Find Nearby Plumbers In Miami, Florida

Yerbilla Services demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally professional conduct, with many customers praising punctuality, responsiveness, and quality workmanship. However, the company is significantly undermined by serious project completion failures—multiple customers report incomplete work, no-shows, and lack of follow-through on callbacks—and pricing concerns, with at least one customer reporting egregious markups ($350 for a $15 part) and another noting a 30% price drop when challenged. The WW Score of 72.8 reflects a company with genuine capability but inconsistent execution and trust issues that prevent a higher rating.

• CRITICAL: Multiple project completion failures documented—incomplete work, no-shows on scheduled appointments (3+ instances), and failure to return for promised callbacks despite customer contact. One customer waited 2 months for a promised service call with no response.
• PRICING CONCERNS: One detailed complaint of extreme markup ($350 charged for $15 part on $7k+ job); customer reports 30% price reduction when pricing was challenged, suggesting non-transparent or opportunistic pricing practices. Another customer declined service citing high cost.
• FOLLOW-THROUGH ISSUES: Customer reported waiting 2+ weeks for parts with no proactive communication from owner; another waited 3 hours for no-show appointment with delayed response.
• PATTERN OF EMPTY/GENERIC REVIEWS: Multiple 5-star reviews with no text content (6 instances) and several very brief generic praise reviews (e.g., 'Great service', 'Great people, great work!') clustered on same dates (2018-06-11, 2017-06-11), suggesting possible review padding or fake reviews. This reduces confidence in the positive signal.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are from 2017-2018 (older than 6 years). Only 3 reviews from 2024-2025, with the most recent (April 2025) being a severe pricing complaint. Limited recent data makes current reliability assessment difficult.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between detailed positive reviews praising responsiveness and professionalism, and detailed negative reviews documenting abandonment and poor follow-through. Suggests inconsistent service quality or possible service variation by crew/situation.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While the company demonstrates genuine technical skill and has satisfied many customers, the documented pattern of project completion failures, pricing opacity, and no-shows represents material risk. The prevalence of undated/generic 5-star reviews and age of most data (6+ years old) further reduce confidence. Recent negative reviews (2025, 2024) suggest ongoing issues. Recommend requesting references for similar-scope projects and obtaining detailed written estimates with explicit completion timelines before engaging.

Trenchless Sewer Line Repairs exhibits a deeply polarized review pattern with 11 five-star reviews praising professionalism, fair pricing, and quality workmanship, but 4 one-star reviews alleging fraud, contract violations, unauthorized charges, and abandoned work. The positive reviews consistently highlight responsive communication, skilled crews, and honest pricing; however, the negative reviews describe serious issues including $15,000 deposits lost to abandoned projects, unauthorized credit card charges, and failure to complete contracted work. The WW Score of 72.8 reflects this significant contradiction: while experience and technical skill are well-documented as strong, professionalism and project completion are severely undermined by credible allegations of financial misconduct and non-completion. The company's integrity claims in positive reviews directly conflict with fraud allegations and unauthorized billing in negative reviews.

• CRITICAL: Severe polarization detected — 11 five-star reviews vs. 4 one-star reviews with no middle ground. This pattern suggests either exceptional inconsistency in service delivery or potential review manipulation.
• FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews allege unauthorized charges, abandoned work, and contract violations. Review dated 2024-09-28 claims $15,000 deposit lost; review dated 2016-12-07 reports unauthorized $2,400 debit and police report filed. Review dated 2023-12-26 reports double-charging after deposit.
• IDENTITY/LICENSING CONCERNS: 2024-09-28 review alleges owner John Walters is using another plumber's (A. Young) license number and does not actually own the company. This is a serious red flag requiring verification.
• INCONSISTENT OWNER BEHAVIOR: Positive reviews describe John as honest, fair, and integrity-driven; negative reviews describe him as a con-man and scammer. This extreme contradiction is highly suspicious.
• RECENCY MATTERS: Most positive reviews are from 2019-2023 (older); most damaging reviews are recent (2024-09-28, 2023-12-26). Recent trend suggests deterioration in service quality or increased fraudulent behavior.
• POSSIBLE FAKE POSITIVE REVIEWS: Several positive reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('professional,' 'courteous,' 'cleaned up,' 'John is nice/great'), include unsolicited offers to provide contact info, and lack specific technical details. This pattern warrants skepticism.
• UNAUTHORIZED BILLING: Review dated 2016-12-07 documents unauthorized debit card charge, police report, and BBB/CFPB complaints. This is not opinion — it is documented fraud allegation.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical score of 72.8 appears moderate, the underlying data is severely compromised by credible fraud allegations, unauthorized billing, contract violations, and a suspicious polarization pattern that suggests either systemic service inconsistency or review manipulation. The recent negative reviews (2024, 2023) combined with documented fraud allegations and licensing concerns make this company HIGH RISK. Potential customers should independently verify licensing, check BBB and CFPB records, and demand written contracts with clear completion terms and payment schedules before engaging this contractor.

Hollywood Plumbing shows strong technical expertise and competitive pricing, with multiple customers praising John's knowledge and fair rates. However, professionalism and project completion are significantly undermined by serious failures: two detailed 1-star reviews document incomplete work, broken callbacks, incorrect installations, and poor communication. While older reviews (2008–2015) are consistently positive, the 2018–2020 reviews reveal a troubling pattern of unfinished jobs and unmet promises. The company's score reflects this polarization—excellent when work goes smoothly, but unreliable follow-through and responsiveness create substantial risk.

• POLARIZED REVIEW PATTERN: 8 five-star reviews vs. 3 one-star reviews with no middle ground suggests potential selection bias or service inconsistency.
• CALLBACK FAILURES: Two detailed negative reviews (2018) explicitly document broken promises to call back and incomplete work—a critical professionalism failure.
• INSTALLATION QUALITY CONCERNS: 2018 review documents incorrect faucet installation requiring customer to hire another plumber and pay twice.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 5+ years old (2008–2015). The most recent reviews (2018–2020) include two severe complaints.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: One 2018 negative review explicitly states 'They are probably fake reviews,' suggesting awareness of review manipulation. Older positive reviews use generic praise ('honest,' 'professional,' 'great guy') with minimal specifics.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Multiple mentions of promised callbacks never received and unresponsiveness to texts/calls.

This score should be treated with caution. While technical skill appears genuine, the recent pattern of incomplete work, broken commitments, and poor communication suggests the company's reliability has declined. Customers should verify current service quality independently and establish clear written agreements before hiring.

Total Leak Detection demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise in leak detection, with multiple reviews praising responsiveness, punctuality, and problem-solving ability. However, the company is significantly hampered by serious project completion and diagnostic accuracy issues. A detailed 1-star review documents a critical failure where an initial inspection misdiagnosed a non-existent leak, leading to unnecessary costs and pressure tactics around insurance claims. Pricing transparency is also questioned, with inconsistent communication about service costs. While the company excels at finding legitimate leaks that competitors miss, the documented case of faulty diagnosis and aggressive sales practices creates substantial trust concerns that offset technical strengths.

• CRITICAL: One detailed 1-star review (2021-05-10) documents serious diagnostic failure, misrepresentation of findings (light reflection on marble mistaken for water damage), and aggressive insurance-related sales pressure. This is not a minor complaint but evidence of problematic business practices.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are from 2020-2021 (5+ years old). Only 1 review from 2023. Limited recent data to assess current service quality.
• INCONSISTENCY: Multiple 5-star reviews praise finding leaks others missed, but the 1-star review shows the company can also make serious diagnostic errors, suggesting inconsistent quality or technician variability.
• PRICING OPACITY: The detailed complaint mentions being charged $150 twice for two visits when originally quoted $150-$349 range, with unclear communication about what was included. This raises concerns about transparent pricing practices.
• PRESSURE TACTICS: The 1-star review documents persistent follow-up calls from affiliated restoration/adjuster representatives over two weeks, which the customer characterized as pressure and 'very sad.' This suggests potentially problematic business relationships or sales practices.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While technical expertise and professionalism are well-documented across multiple reviews, the detailed 1-star review provides credible evidence of serious diagnostic failures and questionable business practices that cannot be ignored. The age of most reviews (5+ years) and the apparent inconsistency in service quality suggest this score may not reliably predict current performance. Potential customers should weigh the company's leak-finding reputation against documented risks of misdiagnosis and pressure-based sales tactics.

The majority of reviews praise Julio and his team for strong responsiveness, communication, and professionalism, with multiple reviewers highlighting same-day service, follow-up calls, and transparent explanations. However, one detailed 1-star review from January 2022 — the most recent review in the dataset — describes a serious failure: work that did not match what was agreed upon, a broken promise from the owner to return and fix it, and no follow-through after payment was received. This single negative review carries significant weight because it directly contradicts the project completion and professionalism narratives and represents the most recent customer experience. Pricing transparency was mentioned positively in only two reviews, limiting confidence in that dimension. The overall score is pulled down meaningfully by the unresolved complaint, which describes an owner who did not honor his word after being paid.

• The 1-star review (2022-01-04) is the most recent review and describes a serious project completion failure: work performed did not match what was agreed upon, and the owner promised to fix it but never followed through after over a month. This is a significant red flag for both project completion and professionalism.
• Six of the seven positive reviews are clustered between January and December 2021, and one generic 5-star review ('Great customer service and support. The staff is incredibly nice and helpful.') lacks any specific detail, which raises mild concern about authenticity for that single review.
• All reviews are from 2021–2022. No reviews from the past 12 months (relative to a 2024–2025 evaluation date) are present, meaning the dataset is entirely older than 1 year and may not reflect current service quality.
• The positive reviews, while mostly specific and credible, are all 5-star ratings, which warrants mild caution. The one exception is the detailed 1-star review, which adds credibility to the dataset overall but also signals a real pattern of risk.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: the positive reviews are mostly specific and credible, but the dataset is small (8 reviews), entirely older than one year, and includes a recent unresolved complaint that directly undermines the project completion and professionalism scores.

Marlin Plumbing shows strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, courteous staff, and responsive communication across 28 reviews. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with 13 reviews explicitly criticizing overcharging, hidden fees, and unfair weekend/overtime rates. Project completion is mixed: while many jobs are completed successfully, several reviews document incomplete diagnoses, multiple failed visits, and unresolved issues requiring callbacks to competitors. Experience/workmanship is generally solid (82/100) but undermined by diagnostic failures in complex cases. The company's score is pulled down by serious pricing complaints and reliability issues that contradict the positive professionalism ratings.

• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW CLUSTERING: Multiple 5-star reviews from 2020-2021 (approximately 20+ reviews) share nearly identical phrasing ('highly recommend,' 'professional,' 'great service') with minimal specific detail. This pattern suggests potential review manipulation or template-based responses.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews are from 2019-2021 (4-6 years old). Recent reviews (2024-2025) are predominantly negative (1-star), indicating possible service quality decline or change in business practices.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews document aggressive fee structures (parking charges, fuel surcharges, time-clock starting during parking search, 150% weekend markup, $365 for 20-minute job). This contradicts claims of 'reasonable pricing' in positive reviews.
• DIAGNOSTIC FAILURES: At least 3 reviews document incorrect problem identification requiring customer to hire second plumber (shower leak case, toilet overflow case, clogged shower case), suggesting experience/skill gaps despite positive ratings.
• INVOICE/PAYMENT DISPUTES: Multiple reviews (2023-2024) report missing invoices, aggressive collection calls, and payment disputes, indicating operational/administrative problems.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 3 reviews contain only ratings (5.0, 5.0, 1.0) with no text, reducing data quality.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While professionalism scores are supported by substantial evidence, the dataset shows clear signs of review manipulation in the 2019-2021 period, and recent reviews (past 12 months) paint a markedly different picture than older reviews. The pricing dimension is particularly concerning with consistent, specific complaints about hidden fees and overcharging. The score of 72.3 reflects a company in decline or with inconsistent service quality; customers should prioritize recent negative reviews and pricing complaints over older positive testimonials.