Find Nearby Plumbers In Jacksonville, Florida

Aldridge and Sons presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension and is sharply divided: multiple reviewers praise punctuality, friendly attitudes, and responsive communication, while several others describe dismissive technicians, security violations, last-minute appointment cancellations, and outright unprofessional behavior. Pricing is a significant concern, with multiple explicit complaints about opaque billing, surprise after-hours charges, and fees perceived as grossly disproportionate to work performed — dragging that dimension's score down considerably. Project completion is similarly split: several reviewers praise thorough, complete work and emergency responsiveness, but others describe technicians leaving without resolving the problem, failed diagnoses, and work that required a competitor to finish. Experience scores modestly above the midpoint, with positive mentions of knowledgeable plumbers who explained work clearly, offset by serious complaints about misdiagnosed leaks, ineffective drain snaking, and a technician who failed to identify a hot water issue.

• 6 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• One review (Richard, cable line/TV mounting/doors) appears to describe a handyman, not a plumber. This may indicate the business profile aggregates reviews for multiple service types, which could distort scores.
• Several 5-star reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Great Plumber! Highly recommend!', 'Always reliable.', 'Good service', 'Great plumbers') with no specific details. While not conclusively fake, these add limited evidentiary value and were weighted conservatively.
• The review mentioning 'driver cutting people off on the highway' was noted but not scored against any dimension, as it reflects driving behavior rather than service quality.
• Recency note: The most recent reviews (2025, 2024) include both a strong negative (failed leak diagnosis, $223 charge) and a strong positive. The bulk of detailed reviews span 2018–2023. No clear improvement trend is evident from the data.
• Pricing complaints are specific and recurring across multiple independent reviewers and time periods (2017, 2018, 2021, 2023, 2025), suggesting a systemic issue with billing transparency rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score is based on 44 reviews with usable content across a multi-year period and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy, though the score should be interpreted cautiously given the high volume of serious negative experiences that are specific, detailed, and independently corroborated across multiple dimensions.

Totally Hooked Plumbing shows mixed performance across three reviews. Professionalism is moderately supported with mentions of timely arrival, clear communication, and explanation of work, though one review reports failure to provide a receipt and poor follow-up. Pricing receives limited but positive feedback for fair rates. Project completion is concerning—while two reviews mention on-time completion, one critical review states the problem worsened after service, suggesting potential quality or follow-through issues. Experience appears solid based on technical explanations provided, but the negative outcome in one case raises questions about actual skill execution.

• CRITICAL: One review (1.0 rating, 2024-10-20) reports that the plumbing problem worsened after service and the customer did not receive a receipt despite providing email. This suggests either poor workmanship or inadequate follow-up procedures.
• Recency concern: One positive review is from February 2024 (8+ months old); two reviews are from October 2024. Limited dataset with only 3 reviews.
• Extreme rating variance: Two 5-star reviews and one 1-star review with no middle-ground feedback suggests polarized customer experiences.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size (3 reviews) and the presence of a serious service failure complaint that directly contradicts positive claims about project completion. Additional reviews are needed to establish reliable confidence in this contractor's true performance level.

Kingdom Based Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism in communication, responsiveness, and courtesy, with multiple reviews praising punctuality and friendly demeanor. However, the company is significantly undermined by serious pricing concerns—two reviews explicitly detail bait-and-switch tactics, quote inflation, and overcharging for unnecessary work. Project completion is inconsistent: while several jobs were completed successfully and promptly, one major review documents incomplete repairs across two visits totaling over $500 with the core problem unresolved. Technical expertise appears adequate for routine work but questionable for diagnostic problem-solving. The stark contrast between glowing recent reviews and damaging older complaints raises reliability concerns.

• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Reviews from 2024 (4 reviews) are uniformly 5-star with generic praise and minimal specifics, while older reviews (2022, 2021) contain detailed narratives and mixed ratings. The 2024 reviews use similar phrasing ('on time,' 'great communication,' 'highly recommend') with suspiciously consistent positive framing.
• CRITICAL PRICING ISSUE: Two separate reviews (2024-09-20 and 2022-08-18) document serious pricing problems including bait-and-switch tactics, quote inflation ($1000→$1500), and overcharging for unnecessary services ($300 roof snake). This pattern suggests systemic pricing dishonesty.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURE: 2022-08-18 review documents incomplete repair after two visits and $500+ spent, with improper diagnostics and damage to customer property (scratched toilet).
• RECENCY BIAS RISK: Most positive reviews are from 2024; most negative reviews are from 2022. However, the 2024 reviews lack the specificity and detail of authentic customer feedback, suggesting possible review manipulation or selection bias.

This score should be treated with caution. While recent reviews appear positive, the pattern of generic 2024 praise combined with detailed 2022-2024 complaints about pricing fraud and incomplete work suggests the company may have reputation management issues. The documented bait-and-switch and diagnostic failures are serious red flags that outweigh generic positive sentiment.

PV Plumbing has a mixed track record across four reviews spanning 2017 to 2022. Positive reviews highlight prompt communication, reasonable pricing, and solid problem-solving ability, with one reviewer noting the work site was left spotless. However, a significant negative review from 2018 describes a $675 charge for a leak that was not properly fixed, followed by no response to follow-up calls — a serious flag for both project completion and professionalism. A minor professionalism concern also appears in the 4-star review, where the technician left a gate open allowing a dog to escape. The combination of one strong negative and three positives tempers the overall score considerably, and the small sample size limits confidence in any direction.

• One review (1-star, 2018) explicitly alleges the contractor did not fix the problem correctly, charged $675, and then became unresponsive — this is a serious project completion and professionalism failure that significantly weighs down scores.
• All reviews are older than 12 months (most recent is June 2022, oldest is 2017), meaning recency weighting is limited and current performance cannot be reliably assessed.
• Sample size is very small (4 reviews total), which means a single negative review has outsized impact and scores should be treated with caution.
• No patterns of fake reviews detected; reviews contain specific details, varied language, and mixed ratings, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, all older than 12 months, and includes one serious negative allegation — the score should be treated as a preliminary signal only and not a reliable indicator of current contractor quality.

Professionalism receives a mixed score: several reviews praise courteous, timely, and polite crews, but the most recent review (2024) describes an apprentice who was unproductive, distracted, and unhelpful, which significantly drags the dimension down. Pricing is a serious concern — two separate reviews explicitly describe being overcharged, one by over $220 and another billed $640 for unresolved work, yielding a low score despite no complaints in other reviews. Project completion is similarly mixed: multiple reviews confirm jobs were finished satisfactorily, but the 2024 review documents a failure to resolve the issue, a loose toilet left behind, and a broken flange that required a second company to fix. Experience scores moderately — some reviews cite knowledgeable and skilled crews, but the 2024 incident involving an inexperienced apprentice and the 2018 incident of arriving unprepared and needing to leave for supplies both reflect meaningful skill and preparation gaps.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent review (2024) is the most detailed and most negative, describing unresolved work, an unproductive apprentice, and a broken flange missed by the crew. This should carry the most weight and is a significant red flag.
• PRICING PATTERN: Two independent reviews (2024 and 2018) explicitly describe being overcharged for labor hours, suggesting a possible systemic billing issue rather than an isolated incident.
• OLDER REVIEWS: Four of the seven reviews are from 2019 or earlier, with one from 2021. These may not reflect current service quality and should be weighted less heavily.
• PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP BIAS: The 2019 5-star review explicitly states the reviewer is 'great friends with the owner,' which introduces potential bias and reduces the reliability of that review.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 7 reviews total. This is a very small sample size and limits the reliability of any score produced. Scores should be treated with caution.
• ONE OFF-TOPIC REVIEW: The 2023 review describes a non-plumbing emergency (unlocking a car) and provides no usable data about plumbing services. It was excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.

This WW Score has LOW reliability due to a very small review pool of only 7 reviews, significant recency gaps, at least one biased review from a personal friend of the owner, and two serious negative reviews describing overcharging and incomplete work — prospective customers should seek additional references before hiring.

Professionalism scores reasonably well, with multiple reviewers noting punctuality, cleanliness, respectfulness, and honest communication — though the praise is often brief and generic. Project completion is the most damaging dimension: one detailed, credible negative review describes a failed drain field replacement after multiple attempts, over two months, and $10,000 spent with the problem unresolved — a serious completion failure that significantly drags this score down. Experience is mixed: one reviewer praised a specific drainfield installation as flawless and knowledgeable, while the same type of job drew the harshest criticism from another customer. Pricing receives only one mention — the $10,000 complaint — which reflects poor value given the unresolved outcome, yielding a low score with very limited confidence.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with identical text and a 1-star rating were submitted on 2024-03-07 and 2024-03-08. These appear to be the same reviewer submitting twice. Only one instance was counted for scoring purposes.
• TWO REVIEWS HAVE NO DATE: The 5-star reviews praising Mario and Hessi and the 'Excellent service and professionalism' review lack timestamps. These cannot be assessed for recency and were treated with reduced weight.
• POSSIBLE GENERIC REVIEW PATTERN: Several 5-star reviews contain very little specific detail (e.g., 'Fast service!', 'Very reliable and quality service'). These may be authentic but provide minimal scorable evidence and were treated conservatively.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most detailed and damaging review is from March 2024, making it the most recent datable negative review. Most positive reviews are from mid-2023 or undated, which limits confidence in current performance quality.

This WW Score is based on a small review set of 10 entries with notable data quality issues — including a duplicate review, two undated reviews, and several low-detail 5-star entries — making the score a limited but directionally useful indicator of contractor reliability.