Find Nearby Plumbers In Jacksonville, Florida

Jerry Nolan Plumbing shows a mixed performance profile with significant quality variance across jobs. While many reviews (8 five-star ratings from 2015–2021) praise professionalism, fair pricing, and skilled workmanship, recent reviews (2022) reveal serious concerns: a p-trap installed backwards causing water damage, repeated failure to return calls despite long-term customer relationships, and scheduling/communication breakdowns with price discrepancies. The company demonstrates strong technical capability and fair pricing when engaged, but recent professionalism and responsiveness issues, combined with a critical installation error, substantially lower overall confidence. The recency of negative reviews (2022) is particularly concerning as they contradict the positive historical pattern.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 3+ years old (2015–2021). The three most recent reviews (2022, 2022, 2022) are all 1–2 stars, suggesting a significant decline in service quality or operational issues.
• CRITICAL WORKMANSHIP ERROR: Review from 2022-05-23 documents a p-trap installed backwards and incorrectly, causing water damage. This is a fundamental installation error inconsistent with claimed expertise.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Review from 2022-04-15 indicates long-term customer unable to reach company despite multiple calls. Review from 2022-04-06 shows scheduling failures and price inconsistency ($65 quoted, $125 charged).
• PRICE INCONSISTENCY: One review explicitly documents being quoted $65 then charged $125 for the same service, contradicting claims of transparent pricing.
• OPERATIONAL INCONSISTENCY: Review from 2016-07-07 describes inefficient crew (2 guys, 2 trucks for 30-min job, took 90 min, excessive talking), suggesting inconsistent crew quality and management.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence and interpreted cautiously. While the numerical score of 72.8 reflects the full dataset, the dramatic deterioration in recent reviews (all 2022) suggests the company may be experiencing current operational problems that are not fully captured by historical averages. Prospective customers should prioritize the recent negative reviews over older positive ones and seek current references before engaging.

Drew Hartmann Plumbing shows mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism scores 68 due to strong positive mentions of punctuality, friendliness, and responsiveness, but significantly undermined by two damaging reviews citing disrespectful treatment and dismissive attitude toward customers. Project completion scores 75, with evidence of timely work and follow-through on major jobs, though one review explicitly states work was not corrected and the owner refused warranty support. Experience scores 82 based on demonstrated technical skill in complex jobs (repipes, slab leaks, major installations). Pricing scores 65, with some customers praising competitive rates while others report quotes double competitors' estimates. The company's score is dragged down by serious professionalism and completion concerns that create trust issues despite strong technical capabilities.

• CRITICAL: Two 1-star reviews (2022-11-17, 2022-11-06) describe owner as disrespectful and dismissive, with explicit statement that work was not corrected and owner refused warranty support. These are not isolated complaints but pattern concerns about owner conduct and accountability.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent negative reviews are from 2022; most positive reviews are from 2017-2020. Recent review from 2024-03-12 shows partial resolution of a sewer job but with cautious tone ('fingers crossed'), suggesting ongoing reliability questions.
• INCONSISTENCY: Strong positive reviews praise professionalism and pricing, while negative reviews describe arrogance and overpricing. This suggests either highly variable service quality or significant owner-customer relationship issues.
• INCOMPLETE RESOLUTION: 2024-03-12 review indicates customer had to fight for completion of work ('hard fought battle'), suggesting follow-through issues despite eventual completion.

This score should be treated with caution. While technical experience is well-documented, serious concerns about owner professionalism, customer respect, and warranty accountability are explicitly stated in multiple reviews. The company demonstrates capability but has credibility issues that warrant careful consideration before engagement.

Quick Fix Plumbing shows significant inconsistency in service quality. While 6 of 9 reviews are highly positive (5-star ratings from 2017-2023), two recent 1-star reviews (2022, 2024) reveal serious problems: unprofessional behavior, incomplete work, incompatible parts installation, missed callbacks, and poor management responsiveness. The 2024 review is particularly damaging, documenting a 45-minute phone call during a simple faucet install, a broken outdoor pipe with denial of responsibility, cursing/tantrum behavior, overcharging ($453 for basic work), and rude office management. The 2022 review documents failed callbacks and upside-down installation. Older positive reviews lack specificity and may not reflect current operations. The company appears to have experienced a decline in service standards.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 2+ years old (2017-2023). The two most recent reviews (2022, 2024) are both 1-star with detailed complaints of serious misconduct.
• PATTERN OF FAILURE: Two independent reviews document incomplete work, failed callbacks, and installation errors—suggesting systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: 2024 review documents cursing, tantrum behavior, phone avoidance, and dismissive attitude toward customer concerns. 2022 review documents no-show for correction appointment.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple recent reviews cite overcharging—$453 for a simple faucet install plus broken pipe repair, and $202 for incompatible parts. Older reviews cite 'reasonable' or 'less than expected' pricing.
• MANAGEMENT ISSUE: 2024 review documents rude, dismissive office manager (Don) who interrupted customer and blamed customer for calling too many times rather than addressing the service failure.
• POSSIBLE QUALITY DECLINE: Stark contrast between older glowing reviews and recent detailed negative reviews suggests company may have changed ownership, staff, or operational standards.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the calculated WW Score is 72.8, the dramatic divergence between older positive reviews and recent detailed negative reviews indicates the company's current service quality may be significantly lower than the overall score suggests. The two most recent reviews (2022, 2024) document serious failures in professionalism, project completion, and management responsiveness. Potential customers should heavily weight the 2024 review as the most current and detailed evidence of actual service delivery.

This contractor shows mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism is a significant weakness, with one recent (2024) scathing review citing disrespect and unprofessionalism, while older reviews praise courtesy and responsiveness—suggesting possible service degradation over time. Project completion scores are solid, with multiple reviews confirming timely work and follow-through, though one 2006 review noted difficulty scheduling callbacks. Experience is rated positively based on explicit mentions of knowledgeability and skill. No pricing data was available in any review. The WW Score of 72.8 reflects moderate reliability, heavily influenced by the recent negative professionalism review and the age of most positive feedback.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 10+ years old (2006–2013). Only 2 reviews from the past decade; the most recent (2024) is highly negative, suggesting possible service quality decline.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: Review dated 2015-11-05 contains only a period (.) with a 5-star rating—appears to be spam or placeholder data. Excluded from analysis.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONTRADICTION: Strong positive mentions (2012–2013) contrast sharply with recent 1-star review (2024) citing disrespect and unprofessionalism. This inconsistency warrants caution.
• SCHEDULING ISSUE: 2006 review explicitly mentions poor responsiveness and difficulty getting callbacks, indicating a potential chronic operational weakness.
• LIMITED PRICING DATA: No reviews mention pricing, value, or transparency—cannot assess this dimension.

This score should be treated with caution due to the age of most positive reviews, the stark contradiction with the recent negative review, and insufficient data on pricing. The WW Score reflects historical performance but may not accurately represent current service quality.

Touchton Plumbing demonstrates solid project completion and technical competence, with multiple reviews praising timely work and quality installations. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by serious incidents including an employee driving recklessly, arriving to work impaired, and dismissive customer service when billing disputes arose. Pricing concerns emerge in one detailed complaint about unauthorized work and inflated charges, though other reviews praise fair pricing. The company shows inconsistency: excellent execution on routine jobs contrasts sharply with poor judgment and defensive behavior in conflict situations.

• SERIOUS PROFESSIONALISM ISSUE: One review documents a company vehicle hitting customer's car with alleged employee dishonesty and company support of false statements to authorities. This is a major red flag for integrity and liability.
• IMPAIRMENT CONCERN: Employee arrived to work smelling of marijuana at 9am, raising questions about workplace standards and safety protocols.
• BILLING DISPUTE: Customer reports unauthorized work performed on multiple units without prior approval, with supervisor becoming defensive and dismissive when questioned. Supervisor allegedly told customer 'never call us again' after complaint.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Most reviews are 3+ years old (2015-2021). Only one review from 2021 is recent. Limited current data on whether issues have been addressed.
• MIXED QUALITY SIGNALS: Strong positive reviews about work quality and professionalism contrast sharply with serious negative incidents, suggesting inconsistent standards or selective service quality.

This score should be treated with caution due to serious professionalism and integrity concerns documented in multiple reviews, combined with limited recent data. While technical competence appears solid, the company's handling of conflicts and employee conduct raises significant trust issues that may not be fully captured in the numerical score.

Frank (Frankie) demonstrates strong professionalism, technical skill, and reasonable pricing across multiple positive reviews spanning 2019–2024. However, a critical 1-star review from May 2024 alleges theft of a $1,100 down payment, non-appearance, and lack of proper licensing/business registration—a serious allegation that directly contradicts the narrative of reliability and professionalism in other reviews. Project completion data is sparse; while most reviews praise work quality, only two reviews explicitly address follow-through and timeliness. The recency and severity of the fraud allegation, combined with claims of unlicensed operation, significantly undermines overall trustworthiness despite strong historical ratings.

• CRITICAL: May 2024 review alleges theft of $1,100 down payment and non-appearance. Reviewer also claims business is unlicensed and not registered for taxes. This is a serious fraud allegation that contradicts the positive narrative.
• LICENSING CONCERN: One review explicitly states the business is 'not licensed and not even registered under businesses for taxes.' This requires immediate verification and raises legal/regulatory red flags.
• RECENCY ISSUE: The fraud allegation is the most recent review (May 2024). All other positive reviews are 2019–2023, suggesting a potential deterioration in service or business practices.
• PATTERN INCONSISTENCY: Seven 5-star reviews with consistent praise vs. one 1-star review with serious allegations creates a stark contradiction. This warrants caution and independent verification.
• LIMITED PROJECT COMPLETION DATA: Only 2 of 8 reviews explicitly mention on-time delivery or follow-through. Absence of complaints is not evidence of reliability.

This score should be treated with significant caution. While historical reviews (2019–2023) are consistently positive and detailed, the May 2024 fraud allegation and licensing concerns fundamentally undermine confidence in the overall rating. Independent verification of licensing status and investigation of the theft claim are essential before engaging this contractor.