Find Nearby Plumbers In Jacksonville, Florida

The review set paints a predominantly negative picture of this contractor. Professionalism is the most heavily flagged dimension, with three of five reviews explicitly citing unprofessional behavior including unsanitary conduct, poor communication, threatening lien notices after only seven days, and rude customer service from a staff member named Rene. Pricing is also a concern, with one reviewer describing a $125 charge for under 10 minutes of work with no upfront disclosure and no signed invoice, and another calling the charges 'ridiculous.' Project completion is mixed — two reviews describe work that was either ineffective or improperly executed (clog flushed to toilet, no improvement on slow drains), while one positive review describes a job completed in a single day with a follow-up visit. The one clearly positive experience involving Buddy and the basement pump solution does demonstrate some technical problem-solving ability, which partially supports the experience score, but this is outweighed by the volume of negative feedback.

• Two reviews dated one day apart (2021-01-31 and 2021-02-01) both reference the same staff member 'Rene' and describe similar negative experiences — these appear to be independent but should be noted as potentially related to the same incident or customer circle.
• Only 5 reviews total — sample size is very small and limits statistical reliability of all dimension scores.
• All reviews older than 12 months as of a 2025 reference date — recency is a concern and current service quality cannot be confirmed from this data.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details, named individuals, and varied ratings, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small review sample (5 reviews), the absence of any reviews within the past 12 months, and the heavy skew toward negative experiences — the score reflects a genuinely poor track record based on available data, but more recent reviews would be needed to assess whether service quality has changed.

This contractor's review set is small (4 reviews) but the signal is strongly negative across nearly all dimensions. The single positive review (Jake, May 2024) praises punctuality, efficiency, and value, but it is outnumbered 3-to-1 by detailed, specific complaints. Major issues include: a botched ceiling repair that was never properly remedied despite multiple callbacks (project completion failure), a deliberately mislabeled disposal replacement that was a lower-spec unit than what was requested (experience and ethics failure), hidden costs and broken commitments on a shower remodel estimate, and a rude manager who was difficult to reach. The pattern across the negative reviews shows a recurring theme of poor follow-through, dishonest or evasive communication, and work that was either incomplete or substandard. The one positive review is not sufficient to offset three detailed, credible negative accounts.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and low-reliability.
• Three of four reviews describe serious failures in follow-through, honesty, and workmanship quality — this is a consistent negative pattern, not isolated incidents.
• Review 3 (disposal replacement) describes what appears to be deliberate deception: installing a lower-spec unit and positioning the label to be intentionally hidden. This is a significant integrity flag.
• Review 2 (ceiling repair) describes a contractor who collected payment and then failed to honor multiple callback attempts over an extended period — a strong project abandonment signal.
• Review 4 (shower remodel) describes bait-and-switch estimating practices, broken commitments, and abrupt job cancellation — another serious project completion and pricing integrity flag.
• The single 5-star review (Jake) is positive but brief and lacks the specificity to counterbalance three detailed negative accounts.
• Reviews span from October 2023 to May 2024 — all within approximately 12 months, so recency weighting does not significantly differentiate them.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews appear authentic and are written with specific, verifiable details.

With only 4 reviews, this WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability, but the consistency and specificity of the three negative reviews make the low score directionally credible — this contractor shows meaningful red flags across professionalism, pricing transparency, project completion, and workmanship quality.

This contractor's reviews paint a deeply mixed but predominantly negative picture. Three of the six reviews describe serious misconduct including oversized equipment installation causing physical damage, upselling unnecessary repairs confirmed as fraudulent by second opinions, and predatory pricing — all of which heavily drag down every dimension. The two positive reviews from 2017 and 2019 mention professionalism, reasonable pricing, and good workmanship, but these are outweighed by more recent and more detailed negative accounts. The most recent review (September 2024) describes a particularly egregious failure in both workmanship and project completion, where a unit failed within a month and the company attempted to charge the customer again rather than honor their work. The owner's response to complaints — offering excuses rather than accountability — further undermines confidence in professionalism and customer service.

• Multiple reviews describe second opinions revealing that ASAP Plumbing recommended unnecessary or fraudulent repairs — this is a serious pattern suggesting predatory upselling practices.
• The most recent review (2024) describes a failed installation within 30 days and refusal to remedy the issue without additional payment, indicating a potential pattern of poor workmanship and no warranty follow-through.
• Three of the six reviews are 1-star with specific, detailed complaints; only two are 5-star with positive detail. The ratio and specificity of negative reviews significantly outweigh the positives.
• The two positive reviews (2017 and 2019) are 5+ years old and may not reflect current service quality. The most recent negative review is from 2024, suggesting possible decline in service standards over time.
• Recency weighting applied: the 2024 negative review carries the most weight; the 2017 positive review carries the least.

With only 6 reviews spanning 7 years, this score carries limited statistical reliability, but the pattern of detailed, specific negative reviews — including documented upselling fraud and a failed installation — provides enough evidence to justify a low score with moderate confidence.

Two of the three reviews are scathing 1-star accounts describing serious failures across nearly every dimension. In the first negative review, Larry installed a water hammer arrester without the customer's consent, failed to resolve the issue across two visits, refused any refund, and dismissed the customer's concerns. In the second negative review, Larry arrived unprepared, reneged on a written quote, and complained about the customer's chosen hardware brand — behavior explicitly described as unprofessional. The sole positive review praises responsiveness, fair pricing, and clean workmanship, but it is outnumbered two-to-one by detailed negative accounts. The result is a very low WW Score reflecting a contractor with significant documented reliability and professionalism problems.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated with caution.
• Two of three reviews are 1-star with specific, detailed complaints; the single 5-star review is positive but cannot offset the weight of two serious negative experiences.
• The positive review (2018-07-18) and one negative review (2018-07-23) are dated within days of each other, which is a minor anomaly worth noting but not conclusive of manipulation.
• All three reviews are from 2018–2021, meaning no reviews exist from the past 12 months. Current performance of this contractor is unknown.
• Larry's pattern of refusing refunds, reneging on written quotes, and performing unauthorized work are serious red flags that go beyond ordinary service complaints.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all more than 3 years old, and should be considered LOW reliability — the score directionally reflects serious documented problems, but more recent and numerous reviews would be needed to assess this contractor with confidence.

The overwhelming majority of reviews describe serious failures across all four dimensions. Professionalism is heavily penalized by multiple accounts of rude behavior, ghosting customers, abandoning equipment on others' property, and leaving messes — with only two very old reviews (2007–2011) offering any positive counterpoint. Project completion is critically low, with multiple reviews describing incomplete work, flooding caused by faulty repairs, unattached drywall, abandoned job sites, and debris left behind. Experience scores are similarly poor, with reviewers citing incorrect toilet installations, restricted water lines that later burst, and workers described as not knowing what they were doing. Pricing receives a low score due to explicit accounts of financial harm caused by shoddy work (emergency cleaning costs, hiring second plumbers to redo work) and one account of a rental agreement that was never honored. The two positive reviews are from 2007 and 2011 — over a decade old — and carry minimal weight given the volume and recency of negative feedback.

• Two reviews dated 2021-08-31 appear to be near-identical duplicates (same text, same rating, posted 14 minutes apart) — one has been counted once for mention purposes to avoid double-weighting.
• The only positive reviews (4-star and 5-star) are from 2007 and 2011 respectively — more than 13 years old — and should be treated with very low recency weight.
• A pattern of abandoned work, non-responsiveness, and financial harm to customers appears across multiple independent reviews spanning 2019–2024, suggesting systemic and persistent issues rather than isolated incidents.
• One review describes what may constitute a civil/legal dispute involving unpaid rental agreements and property abandonment, which goes beyond typical service quality concerns.
• No reviews from the past 12 months (relative to early 2025) were provided; the most recent review is from February 2024.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall confidence due to a meaningful number of detailed, specific negative reviews spanning multiple years, though the small total review count (10) and the duplicate review entry limit full HIGH confidence in the final score.

Crown Plumbing's reviews paint an overwhelmingly negative picture across all four dimensions. Six of eight reviews are 1-star, describing repeated failures to fix problems, dishonest diagnoses, untrained workers, rude owners, and a pattern of creating new damage while attempting repairs. Professionalism is severely undermined by reports of the owner being unreachable for weeks, workers arriving 7 hours late, and rude phone interactions. Project completion is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly stating that work failed, problems were never resolved after multiple visits, and other plumbers had to be called in to correct Crown's mistakes. The two positive reviews (5-star) are vague, lack specific detail, and are the oldest in the set, offering minimal counterweight to the volume and specificity of the negative accounts.

• The two 5-star reviews are notably generic and lack the specific detail present in the negative reviews, raising concerns about their authenticity.
• Both positive reviews are from 2014 and 2018 respectively — the most recent is over 5 years old relative to the cluster of negative reviews, significantly reducing their relevance.
• A clear pattern of deceptive business practices is described across multiple independent reviews: misdiagnosis, hidden charges, and covering up damage caused by their own workers.
• Multiple reviewers independently report needing to hire a second plumber to fix problems Crown Plumbing failed to resolve or made worse — a strong signal of systemic incompetence.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2015–2019. No reviews from the past 12 months are present, limiting insight into current performance.

This WW Score is based on 8 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions; while the HIGH confidence on three dimensions reflects sufficient mention counts, the score should be interpreted cautiously given the age of the reviews and the suspiciously generic nature of the only two positive reviews.