Find Nearby Plumbers In Hollywood, Florida

This contractor exhibits a deeply polarized review pattern with two distinct customer populations. Recent reviews (2021-2025) are overwhelmingly positive (5-star), praising professionalism, fair pricing, and quality workmanship. However, older reviews (2012-2020) reveal serious systemic issues including alleged overcharging, missed appointments, incomplete work, and unethical billing practices. The company appears to have undergone significant operational changes or rebranding (Drain Rite to Full Service Plumbing). While current performance metrics are strong, the historical pattern of complaints regarding pricing transparency and project follow-through substantially reduces overall confidence.

• CRITICAL: Extreme temporal polarization detected. Reviews from 2021-2025 are nearly all 5-star with detailed positive narratives. Reviews from 2012-2020 are predominantly 1-star with allegations of fraud, overcharging, missed appointments, and incomplete work. This suggests either dramatic operational reform or potential review manipulation.
• Multiple reviews (2012-2020) allege fraudulent billing practices, including signing blank contracts with amounts filled in later, double-billing insurance companies, and charging significantly above quoted estimates.
• Company name change from 'Drain Rite Plumbing' to 'Full Service Plumbing' noted in multiple older reviews, with allegations this was done to escape negative reputation.
• Owner name inconsistency: Older reviews reference 'John Opitz' as owner; recent reviews reference 'Jeff Gilbert' or 'Jeffrey.' This may indicate ownership change or rebranding.
• Several 1-star reviews mention no-shows, missed appointments, and poor communication despite scheduling confirmations.
• Pricing complaints are concentrated in older reviews but are severe, with allegations of 300-400% markups over fair market value.
• Recent positive reviews show some repetitive phrasing patterns (e.g., 'go above and beyond,' 'honest and reliable,' 'professional and knowledgeable') but appear substantive with specific details.
• Empty reviews (no text, only ratings) present in dataset; these were excluded from scoring but suggest data quality issues.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While recent reviews (past 3-4 years) demonstrate strong performance across all dimensions, the historical record reveals serious allegations of unethical practices. The dramatic shift in review sentiment coinciding with apparent company rebranding raises questions about whether improvements are genuine or whether negative reviews are being suppressed. Recommend requesting references from recent clients and verifying licensing/complaint history with local regulatory bodies before engaging this contractor.

John Jones Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 12+ years. While older reviews (2011–2014) praise diagnostic skill and fair pricing, recent reviews (2017–2023) reveal serious quality control issues including incomplete work, poor cleanup, improper installations, and alleged dishonest practices. Project completion is the weakest dimension, with multiple instances of unfinished jobs, damaged property, and callbacks that failed to resolve issues. Professionalism scores are dragged down by poor communication, messy work sites, and unprofessional behavior. The company appears to have declined substantially after ownership/staff changes, as explicitly noted by long-time customers.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent reviews (2017–2023) are significantly more negative than older reviews (2011–2014), suggesting company quality has deteriorated over time. Older positive reviews may not reflect current service.
• QUALITY CONTROL FAILURE: Multiple reviews explicitly mention lack of oversight of field plumbers, with customers noting the company does not adequately vet or supervise technicians.
• OWNERSHIP/STAFF CHANGE: Two reviews explicitly reference a transition ('the Other brother took over,' 'old plumbers left'), correlating with sharp decline in service quality.
• DISHONESTY ALLEGATION: One customer explicitly accuses the plumber of deliberately using inadequate tools to inflate job cost ($400 vs. actual simple fix), and states the owner acknowledged this when confronted.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Multiple reviews document unfinished jobs, damaged property left unrepaired, and items removed from job site without customer consent.

This score should be treated with caution due to extreme variance across time periods and the apparent structural decline in the company. The MODERATE overall confidence reflects adequate mention counts, but the data itself suggests the company may be unreliable for current work; recent reviews are more predictive than older ones.

This contractor shows strong technical capability and work speed (experience dimension), with two reviews explicitly praising plumbing knowledge and quick job completion. However, professionalism is severely undermined by one detailed negative review documenting refusal to provide an invoice, unresponsiveness over 3 days, and hostile attitude when contacted. Pricing transparency is also questioned due to the invoice refusal incident. The two positive reviews lack specificity and detail, while the negative review is concrete and verifiable. With only 3 total reviews and conflicting signals, confidence in this score is limited.

• RECENCY ISSUE: Two reviews are from 2021 (2+ years old); only one recent review from 2022. Limited current data.
• GENERIC PRAISE: First two reviews lack specific details about work performed, pricing, or timeline—generic language raises minor authenticity concerns.
• CRITICAL PROFESSIONALISM FAILURE: One detailed negative review documents invoice refusal, 3-day non-responsiveness, and hostile attitude—serious red flags for business practices.
• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews total; score reliability is inherently limited and subject to change with additional feedback.

This score should be treated with caution due to very small sample size (3 reviews), significant age of most data (2021), and a serious documented professionalism failure that conflicts with generic positive reviews; additional recent reviews are needed to establish reliable contractor assessment.

The overwhelming pattern across these reviews is one of missed appointments, ghosting, and abandoned or incomplete work — behaviors that devastate the Professionalism and Project Completion scores, which together carry 65% of the total weight. Seven of eleven reviews describe the contractor making appointments and simply never showing up, never calling, and in some cases going completely silent even when a customer had their water shut off. One review documents a job left incomplete with multiple code violations flagged by an inspector, and money taken without return. The few positive reviews (4 of 11) do highlight genuine skill with difficult plumbing, fair pricing, and a friendly demeanor, which partially lifts the Experience and Pricing scores — but these positives are far outweighed by the volume and severity of the negative patterns. The WW Score of approximately 28 reflects a contractor who may possess technical ability but has demonstrated a serious and repeated failure to show up, follow through, and communicate.

• SERIOUS RELIABILITY CONCERN: 7 out of 11 reviews explicitly describe missed appointments with no call, no show, and no follow-up — this is a dominant and consistent pattern across multiple years.
• ABANDONED WORK: At least one review documents a job left incomplete, money taken, and all contact subsequently ignored. An inspector also flagged multiple code violations on that job.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent negative review is from December 2023, indicating the pattern of missed appointments and poor follow-through has continued into recent years. All 4 positive reviews are from 2019 or earlier.
• POSITIVE REVIEW QUALITY: The 4 positive reviews appear genuine and specific (mentioning poly pipe, cast iron work, sink drain repair, pricing details), so fake review patterns are not suspected — but the positive reviews are significantly older than the negative ones.
• TREND WARNING: The ratio of negative to positive reviews worsens over time. All reviews from 2020 onward are 1-star. This suggests a declining trajectory in service quality or reliability.

This WW Score is based on 11 reviews spanning 2015–2023 with strong mention coverage across three of four dimensions, making the score moderately reliable in direction — the contractor's serious and repeated failure to honor appointments and complete work is well-documented and consistent enough to treat this low score with HIGH confidence.

This contractor exhibits catastrophic failure across all measured dimensions. Every single review is 1-star with explicit documentation of severe professionalism failures including no-shows, disappearances mid-project, blocking customers, and unprofessional behavior. Project completion is critically deficient with jobs abandoned for months, unfinished work, and broken promises. Pricing is predatory with massive cost overruns (20K jobs exceeding 50K+), undisclosed charges, and billing for work not performed. While some technical work was initially completed, the overall execution quality is undermined by fundamental incompetence (burst pipes, equipment damage) and lack of accountability. This contractor should not be hired under any circumstances.

• CRITICAL: All 10 reviews are 1-star ratings with consistent, detailed allegations of serious misconduct. This is not a fake review pattern but rather a genuine pattern of severe contractor failure.
• Multiple reviews document identical core issues: disappearance after payment, project abandonment for 6-10 months, massive cost overruns (100%+ increases), and refusal to communicate.
• Serious legal/safety concerns documented: burst pipes causing apartment flooding, equipment damage to floors, unlicensed subcontractors, city permit denial despite claims of licensure.
• Pattern of financial dishonesty: billing for services not rendered, undisclosed charges, refusal to provide receipts, selective communication (answering calls from unknown numbers but hanging up when identified).
• Review dates span 2021-2024, indicating this is not a recent isolated incident but a sustained pattern of poor business practices.
• One review (2022-08-23) notes 'service itself was very good' but contractor failed on follow-through and documentation, suggesting inconsistent execution.

This WW Score cannot be calculated because all 10 reviews are uniformly negative with no positive data points, making any weighted average meaningless. The score of 0 would be more accurate than any calculation. This contractor should be considered extremely high-risk based on overwhelming evidence of abandonment, financial misconduct, and lack of accountability. Trust in this assessment is absolute given the volume, consistency, and specificity of documented failures across multiple years.

Only 3 reviews were analyzed, with only 2 containing usable data. This is below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for reliable scoring. The reviews show extreme polarization: one 5-star review praising honesty and inexpensiveness, and one 1-star review citing severe professionalism issues (odor, poor workmanship). The third review contains no substantive content. The conflicting evidence and minimal sample size prevent reliable WW Score calculation.

• Only 2 usable reviews — insufficient for reliable scoring
• Extreme polarization: 5-star and 1-star ratings with no middle ground
• One review (2016-09-26) contains only a period with no substantive feedback
• Reviews span 2016–2018; all older than 12 months — recency concern
• Single 1-star review cites serious professionalism red flags (personal hygiene, appearance, workmanship quality)
• Positive review lacks specifics on actual work performed; generic praise language
• Insufficient data to assess consistency or detect patterns

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to fewer than 3 usable reviews and extreme polarization between ratings. Any decision based on this data should be treated with extreme caution and supplemented with additional customer references.