Find Nearby Plumbers In Homestead, Florida

Ray the Plumber scores reasonably well on professionalism and experience, with the vast majority of reviews praising courteous, punctual, and knowledgeable technicians by name — Connor, Alex, Rob, Tim, Mike, Tom, and others are repeatedly cited for their friendly demeanor, clear explanations, and clean work habits. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension in this dataset: an exceptionally high volume of reviews — spanning the full date range from 2009 to 2025 — explicitly describe prices as outrageous, double or triple competitors, and in several cases customers felt taken advantage of in emergency situations. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs finished in a single visit, but there are notable failures including a flooded basement left unresolved over a weekend, a toilet left running after repair, a pipe incorrectly sized requiring a return visit, and at least two cases where the root cause was misdiagnosed entirely, costing customers thousands of dollars unnecessarily. The combination of strong field technician performance and persistently criticized pricing creates a split profile: the company delivers competent work but at a cost that many customers consider exploitative, particularly for vulnerable or emergency customers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review dated 2025-06-04 and 2025-06-02 are word-for-word identical, describing the same oil burner/boiler incident. This appears to be the same review submitted twice on different dates. Only one instance was counted for scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review dated 2024-01-26 09:10:41 and 2024-01-26 00:00:00 are word-for-word identical, describing the same hot water heater and shower fixture complaint. Only one instance was counted for scoring.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: A significant cluster of reviews dated 2025-05-23, 2025-05-30, 2025-04-07, 2025-03-08, 2025-02-06, and 2025-01-07 contain multiple blank-text reviews with 5-star ratings and no content. These provide no usable data and inflate the apparent star average without substantive feedback.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from approximately 2009 to June 2025. The pricing complaints are consistent and persistent across the entire date range — this is not an isolated or historical issue. Pricing criticism appears in recent 2024 and 2025 reviews as well as older ones, suggesting no improvement over time.
• PRICING CONCERN — SYSTEMIC: An unusually high proportion of negative reviews (estimated 30+ reviews) cite pricing as exploitative, with multiple reviewers stating they were charged 2x to 3x competitor rates for identical work. Several reviewers explicitly state they felt taken advantage of during emergencies. This is a structural business practice concern, not isolated incidents.
• MISDIAGNOSIS CONCERN: At least three reviews describe significant financial harm caused by failure to properly diagnose the root cause before performing expensive work — including a $2,000 tank replacement that was rendered worthless when the boiler coil was found to be the actual problem, a misdiagnosed slab leak, and a toilet repair that failed to identify the actual blockage.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE CONCERN: Multiple reviews describe rude or dismissive behavior from office staff and from Ray himself when complaints were raised, including one review citing Ray yelling at a customer and another describing a customer service rep defending the owner calling a customer a 'jerk' on Yelp.
• WARRANTY/FOLLOW-THROUGH CONCERN: Several reviews describe disputes over warranty coverage, with the company allegedly narrowing warranty terms after the fact or refusing to honor stated guarantees.
• SERVICE FEE CONCERN: Numerous reviews spanning 2010 to 2025 describe the dispatch/estimate fee ($40 to $75 over the years) as a pressure tactic that discourages customers from seeking competing quotes. One reviewer alleges they were promised a refund of this fee as part of a review-removal request, which was never honored.

This WW Score is based on a very large and diverse review dataset spanning over 15 years, giving it HIGH statistical confidence; however, the score should be interpreted with caution given the persistent and well-documented pricing complaints, the presence of duplicate and blank reviews, and evidence of at least some misdiagnosis incidents — the professionalism and experience scores reflect genuine technician quality, while the pricing score of 38 reflects a real and recurring pattern of customer dissatisfaction that prospective customers should weigh heavily.

Aqua Pro Plumbing and Rooter shows a genuinely mixed performance profile across a large review base. Professionalism scores moderately well overall — many reviewers praise punctuality, friendliness, and responsiveness — but is significantly dragged down by multiple credible accounts of rude behavior from the owner, a technician abandoning a job without follow-up, and at least one tech entering a home without shoe coverings and behaving dismissively. Project completion is the most concerning dimension: multiple detailed, credible negative reviews describe failed pipe relining jobs (cast iron and sewer), warranty disputes where the company refused to honor commitments, incomplete work, and in one case a $17,000 job that still required a full re-pipe. Pricing receives mixed signals — many reviewers call rates reasonable or fair, but several describe being charged significantly more than expected, double the local market rate, or being pressured for additional money beyond contract terms. Experience scores moderately, with many reviewers praising technical knowledge and problem-solving, but offset by documented cases of incompetent diagnosis, incorrect parts installed, and work that failed within months.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: There are 21 reviews with completely blank text and only a 5-star rating. These provide no usable data and inflate the perceived rating. They have been excluded from dimension scoring but are noted as a pattern consistent with rating manipulation.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of substantive reviews are from 2024–2025 and are within the past 12 months, which is positive for recency weighting. However, negative reviews are also well-represented in recent months, suggesting ongoing issues rather than historical problems.
• SERIOUS FLAG — WARRANTY AND CONTRACT DISPUTES: At least 5 separate reviewers describe paying large sums ($5,000–$17,000) for pipe relining or sewer work, only to have the same problem recur within months to two years, followed by the company refusing warranty service or demanding additional payment. This is a consistent and credible pattern across multiple independent reviewers.
• SERIOUS FLAG — OWNER CONDUCT: Multiple reviewers independently describe the owner as rude, dismissive, or aggressive when complaints were raised. One reviewer states the owner 'cussed them out' on the phone. Another describes the owner arriving unprepared to a job site. This is a recurring pattern, not an isolated incident.
• FLAG — INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: At least two reviewers explicitly state that work they paid for was not fully completed (pipe lining only partially applied, job abandoned without follow-up report or estimate), and one reviewer had an independent inspection confirm incomplete work two years later.
• FLAG — TECHNICIAN MISCONDUCT: One reviewer describes a technician lying to them about home warranty terms. Another describes a technician entering the home with dirty shoes and providing false information to the warranty company. These are serious integrity concerns.
• NOTE: Several reviews reference different geographic locations and different named technicians (Jose, Julio, Victor, Pat, Leo, Danny, Luis, Jorge, Yariel, Juan, Steve, Steven), suggesting this may be a franchise or multi-location operation. Scores reflect the aggregate of all reviews as submitted.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (125 total, 104 with usable data) and carries HIGH overall confidence in terms of sample size, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given a documented and recurring pattern of serious project completion failures, warranty disputes, and owner conduct issues that represent material risk to consumers considering large or high-value plumbing jobs.

This contractor demonstrates strong technical skills and responsiveness, with multiple reviews praising quick response times and professional demeanor. However, project completion is a critical weakness—two separate reviews document abandoned jobs (one half-completed shower, one unfinished repair with no callback), which directly contradicts the positive reviews claiming excellent work. Pricing appears fair based on limited mentions. The stark contradiction between glowing reviews and serious abandonment complaints suggests inconsistent service delivery, making this score unreliable despite apparent professionalism in communication.

• CRITICAL: Two reviews (2022-11-14 and 2022-07-15) describe abandoned projects with no follow-up despite multiple contact attempts. This is a severe red flag for project completion reliability.
• SUSPICIOUS PATTERN: Eight of ten reviews are 5-star ratings with generic praise ('highly recommend,' 'very professional,' 'excellent work') lacking specific technical details. Combined with two 1-star abandonment complaints, this suggests either inconsistent service or potential review manipulation.
• NAME INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference 'Dariel,' 'Daniel,' and 'Darien Service and Repair'—unclear if same contractor or different entities, which raises data quality concerns.
• RECENCY CONCERN: All reviews are from 2021-2022 (2+ years old). No recent reviews available to assess current service quality.
• CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE: Positive reviews claim 'excellent work' and 'highly recommend,' but abandonment reviews describe incomplete jobs and unresponsiveness. This fundamental contradiction severely undermines score reliability.

This score should be treated with caution. While professionalism and experience metrics appear strong, the documented project abandonment issues and suspicious clustering of generic 5-star reviews alongside severe 1-star complaints suggest either highly inconsistent service or data integrity problems. The WW Score of 68.2 reflects this contradiction conservatively, but potential customers should heavily weight the abandonment complaints when making decisions.

R&I Plumbing has a mixed track record across the four reviews analyzed. Professionalism is significantly dragged down by a 1-star review describing a no-show appointment and ignored phone calls, which is a serious reliability concern. Project completion is similarly mixed — while three reviewers report satisfactory or excellent results, one review explicitly notes timing issues and the no-show incident represents a complete failure to deliver. Pricing received a positive mention in one review, suggesting competitive rates in the Homestead area, but this is based on a single data point and carries very limited confidence. Experience scores moderately well, with two reviewers specifically praising workmanship quality and one noting a whole-house plumbing job that held up for over 10 years, though the small sample size limits confidence.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score is statistically unreliable and should be treated with caution.
• Reviews span from 2016 to 2021 — the most recent review is from December 2021, meaning all reviews are more than 2 years old. Current performance cannot be assessed.
• The 1-star no-show review (2019) is a significant red flag for reliability and responsiveness and is weighted accordingly.
• The 5-star review from 2016 references work done 'over 10 years ago,' making the quality claim based on work potentially 20+ years old — limited relevance to current performance.
• No reviews from the past 12 months — recency data is absent and the score may not reflect the contractor's current standards.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning 2016–2021, all of which are outdated, making it a LOW-reliability indicator of current contractor performance — prospective customers should seek more recent references before hiring.

This contractor has a deeply mixed record. Older reviews from 2011–2015 paint a picture of a skilled, courteous, and cost-effective plumber who communicated well and completed jobs thoroughly. However, two significant negative reviews — one from 2017 describing a complete no-show with no communication, and a serious 2023 review alleging a 4-day delay, unprofessional behavior, and highly offensive language from the owner — substantially drag down the professionalism and project completion scores. The 2023 negative review is the most recent and most heavily weighted, and it raises serious concerns about the current state of the business. The gap between the glowing older reviews and the recent negative experiences suggests a meaningful decline in service quality over time.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are from 2011–2015, making them 8–13 years old. Only one positive review exists from the past 12 months (September 2023), and it is extremely brief and generic with no specific details.
• POTENTIAL FAKE OR LOW-QUALITY REVIEW: The September 2023 5-star review ('Very hard worker, nice to see honest and genuine people. Definitely would recommend to anyone!') contains no specifics about the job, the plumber, or the work performed. It reads as generic filler and its credibility is low.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAG: The December 2023 1-star review alleges the owner arrived smelling of alcohol, used a racial slur on a phone call, and took 4 days to respond to a service call. If accurate, this represents a significant professionalism and conduct failure.
• NO-SHOW INCIDENT: The 2017 1-star review documents a complete appointment no-show with no call, no confirmation, and no reschedule — causing the customer financial loss. This is a direct project completion failure.
• BUSINESS TRAJECTORY CONCERN: The pattern of reviews suggests a business that may have been reliable years ago but has experienced serious decline. Prospective customers should treat recent reviews as the most relevant signal.

This WW Score has LIMITED overall reliability due to the heavy age skew of positive reviews, a credible recent misconduct allegation, and only 8 total reviews spanning 12 years — prospective customers should weight the 2023 negative review heavily when making a hiring decision.

Three of the five reviews are from 2017, making them over six years old and significantly less reliable as indicators of current performance. The one negative review (2021) explicitly calls out poor customer service and failure to show up, which directly impacts professionalism and project completion scores. The positive reviews do mention responsiveness, friendliness, affordability, and competent repairs, but these are offset by the negative review and the age of most data. Pricing is mentioned positively in two reviews as reasonable and affordable, but with only two mentions this carries limited confidence. Overall, the mixed signals and heavily dated review pool prevent a high score.

• 3 out of 5 reviews are from 2017 — over 6 years old. These carry significantly reduced weight and may not reflect current business quality.
• The 2021 one-star review explicitly mentions failure to show up and poor customer service, which is a serious flag for reliability and professionalism.
• The 2023 five-star review is vague and generic ('best of the best', 'most reliable, effective and affordable') with no specific details about work performed — possible fake or incentivized review.
• Small sample size of only 5 reviews makes any score unreliable. Confidence across all dimensions is LOW to MODERATE at best.

This WW Score should be treated with significant caution — it is based on only 5 reviews, three of which are over 6 years old, one of which is a serious negative complaint, and one of which shows signs of being a generic or fake review.