Find Nearby Plumbers In Lakeland, Florida

This contractor's review set is small (4 reviews) and deeply mixed, making any score inherently uncertain. Two reviews are strongly positive — praising promptness, professionalism, fair pricing, and efficient work — while two reviews raise serious concerns about incomplete work and unprofessional conduct. The most alarming review describes a $2,000 job where the plumber failed to check running toilets, causing costly water waste, then threatened a mechanic's lien rather than accepting accountability. Project completion is the weakest dimension, with two of three relevant reviews explicitly describing unfinished or incorrectly completed work. The positive reviews are older (2013–2014) and the negative reviews span 2012–2015, so no recency advantage can be applied to either side.

• All 4 reviews are from 2012–2015 — none are within the past 12 months. This data is significantly outdated and may not reflect current performance.
• Small sample size of only 4 reviews severely limits reliability. Scores should be treated as directional only.
• One review describes a serious conduct issue: threatening a mechanic's lien against a customer who disputed charges for damage caused by the contractor's own oversight. This is a significant professionalism and ethics red flag.
• Two of four reviews explicitly describe incomplete or incorrectly completed work, which is a meaningful pattern given the small sample size.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details, varied language, and include both negative and positive experiences.

This WW Score has LOW reliability due to only 4 reviews, all of which are over 9 years old, a deeply split sentiment pattern, and at least one serious conduct complaint that cannot be offset by the positive reviews without a larger, more recent data set.

Lee Kirk and Son shows severe inconsistency in service quality. Two of three reviews report critical failures in project completion: incomplete septic tank emptying with false claims of completion and lack of follow-up after service. The single positive review (from 2023) praises professionalism and knowledge, but two recent negative reviews (2024 and 2021) document poor communication, unresponsiveness to callbacks over extended periods, and incomplete work. The company demonstrates technical capability when engaged but exhibits serious gaps in accountability, follow-through, and customer communication.

• CRITICAL: Two reviews (2024 and 2021) report identical core failure — septic tank not emptied despite charging customer and claiming work complete. This pattern suggests systemic quality control issues, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent review (Sept 2024) documents 26-day non-response to customer callback requests — indicates current operational problems.
• CONFIDENCE LIMITED: Only 3 total reviews analyzed. Score reliability is low. Recommend collecting additional recent reviews before making hiring decision.
• POLARIZED RATINGS: 1-5-1 pattern suggests either inconsistent service delivery or significant changes in business operations over time.

This score should be treated with caution due to very small sample size (3 reviews) and extreme polarization. The documented pattern of incomplete work and non-responsiveness in recent reviews is concerning and warrants direct verification with the contractor before engagement.

AND Services receives an extremely low WW Score driven by an overwhelming volume of negative reviews across all four dimensions. While a cluster of recent 5-star reviews (primarily from June 2025) praise individual technicians for professionalism and communication, these are vastly outnumbered by detailed, credible 1-star reviews spanning 2020–2024 that describe systematic overcharging, misdiagnosis, abandoned or incomplete work, no-show appointments, rude customer service, and predatory upselling tactics targeting elderly customers. Pricing is the most severely penalized dimension, with dozens of reviewers reporting quotes 3–10x higher than competitors for identical repairs, bait-and-switch advertising, and non-itemized invoices. Project completion scores are critically low due to recurring reports of unfinished jobs, failed inspections, broken equipment shortly after installation, and technicians leaving without resolving the original issue. Experience scores reflect numerous accounts of technicians misdiagnosing problems, lacking proper tools, and recommending unnecessary full-system replacements for minor fixable faults.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW CLUSTER: A high concentration of 5-star reviews dated 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-08 share suspiciously similar structure — brief, generic praise for named technicians with little specific detail. Several of these reviews are blank (no text, only a 5-star rating). This pattern is consistent with coordinated review padding and should be treated with significant skepticism.
• 7 reviews contain zero text and only a 5-star rating — these provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Across more than 30 independent reviews, customers report being quoted prices 3x to 10x higher than what competitors charged for identical repairs. Multiple reviewers fixed their own issues for under $300 after AND Services quoted $3,000–$14,000.
• ELDERLY TARGETING: Multiple reviews explicitly describe technicians pressuring elderly customers (80s, 84 years old, 92 years old) into purchasing unnecessary full system replacements worth $10,000–$14,000.
• SCAM DIAGNOSIS PATTERN: Numerous reviewers report technicians diagnosing non-existent problems (e.g., claiming a unit had no control board when it did not exist, claiming freon was severely low when it was not, claiming pipes were cast iron when they were PVC). This suggests a systemic pattern of fraudulent diagnostics.
• RECENCY NOTE: The bulk of negative reviews span 2020–2024 and are highly detailed and specific. The positive reviews are heavily concentrated in a narrow window of May–June 2025, which may reflect a reputation management campaign rather than genuine service improvement.
• LEGAL AND REGULATORY FLAGS: Multiple reviewers mention filing complaints with the BBB, contacting the Florida State Attorney, disputing charges with lenders (Ally Bank), and threatening lawsuits. One review alleges the company operates under multiple DBAs and that 'AND Services' is a non-existent legal entity per their own attorney.
• BUSINESS INTEGRITY FLAG: One review alleges the company forged customer signatures on finance documents. Another alleges failure to pull permits after installation. These are serious legal and safety concerns beyond typical service complaints.
• CONFIDENCE REDUCTION APPLIED: Due to the suspected fake review cluster inflating the 5-star count, positive dimension scores were conservatively weighted. The high volume of detailed, specific negative reviews is treated as more reliable evidence than the sparse, generic positive reviews.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews (125 total) with strong data across all four dimensions, and the score of 28.4 should be considered highly reliable as a reflection of this contractor's overall service quality — the low score is supported by consistent, detailed, and independently corroborated negative experiences, while the positive reviews show patterns consistent with fake or incentivized submissions.

This contractor has a deeply mixed and concerning review profile. Two of the four reviews are 1-star complaints explicitly describing failure to return calls after payment, refusal to honor completed work, and alleged lack of licensing — all serious red flags. The two positive reviews are significantly older (2011 and 2016) and carry far less weight given the recency rule. The most recent review (2021) describes a $6,000 repair with no follow-through, which is a critical project completion failure. While the 2011 review does describe genuinely positive professionalism and fair pricing, that single data point is over a decade old and cannot offset the pattern of complaints in more recent years.

• RECENCY WARNING: The two positive reviews are from 2011 and 2016 — both over 7 years old. The two negative reviews are from 2018 and 2021, making them far more representative of current performance.
• CALLBACK FAILURE PATTERN: Two separate reviews (2018 and 2021) independently describe the contractor failing to return calls after work was completed or paid for. This is a consistent and credible pattern.
• LICENSING CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly states they do not believe the contractor holds a valid plumber's license. This is unverified but warrants serious caution.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 4 reviews total. The WW Score cannot be considered reliable with this sample size. Treat all scores as highly provisional.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS ARE GENERIC OR DATED: The 2016 5-star review ('Ronnie and Adam are the best, fast and reliable!!!') contains no specific detail and may not reflect a genuine service experience.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning 10 years, with the most recent credible data pointing to serious unresolved issues — this score should be treated as LOW RELIABILITY and prospective customers are strongly advised to seek additional references before hiring.

The overwhelming majority of reviews describe serious misconduct including alleged fraud, deceptive diagnostics, overbilling, and abandoned work — all of which devastate scores across every dimension. The only meaningfully positive review (James, 2019) describes a professional, knowledgeable, and timely technician, and one older 2016 review praises reasonable pricing and effort, but these two data points are vastly outweighed by five detailed negative accounts. Project completion is particularly damaged by the solar panel abandonment case and the billing-before-completion scheme. Pricing scores are critically low due to multiple explicit allegations of fraudulent estimates, overcharging, and refusal to rectify billing disputes. Experience scores suffer from a plumber who provided no short-term solution for an active leak and a camera investigation that allegedly showed footage not belonging to the customer's property.

• Two reviews (dated 2021-01-27 and 2021-01-28) are nearly identical in content and phrasing — this appears to be the same reviewer submitting the same complaint twice, possibly on different platforms. Only one instance has been counted as a unique review for scoring purposes.
• One review contains only the word 'unknown' with a 5-star rating and no usable content — this review was excluded from scoring.
• Multiple reviews allege outright fraud, including fabricated camera footage, unnecessary repair upselling, and refusal to complete contracted work. These are not mere dissatisfaction complaints but potential legal violations.
• The single 5-star review from 2016 and the positive 2019 review are both older than 5 years. The most recent reviews (2020–2021) are uniformly negative, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.
• Most reviews are older than 1 year relative to a current analysis date; the most recent review is from July 2021. Recency weighting has been applied conservatively.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall confidence given 7 usable reviews with 5+ mentions across most dimensions, but the score should be treated as a serious warning signal — the pattern of detailed, specific fraud allegations across multiple independent reviewers is highly credible and consistent.

Unique Services receives a critically low WW Score of 24.8, driven by severe deficiencies across all four dimensions. Professionalism is severely compromised by chronic no-shows, missed appointments, poor communication, rudeness, and unresponsiveness to customer inquiries. Pricing is a major complaint with overwhelming evidence of overcharging, hidden fees, bait-and-switch tactics, and refusal to provide itemized invoices. Project completion is plagued by incomplete work, abandoned jobs, multiple failed service attempts, and failure to honor warranty commitments. Experience shows inconsistent workmanship, diagnostic errors, and technicians lacking proper equipment or training. The company demonstrates a pattern of prioritizing sales over customer satisfaction, with management unresponsive to complaints and quality assurance efforts appearing ineffective.

• CRITICAL: Extremely high volume of 1-star reviews (approximately 80+ out of 100 reviews). This is not a distribution issue but reflects genuine systemic failures.
• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews mention identical or near-identical canned responses from 'Jim Brown, Quality Assurance Manager' at 941-213-0108, suggesting management awareness of problems but ineffective remediation.
• BAIT-AND-SWITCH TACTICS: Numerous reviews document low advertised prices ($69, $89 specials) followed by pressure to upsell or refusal to honor quoted rates. This is a recurring business practice, not isolated incidents.
• WARRANTY FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple customers report being told warranties expired when they had not, or being charged for warranty-covered work. Several reviews mention the '12-year parts and labor warranty' being misrepresented or not honored.
• NO-SHOW EPIDEMIC: At least 15+ reviews explicitly document missed appointments with no call or notification. This is a systemic operational failure.
• FINANCIAL EXPLOITATION: Elderly and vulnerable customers specifically mentioned as targets. One review documents a 92-year-old being charged $1,200+ for a simple water heater replacement.
• INSTALLATION DAMAGE: Multiple reviews document water damage, mold growth, and structural damage caused by poor installation, with company refusing to honor damage guarantees.
• MANAGEMENT UNRESPONSIVENESS: Consistent pattern across reviews of promised manager callbacks that never occur, unanswered emails, and refusal to provide documentation.
• CONTRACTOR QUALITY: Reviews mention technicians lacking proper equipment, training, or tools; some admitting they cannot perform required work.
• RECENCY: Most damaging reviews are from 2018-2024, indicating problems are ongoing and not historical. Recent reviews (2024) show no improvement.
• HOME DEPOT PARTNERSHIP: Multiple reviews note this company is Home Depot's contractor, yet Home Depot has not terminated the relationship despite overwhelming negative feedback.
• POSSIBLE SABOTAGE: At least 2 reviews suggest technicians deliberately damaged systems to force replacements, though this cannot be definitively proven.

This WW Score of 24.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 100 detailed reviews with consistent patterns of failure across all dimensions, supported by HIGH confidence levels (5+ mentions per dimension). The overwhelming volume of 1-star reviews, corroborating evidence of specific failures (no-shows, overcharging, warranty violations), and management's own acknowledgment of problems (via canned responses) all validate this assessment. This company presents significant risk to consumers and should be avoided.