated with Gil/owner) are described as incompetent or dishonest.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the volume of reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously — the strong positive reviews are largely recent and short-form, while the negative reviews are detailed, specific, and span multiple years, suggesting the low scores in pricing and completion reflect genuine systemic risks rather than isolated incidents.

V&B Remodeling demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism, with three detailed positive reviews praising punctuality, workmanship quality, and attention to detail. However, a critical 1-star review from March 2024 describing non-completion of work and lack of communication after receiving 50% payment significantly impacts the overall score. The company shows capability in execution but has a serious project completion failure that cannot be ignored. Pricing information is absent from all reviews, preventing assessment of value for money.

• CRITICAL: One review (2024-03-01) alleges incomplete project abandonment with half-payment taken and no communication for extended period — describes potential scam behavior. This is a severe red flag for reliability.
• Three positive reviews (2023-10-17, 2023-08-05, 2023-07-06) use notably formal, flowery language and generic praise without specific cost details, which could suggest curated or fake reviews, though they do contain some specific project details (bathrooms, flooring, kitchen, tile work).
• Recency concern: Most reviews are from mid-2023 or earlier; only one recent review (March 2024) which is highly negative.
• No pricing feedback across any review — cannot assess Price Friendly dimension.

This score should be treated with caution due to conflicting evidence: strong positive reviews suggest genuine capability, but a recent allegation of project abandonment and non-communication raises serious concerns about consistency and trustworthiness. The WW Score of 68.2 reflects this contradiction and should prompt further investigation before engagement.