Find Nearby Plumbers In Jacksonville, Florida

This contractor has a deeply mixed record across a small and largely outdated review set. The two most recent reviews with usable data — from 2019 and 2012 — include serious complaints: one describes a failed leak repair that worsened the problem, a complete lack of callback responsiveness across 8 attempts, and a charge of over $500 for unresolved work; another describes a job left unfinished and bad technical advice that caused installation problems. These failures heavily drag down project completion and professionalism scores. The positive reviews, while enthusiastic, are all from 2010–2012 and describe a different pattern of responsive, friendly, and competitively priced service — suggesting possible decline in quality or consistency over time. With only 5 usable reviews spanning nearly a decade, confidence in any dimension is limited and the WW Score should be treated with significant caution.

• RECENCY WARNING: The most recent reviews with usable data are from 2019 and 2012. The positive reviews are all from 2010–2012, making them over 10 years old. These older reviews carry significantly reduced weight in assessing current contractor quality.
• One review contained only the word 'unknown' with a 4-star rating and no usable content — excluded from scoring.
• The 2019 review describes a serious pattern of non-responsiveness (8 unanswered calls in 24 hours, no one present at the business location), which may indicate the business was no longer actively operating at that time.
• POTENTIAL QUALITY DECLINE: The contrast between glowing 2010–2012 reviews and the negative 2012 and 2019 reviews suggests a possible deterioration in service quality or business operations over time.
• SMALL SAMPLE WARNING: Only 5 usable reviews total. No dimension reaches the 5-mention threshold for HIGH confidence. All scores should be treated as low-reliability estimates.

This WW Score has LOW reliability due to a very small review sample, a wide date range spanning over a decade, and a stark quality split between old positive reviews and more recent negative ones — it should not be used as a confident indicator of current contractor performance.

This contractor shows significant weaknesses in project completion and pricing transparency, which heavily impact the overall score. Two reviews explicitly document incomplete repairs requiring callbacks to other companies and lack of follow-up communication. Pricing practices are highly problematic, with one customer charged $720 for work quoted at $150 with no upfront discussion, and another charged $300 for a repair that failed within days. The third review provides a more positive assessment of technical knowledge and willingness to return for callbacks, but this is substantially outweighed by the pattern of failed outcomes and customer dissatisfaction in the other two reviews. Professionalism scores are mixed, with one reviewer noting hard work and politeness, but others reporting poor communication and lack of closure on completed work.

• CRITICAL: Two of three reviews (67%) report incomplete or failed repairs requiring callbacks to other contractors. This is a severe red flag for project completion reliability.
• CRITICAL: Pricing transparency issue documented in Review 2 — customer charged $720 for work with no upfront quote discussion, compared to $280 for identical service elsewhere. This suggests potential predatory pricing practices.
• Review 1 documents warranty denial and customer reporting to Better Business Bureau, indicating potential dispute resolution issues.
• Review 1 explicitly states the contractor did not communicate completion or test the work before leaving, suggesting poor professionalism in closure.
• Recency: All three reviews are from late 2023 to early 2024, so they are current and relevant.
• The positive Review 3 (5-star) appears genuine with specific technical details, but is substantially contradicted by the pattern in the other two reviews.

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (3 reviews), but the consistency of complaints about incomplete repairs, failed follow-up, and pricing transparency across multiple reviews suggests genuine systemic issues rather than isolated incidents. The WW Score of 38.2 reflects serious concerns about reliability and customer outcomes.

This contractor's review set is dominated by severely negative experiences across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is the most heavily cited dimension and is overwhelmingly negative: multiple reviews describe office staff yelling at customers, hanging up on them, being condescending, and failing to communicate — with only a small handful of positive mentions. Project completion is similarly poor, with documented cases of abandoned work (toilet left on the floor, pipe left unglued, pipe left unhooked inside a wall), repeated failures to return as promised, and a failed building inspection — offset only by a few reviews praising completed jobs. Experience scores low due to recurring accounts of faulty workmanship that caused secondary damage, incorrect diagnoses, and work that had to be redone, though a minority of reviewers praised the technical skill of specific plumbers. Pricing is mixed: one reviewer praised dramatically lower pricing than competitors, one positive reviewer cited affordability, but one reviewer explicitly called the company a rip-off for charging $525 to replace a shower handle, and another paid $1,500 for work that failed twice.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews span 2016–2022, with no reviews from the past 12 months (relative to the most recent review date of September 2022). The score may not reflect current business practices.
• PATTERN WARNING: One review (2019-05-15) is based solely on a driving incident and contains no plumbing service data — it was excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers describe the same specific behaviors — office staff yelling, hanging up on customers, and refusing to take responsibility for faulty work — suggesting a systemic and consistent problem rather than isolated incidents.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES: At least three reviews document concrete workmanship failures that caused additional property damage (unglued pipe causing water damage, unhooked drain pipe causing flooding inside walls, repaired pipe failing twice and causing ceiling damage).
• NO FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: The positive reviews are specific and varied in detail, and the negative reviews are highly detailed and specific. No significant fake review pattern detected, though the stark split between 5-star and 1-star reviews (with almost no middle-ground ratings) is notable.

This WW Score is based on 18 reviews spanning approximately six years, with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically reliable as a representation of the review record — however, the absence of recent reviews means current service quality cannot be confirmed.

This contractor received overwhelmingly negative feedback across nearly all dimensions. Pricing is the most severely impacted dimension, with two of three reviewers explicitly describing hidden fees, undisclosed flat charges, and a billing department characterized as rude — one reviewer paid $604 for under an hour of work with no upfront transparency. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by poor communication practices (late notification of delays), an unresponsive owner who never followed through on promised callbacks, and an office policy that deliberately withholds pricing information from customers. Project completion and experience scores are slightly more neutral — the one positive review noted competent, quick work and cleanup, and the gas leak repair in the detailed negative review was technically completed — but the surrounding conduct and lack of follow-through on customer concerns prevent these dimensions from scoring well. Overall, the pattern across all three reviews paints a consistent picture of a company with serious transparency and customer service deficiencies.

• Two of three reviews are dated 2018 and 2021, making them over 1 year old. Only one review (2023) falls within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is limited.
• No suspected fake reviews detected — reviews vary in tone, detail level, and rating, and include specific dollar amounts, dates, and named individuals, suggesting authenticity.
• The detailed 2018 review describes a pattern of deliberate pricing opacity as stated company policy, which may reflect a systemic business practice rather than an isolated incident.
• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated with caution. Additional reviews are strongly recommended before drawing firm conclusions.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, two of which are more than two years old, so while the data is internally consistent and credible, the score should be considered low-confidence until a larger and more recent review sample is available.

ER Rooter (operated by Elio/Domingo) demonstrates severe and consistent deficiencies across all dimensions. While two early reviews (2014, 2019) praise professionalism, speed, and fair pricing, six subsequent reviews document serious problems: rudeness and hang-ups on customers, failure to show up for emergency calls, underhanded lien practices, incomplete work, and refusal to correct mistakes. The contractor appears to employ aggressive upselling tactics with warranty companies and exhibits poor communication and customer service. Technical competence is questioned in multiple reviews regarding diagnostic accuracy and workmanship quality.

• CRITICAL: Stark polarization pattern — 2 five-star reviews (2014, 2019) versus 6 one-star reviews (2015-2017). The positive reviews lack specificity about scope; negative reviews are detailed and consistent in describing unprofessional behavior.
• BEHAVIORAL RED FLAG: Multiple independent reports of the same individual (Elio/Domingo) hanging up on customers, being rude on phone, and refusing to communicate. This pattern is consistent across different reviewers and dates.
• ETHICAL CONCERN: Evidence of lien abuse, double-dipping with warranty companies, and providing false diagnostic reports to inflate charges. One reviewer explicitly states the contractor attempted to charge beyond warranty limits.
• OPERATIONAL FAILURE: No-show for emergency service with no callback (2017-02-26); failure to complete work (left toilet unassembled); refusal to correct installation errors.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews cluster in 2015-2017 period. The 2019 positive review is an outlier and may not reflect current operations. No reviews from 2018 or after 2019.
• IDENTITY INCONSISTENCY: Contractor operates under two names (Elio and Domingo), which raises transparency concerns.

This score should be trusted with moderate-to-high confidence due to consistent negative patterns across multiple independent reviewers describing identical behavioral issues, though the small sample size (8 reviews) and temporal clustering of negatives warrant caution in generalizing to current service quality.

The reviews for O.E. Smith Sons paint a predominantly negative picture across all dimensions, with the few positive reviews being either very old (2014) or lacking specific detail. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is heavily dragged down by a rude phone hang-up, repeated broken scheduling promises, failure to return calls, and a vendor non-payment complaint. Project completion suffers significantly due to a documented pattern of scheduling failures, excuses, and a pump failure within months of installation. Pricing and experience scores are marginally higher due to one positive review praising timeline and estimate adherence, but are undermined by a $155 service call for a questionable diagnosis and a pump that failed within 7 months. The overall trajectory of reviews suggests a business that may have declined in quality over time, with the most recent reviews being the most critical.

• RECENCY WARNING: The only clearly positive reviews are from 2014 and 2019 (February). All reviews from mid-2019 onward are negative or mixed. The most recent review (2023) alleges non-payment to vendors, which is a serious business integrity concern.
• DECLINE PATTERN: Two separate reviewers explicitly state the company used to be excellent but has declined — this is a strong signal of deteriorating service quality over time.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 6 total reviews span nearly a decade. This is an extremely small sample size and limits the reliability of any score.
• VENDOR NON-PAYMENT FLAG: The 2023 review alleging failure to pay vendors is a red flag for business viability and integrity, though it cannot be independently verified from reviews alone.
• RECENCY WEIGHTING APPLIED: The 2014 positive review was given significantly reduced weight due to being nearly 10 years old. The 2019 positive review was also discounted relative to more recent negative reviews.

This WW Score has LOW reliability due to a very small review sample (6 reviews), a wide date range spanning nearly 10 years, and a clear negative trend in the most recent reviews — treat this score as a warning signal rather than a definitive assessment.