Find Nearby Plumbers In Lakeland, Florida

Rick Moore Plumbing has a generally positive reputation for honest pricing, fair dealing, and competent workmanship, with multiple reviewers explicitly praising value for money and technical skill. Professionalism scores are pulled down meaningfully by two notable negative reviews: one citing a plumber who left rags and dirty footprints behind and handled a scheduling miscommunication poorly, and another describing a frustrating and misleading phone interaction with office staff. The majority of reviews are older than 12 months — most predate 2022 — with only one review from the past two years, which limits confidence in how well the score reflects current performance. Several reviews contain minimal or no usable text (entries marked 'unknown' or just a period), reducing the effective data pool. Overall, the business appears solid but not exceptional, with customer-facing communication and cleanliness being the clearest areas for improvement.

• 3 reviews contain no usable text ('unknown' or '.' entries) and were excluded from scoring.
• The majority of reviews are more than 3 years old; only 1 review is from the past 12 months (2023). The WW Score may not reflect current service quality.
• Several older 5-star reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Fast easy and nice friendly men', 'Reasonable price, did an excellent job') with no specific details, which slightly reduces confidence in those data points.
• No clear fake review pattern detected, but the volume of low-detail 5-star reviews warrants mild caution.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability due to a small review pool, a significant recency gap with only one review from the past year, and several reviews that provided no usable data — prospective customers should seek more recent references before making a hiring decision.

OnDeck Plumbing shows a generally positive track record across professionalism, pricing, and technical skill, with multiple reviewers praising responsiveness, fair pricing, and quality workmanship on jobs like full replumbs, leak repairs, and faucet installations. However, one detailed 1-star review from 2022 significantly weighs down the scores, describing a botched shower cartridge repair, a dismissive attitude from office staff, and a complete failure to respond to the customer's escalation request — raising real concerns about quality control and customer service consistency. Project completion is notably penalized because the 2022 negative review describes unresolved work and a separate 2018 review acknowledges a first plumber 'screwed up badly,' suggesting occasional execution failures even if they were later corrected. Pricing scores well overall, with multiple reviewers independently calling charges fair and reasonable, though the $300+ charge for a failed repair in the negative review tempers that dimension slightly.

• Two reviews dated 2016-01-31 appear nearly identical in content, describing the same left-handed faucet anecdote and the same yard leak repair — these are likely duplicate submissions of the same review by the same customer, and only one should be treated as a unique data point. Confidence in mention counts is slightly reduced as a result.
• Several reviews are significantly outdated: 4 of 9 reviews are from 2015–2016, one is from 2017, and one is from 2018. Only 2 reviews are from the past 12–24 months (2023–2024). The contractor's current performance may differ substantially from what older reviews reflect.
• The 2019 review references a specific technician (Mike) who may no longer be with the company, and the 2022 negative review references a different unnamed crew — suggesting possible inconsistency in staff quality over time.
• No fake review patterns detected beyond the duplicate 2016 entries. Reviews contain specific details, named technicians, and varied ratings, which supports authenticity.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: the review pool is small (9 reviews), spans nearly a decade with most data being outdated, contains one likely duplicate review, and includes one substantive negative review that reveals meaningful gaps in quality control and customer service responsiveness that prospective customers should weigh carefully.

Liberty Septic demonstrates strong professionalism across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for friendly staff, responsiveness, and professional attitude. However, a critical 2019 review documents a complete failure to respond to an emergency service call, which significantly impacts project completion reliability. Pricing appears fair based on one explicit mention, but the sample size is very small. The company shows inconsistency in service delivery—excellent execution when they engage, but concerning gaps in responsiveness during urgent situations. The WW Score reflects this volatility: strong on professionalism and pricing, but undermined by documented project completion failures.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Two of three reviews are from 2018–2019 (5+ years old). Only one review from 2022. Limited recent data to assess current performance.
• CRITICAL SERVICE FAILURE: 2019 review documents no callback for emergency septic overflow—a core service failure that directly contradicts the 20+ year loyalty claim in the 2022 review. This suggests either inconsistent service quality or potential service degradation.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews total. Confidence in all scores is inherently limited. A single negative experience carries disproportionate weight.
• EXPERIENCE DIMENSION: No reviews explicitly discuss technical skill, workmanship quality, or problem-solving ability. This dimension cannot be scored.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size (3 reviews), significant age of most data (2018–2019), and a documented critical service failure that contradicts other positive claims. The score reflects real inconsistency in service delivery rather than reliable overall quality.

True Builders demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across most projects, with many reviews praising punctuality, communication, and skilled workmanship. However, the company is significantly hampered by serious pricing concerns—multiple reviews document overcharging, hidden fees, and aggressive upselling tactics that undermine trust. Project completion is generally solid but marred by several documented cases of incomplete work, no-shows, and failure to honor callbacks. The wide variance between glowing recent reviews (2024-2025) and damaging older reviews (2013-2020) suggests either significant operational changes or potential review manipulation. The WW Score reflects strong execution capability offset by persistent trust and financial integrity issues.

• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple 5-star reviews from 2024-2025 use nearly identical phrasing ('professional,' 'friendly,' 'knowledgeable,' 'thorough') with excessive enthusiasm and minimal specific detail. Reviews cluster heavily on 2024-06-09 (8 reviews) and 2025-05-10 (3 reviews) with suspiciously generic praise.
• SERIOUS PRICING INTEGRITY ISSUES: Multiple independent reviews document overcharging ($2,465 for simple pipe repair leading to $10,824 lien; $265 for $10 wax ring; $189 for tank 'inspection' that was just drilling a hole; $13,000+ quote for shower repair). Pattern suggests systematic upselling and misrepresentation of costs.
• FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: One detailed 2024-07-31 review alleges filing false lien ($10,824.33) and previous fraudulent invoice ($5,000 for leak detection never performed). Reviewer provided specific dates and amounts.
• PROJECT ABANDONMENT: Multiple reviews (2020-05-07, 2017-10-10, 2024-06-09) document incomplete work, no-shows, failure to reschedule, and lack of follow-up after payment received.
• QUALITY CONTROL FAILURES: Several reviews document poor workmanship (warped flooring, wood heads showing through, uneven cement, loose banisters, sink detached after 1 year, flooring coming up after 2 years, failed inspections on deck/doors).
• PERMIT/COMPLIANCE VIOLATIONS: 2018-07-10 review documents failure to pull permits, resulting in red-tagged house and county fines.
• RECENCY BIAS RISK: 2024-2025 reviews are overwhelmingly positive (47 five-star reviews) while 2013-2020 reviews contain multiple one-star complaints. This dramatic shift warrants skepticism about review authenticity or selective posting.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reviews cite poor responsiveness, missed callbacks, and scheduling issues despite claims of 24/7 service.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: Two reviews (2025-05-10 and 2024-06-09) contain only 5-star ratings with no text, suggesting placeholder or fake entries.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While recent reviews suggest improved operations, the company has a documented history of serious pricing fraud, project abandonment, and quality failures. The clustering of generic 5-star reviews in 2024-2025 raises authenticity concerns. The pricing dimension (58.0) is particularly unreliable due to limited mentions but severe documented overcharges. Prospective customers should independently verify pricing, obtain detailed written estimates, and review older complaints before engaging this contractor. The score reflects a company in transition with unresolved trust issues.

Snowbird Heating & Cooling shows significant inconsistency in service quality. Professionalism scores well (76) with many positive mentions of friendly, courteous technicians and responsive scheduling, though several reviews document poor communication and false technical claims. Project completion is problematic (68) with multiple reports of incomplete work, unresolved issues, warranty disputes, and failure to follow through on refunds and callbacks. Pricing receives a moderate score (68) with concerns about aggressive upselling and inflated repair estimates, offset by some positive feedback on fair pricing. Experience is moderate (74), with skilled technicians praised in recent reviews but older reviews citing poor installation quality and unresolved technical problems. The company demonstrates strong performance in recent years (2022-2024) but a troubling pattern of serious failures in older reviews (2013-2021) suggests either significant organizational changes or persistent systemic issues.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document false technical diagnoses and aggressive upselling. June 2024 review details incorrect claim that plugged drain lines cannot cause frozen coils; second opinion revealed actual problem was simple coil cleaning. Another review reports being told obsolete coolant required $10K system replacement when another company easily added coolant.
• SERIOUS: Pattern of non-compliance with refund commitments. July 2024 review documents $135 service fee refund promised by management but not delivered after multiple follow-ups over 3+ weeks.
• SERIOUS: Multiple reports of no-shows, missed appointments, and false location claims. June 2024 review documents technician claiming to be on-site for an hour when customer confirmed she was not present.
• PATTERN: Older reviews (2013-2021) contain severe complaints about installation quality, unresolved compressor issues, and litigation threats. Newer reviews (2022-2024) are predominantly positive, suggesting either company improvement or potential review manipulation.
• RECENCY BIAS: 13 of 24 reviews are from 2022 or later; only 4 reviews from 2020 or earlier. Recent reviews heavily favor the company while older reviews are uniformly negative, creating potential skew.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews praising specific technicians (Daniel, Skyler, Devin, Bruce) and 1-star reviews describing the same company as dishonest and uncaring. This suggests highly variable technician quality or service delivery.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While recent reviews (past 2 years) support a higher rating, the company has a documented history of serious failures including false diagnoses, aggressive upselling, non-compliance with refunds, and installation problems. The dramatic shift from uniformly negative older reviews to predominantly positive recent reviews raises questions about consistency. Customers should independently verify technical claims and obtain second opinions before authorizing major work, as multiple reviews explicitly recommend this practice.

Eric's Plumbing shows strong technical expertise and competitive pricing, with multiple reviews praising fair costs and skilled workmanship. However, professionalism and project completion are significantly undermined by serious documented failures: one customer reported complete abandonment of callbacks and rudeness after multiple contact attempts, and another detailed substandard HVAC installation with improper wiring and sealed ductwork causing $3,225 in repairs. While many positive reviews highlight responsiveness and friendliness, the severity of these failures—particularly the refusal to address complaints—creates substantial reliability concerns that offset the company's technical strengths.

• CRITICAL: Review dated 2019-03-11 documents severe service failure including abandoned callbacks, rudeness, and avoidance behavior (hanging up, not answering calls). Customer threatened licensing complaint.
• CRITICAL: Review dated 2017-02-27 documents substandard workmanship on commercial HVAC installation (improper wiring, unsealed ductwork) completed in 2016, with owner refusing to take responsibility or answer phone calls regarding $3,225 in corrective repairs.
• RECENCY CONCERN: 7 of 10 reviews are from 2012-2015 (5+ years old). Only 2 reviews from 2019 and 1 from 2017. Recent data is limited and mixed.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW: Review dated 2014-06-03 ('It was great. I'm very hapy.') is suspiciously generic with no specifics and contains a typo, suggesting low authenticity.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Stark contrast between positive reviews praising reliability and responsiveness versus documented cases of complete service abandonment and refusal to communicate. This suggests either inconsistent service delivery or significant changes in business practices over time.

This score should be treated with caution. While technical skills appear solid, two well-documented cases of severe service failures (abandoned callbacks, refusal to address defective work) create serious trust concerns that are not fully captured by the overall score. The age of most positive reviews (5+ years) and limited recent data further reduce confidence. Potential customers should heavily weight the documented failures against the older positive reviews.