Find Nearby Plumbers In Jacksonville, Florida

Phelps Plumbing has a clearly split reputation: the majority of positive reviews praise fair pricing, professional demeanor, quality workmanship, and good communication, while two significant negative reviews describe no-shows and complete failure to follow up — serious reliability failures that materially drag down the professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing is the strongest dimension, with multiple reviewers independently noting below-market rates and even a case where the plumber charged less than the estimate. However, the two no-show incidents (one in 2023, one in 2024) represent a pattern of punctuality and reliability problems that cannot be dismissed as isolated. Experience scores reasonably well based on specific descriptions of quality work, but the overall picture is one of inconsistency rather than consistent excellence.

• Two separate reviews (April 2024 and November 2023) describe complete no-shows with no follow-up communication — this is a recurring reliability pattern, not a one-off incident.
• Several older reviews (2019 and earlier) reference different technicians by name (Patrick, Tino), suggesting the business may have changed staffing or structure; these reviews may not reflect current service quality.
• The oldest review (2013) is over 10 years old and was given reduced weight in scoring.
• Reviews from 2019 and earlier were deprioritized in favor of 2023–2024 reviews per recency rules; the more recent reviews show a more mixed picture than the older ones.
• No strong fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in length, detail, and rating, and negative reviews are specific and credible.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: the review count is low (13 total), the most recent reviews reveal a concerning no-show pattern that contrasts with older positive reviews, and the presence of multiple named technicians suggests the business may not deliver consistent quality across all jobs.

Kwik Fix Plumbing shows mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism scores highest (76) with consistent mentions of punctuality, friendliness, and responsiveness, though several reviews cite rude staff behavior and poor communication. Pricing is a significant weakness (62), with multiple complaints about overcharges, unexpected billing increases, and labor rates that don't match actual work time. Project completion (72) reflects both successful jobs and serious failures including incomplete work, damage to property, and unresolved issues. Experience/workmanship (80) is generally strong with skilled technicians, though marred by instances of careless work and denial of responsibility. The company's long history (30+ years) is offset by recent negative experiences and inconsistent service quality.

• PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2024-11-02, 2024-10-12, 2023-06-10, 2022-06-10, 2021-04-10, 2021-01-21, 2019-08-05) explicitly cite overcharging, unexpected cost increases, and labor time mismatches. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERNS: Two separate reviews (2024-05-21, 2021-06-10, 2016-07-11) report dangerous/rude driving by company vehicles. One 2024-11-02 review describes a technician cursing, throwing tantrum, and hitting truck. Another (2024-11-02) describes office manager Don as 'rudest person ever.' These suggest cultural/management issues.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Two catastrophic failures documented (2024-11-02 and 2024-08-09) where technicians caused significant damage (broken pipes, disconnected septic line, damaged water lines) and denied responsibility. 2024-11-02 review also notes work not to code (missing vacuum breaker).
• WARRANTY/FOLLOW-UP ISSUES: 2022-06-10 review reports faucet failed after 3 months with only 30-day warranty despite improper initial repair. 2024-10-12 review shows lack of response to billing concerns for 11 days.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reviews cite poor communication, unresponsiveness to callbacks, and lack of transparency about additional costs. 2021-06-10 review shows 4+ hour delay despite promised noon arrival.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews cluster in 2024 (recent) and 2021-2022, suggesting deterioration in service quality over time. Older reviews (2010-2019) are more positive.
• EMPTY/MINIMAL REVIEWS: Several reviews contain no text or minimal text (blank or 'These guys are great'), limiting data quality for 5 reviews.

This WW Score of 71.2 should be treated with MODERATE caution. While based on 56 reviews, the data reveals significant systemic issues in pricing and recent project failures that are well-documented and specific. The company shows capability in technical work and professionalism when things go well, but pricing disputes and catastrophic failures in 2024 suggest current operational problems. Customers should be aware of documented risks around billing transparency and quality control before engaging this company.

All five reviews consistently praise Nick's professionalism, including punctuality (with one noted exception of arriving late), clear communication, and courteous demeanor. His technical expertise with high-end fixtures and specialty systems like reverse osmosis filters is highlighted across multiple reviews, supporting a strong experience score. Pricing is described as reasonable and transparent in three reviews, earning a solid but moderately confident pricing score. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers noting jobs finished correctly the first time, thorough follow-through, and proactive checks on other home systems. However, all reviews are over 10 years old, which significantly limits the reliability of this report for assessing current performance.

• ALL 5 REVIEWS ARE OLDER THAN 10 YEARS (2010–2013). This data is severely outdated and may not reflect current quality, pricing, or availability of this contractor.
• With only 5 reviews spanning 3 years and all being 5-star ratings, the sample size is very small. Caution is advised when relying on this score.
• No negative feedback or constructive criticism is present across any review, which is statistically unusual. While not conclusive, this warrants mild caution regarding review authenticity.
• One reviewer noted Nick arrived later than stated, which is a minor professionalism flag that was factored into the professionalism score.

This WW Score should be treated with LOW confidence due to the extremely small and entirely outdated review set — all reviews are from 2010 to 2013 — making it unreliable as a current indicator of contractor performance.

This contractor demonstrates strong professionalism based on two explicit mentions: quick response time, friendly demeanor, and exceptional customer service (refusing payment for assistance). Pricing is noted as reasonable in one review. However, the dataset is extremely limited with only 3 total reviews, 2 of which are usable. No reviews explicitly address project completion quality, technical skill, or workmanship. The oldest review dates to 2017 and one review indicates the company no longer serves residential customers, raising questions about current relevance.

• Only 3 reviews total — insufficient volume for reliable scoring
• One review (2019) indicates company no longer accepts residential work, making current residential applicability unclear
• No data on project completion, technical experience, or workmanship quality
• Reviews span 2017–2023 with significant gaps; recency is mixed
• Professionalism and pricing scores based on only 1–2 mentions each — treat with caution

This WW Score should be treated with significant caution due to extremely limited review volume (3 reviews) and lack of data on critical dimensions like project completion and technical experience. The score reflects only professionalism and pricing feedback and cannot be considered reliable for decision-making.

Ashley Plumbing receives generally positive feedback across most dimensions, with multiple reviewers praising professionalism, timely arrival, and job completion. A notable negative review from 2007 cited a lack of courtesy, which tempers the professionalism score. Pricing data is extremely thin — only one review mentions it (no extra charge for additional work), making that dimension unreliable. The bulk of reviews are quite old, with most dating from 2006 to 2018, and none appear to be from the past 12 months, significantly limiting the reliability of this score as a reflection of current performance.

• RECENCY WARNING: All 6 reviews are older than 12 months. The most recent review is from August 2018 — over 6 years ago. This score may not reflect current business quality.
• VOLUME WARNING: Only 6 reviews total. This is a very small sample size and the WW Score should be treated with caution.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW: One 1-star review explicitly flags discourteous behavior (failure to remove shoes, lack of courtesy). This is the only negative signal but is a direct professionalism concern.
• GENERIC PRAISE: Several reviews use vague, non-specific language ('amazing,' 'dedicated,' 'caring,' 'true local business') with no job-specific detail, which reduces their evidentiary value.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: LOW — Reviews span multiple years and vary in detail and tone. No strong pattern of coordinated fake reviews detected, but generic reviews reduce confidence.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to a very small review pool of only 6 reviews, all of which are more than 6 years old, making it unsuitable as a current indicator of contractor performance.

Beckwith Plumbing has a mixed but cautiously positive profile across a small review set. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is dragged down meaningfully by one review alleging deliberate time-padding to inflate billable hours and another describing arrogant behavior at a supply counter, offsetting several reviews praising punctuality, communication, and courteous conduct. Pricing receives a below-average score because the most recent review (2024) explicitly describes feeling swindled out of $400 for a basic repair, which is a serious and specific complaint that outweighs older positive comments about fair and transparent pricing. Project completion scores moderately well — jobs described were generally finished and follow-through on callbacks was noted positively — but the small sample and one negative experience prevent a high score. Experience scores reasonably well based on specific mentions of quality workmanship and honest diagnosis, though the sample is limited and most positive reviews are 4–7 years old.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent review (February 2024) is the only review from the past 12 months and is strongly negative (1-star), alleging deliberate time inflation and overcharging. All other reviews are from 2017–2021, with one from 2018. The score should be interpreted with this recency imbalance in mind.
• STALENESS WARNING: Four of six reviews are more than 3 years old, and one is from 2017. Business quality and personnel may have changed significantly since those reviews were written.
• LOW VOLUME: Only 6 reviews total. This is a very small sample and the WW Score carries limited statistical reliability as a result.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in tone, detail level, rating, and specificity. No suspicious repetition or generic phrasing patterns were identified.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — the sample size is very small (6 reviews), the majority of positive reviews are outdated (2017–2021), and the only recent review raises a specific and credible concern about pricing and billing practices.