Find Nearby Plumbers In Miami, Florida

The reviews that contain usable detail paint a generally positive picture of this contractor. Professionalism is supported by mentions of punctuality, confirmation calls, and polite communication across a handful of reviews. Pricing transparency is noted in at least one review where the final charge matched the quoted price, and another describes rates as reasonable. Project completion is evidenced by jobs described as finished cleanly and correctly, including a garbage disposal replacement and a drain clog repair. Experience is supported by explicit mentions of knowledgeability in two separate reviews. However, the overall dataset is small, heavily dated, and several reviews contain no usable content at all, which significantly limits confidence in these scores.

• 6 of 8 reviews are older than 10 years; the most recent usable review is from 2018. This data is severely outdated and may not reflect current service quality.
• 2 reviews ('unknown' and 'Excellent!') and 2 others ('It went well.' and 'Went better than could have hoped for.') contain no actionable detail and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• All 8 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback. While not conclusive, the uniformity of ratings combined with the lack of detail in several reviews raises a mild concern about review authenticity or selection bias.
• Total usable review count is very low (6 reviews with any detail, only 4 with substantive content). The WW Score should be treated as indicative only and not highly reliable.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to a very small review pool, severely outdated reviews spanning back to 2006, and multiple reviews with no substantive content — prospective customers should seek more recent and detailed references before making a hiring decision.

Ocean Plumbing and Air shows generally positive performance across professionalism and project completion, with all three reviewers indicating responsive service and completed work. However, pricing is a notable concern — one reviewer explicitly called the cost 'super expensive' for a $250 drain cleaning and docked two stars specifically for price, which meaningfully drags down the pricing dimension. Experience signals are positive but based on only two reviews mentioning workmanship quality. With only three total reviews, all scores should be treated with caution and the WW Score is directional at best.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated as highly preliminary.
• Two of the three reviews are 5-star with named technicians and specific job details — these appear genuine, but the small sample size limits reliability.
• The most recent review (September 2024) is the only one raising a pricing concern; the other two reviews are from 2023–2024 and are broadly positive, suggesting no strong recency bias issue but an insufficient data window.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific job details, named individuals, and varied sentiment.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be considered highly preliminary — significantly more reviews are needed before this score can be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality.

Bradford Plumbing receives mostly positive feedback across professionalism, pricing, and project completion, with several reviewers praising responsiveness, fairness, and quality of work. However, a detailed 1-star review explicitly describes the owner as rude, arrogant, and unpunctual, which meaningfully drags down the professionalism score and cannot be dismissed. Pricing is generally viewed favorably, with multiple reviewers noting affordability and transparency, though one reviewer acknowledged the hourly rate sounds high before qualifying it with efficiency. Experience scores are supported by specific praise for gas work expertise and problem-solving, lending moderate credibility to that dimension. The overall score is tempered by the serious negative review and the fact that the majority of reviews are significantly outdated, with most dating from 2017 or earlier.

• RECENCY WARNING: 5 of 7 reviews are from 2017 or earlier, with the oldest dating to 2010. Only 1 review is from the past 12 months (2024). The score may not reflect current service quality.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW CREDIBILITY: The 1-star review (2020) is highly specific and detailed, citing rudeness, arrogance, unpunctuality, and poor skill. This is treated as credible and weighted accordingly against the positive reviews.
• GENERIC REVIEW FLAG: The most recent review (2024) is very brief and non-specific ('So nice, efficient, and reasonable price!'). It provides minimal verifiable detail and contributes limited scoring confidence.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 7 total reviews span a 14-year period, which is insufficient to establish strong reliability for any dimension. All confidence assessments should be interpreted cautiously.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to the small number of reviews, the heavily outdated review pool, and the presence of one credible and detailed negative review that introduces meaningful uncertainty about consistent service quality.

Professionalism is a clear strength across reviews, with multiple customers praising punctuality, communication, and courteous behavior from both office staff and technicians. Project completion also scores well, with specific accounts of work being finished thoroughly, on time, and with care for the workspace. Experience is positively noted in two detailed reviews highlighting technical competence and attention to detail, though the sample is small. Pricing is the most divisive dimension: two reviews explicitly praise affordability and value, while two others raise serious concerns about undisclosed hourly rates, a mandatory minimum charge, and a door-knock fee — one reviewer paid $250 for a 15-minute visit. This pricing transparency issue significantly drags down the pricing score and warrants caution.

• Pricing transparency is a significant concern: at least two reviewers were not informed upfront about the $195/hr rate, 1-hour minimum, and $45 dispatch fee. This suggests a systemic disclosure problem, not an isolated incident.
• Only 4 reviews total — all scores carry LIMITED to MODERATE confidence and should not be treated as definitive.
• Two highly positive reviews (April and July 2024) both specifically name the same technician (Dani) and office coordinator (Liz), which is a positive consistency signal but also means much of the positive data may reflect a single crew rather than the company broadly.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific names, details, and varied sentiment, suggesting authenticity.
• All reviews are from 2024, so recency is not a concern.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews and should be treated as a preliminary signal only — the pricing dimension in particular reflects a genuine and documented concern that prospective customers should investigate before booking.

Pro Bowl Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is dragged down significantly by multiple reviews describing condescending, dismissive, or unprofessional technician behavior, though several older reviews praise specific individuals like Andy Parrish and Roderick as courteous and professional. Pricing is a notable concern, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out overcharging, unexpected travel charges, and taking advantage of customers who lacked plumbing knowledge, though a handful of reviews praised fair and transparent pricing. Project completion is similarly split — several jobs were completed well and on time, but there are documented cases of abandoned problems, work that created new issues (broken pipes, fire hazard wiring, reduced water pressure), and technicians failing to resolve the original complaint. Experience scores moderately, with some technicians demonstrating strong diagnostic and technical skill while others showed clear incompetence, including poorly installed wiring that created a fire hazard and a technician who admitted he could not identify the source of a leak after two hours.

• Several reviews are significantly older than 12 months — the majority of reviews predate 2022, with many from 2012–2015. The most recent reviews (2022–2023) skew negative, suggesting possible quality decline over time.
• The two most recent reviews (2023 and 2022) are both negative or mixed, which may indicate a deterioration in service quality compared to the earlier positive reviews.
• One review explicitly documents a fire hazard resulting from poorly installed wiring on a water heater — this is a serious safety concern and a significant red flag for workmanship quality.
• One review describes a technician charging for time spent breaking pipes he himself damaged, and then attempting to upsell additional work — a pattern consistent with predatory billing practices.
• The 2019 review describes what the reviewer characterizes as price gouging of a young woman perceived as unknowledgeable about plumbing, raising ethical concerns about how this company treats vulnerable customers.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in tone, detail, rating, and writing style, and include specific names, dates, and job descriptions.

This WW Score is based on 19 reviews spanning 2007–2023 with high mention counts across all dimensions, making it statistically meaningful, but the heavy skew toward older reviews and a clear pattern of negative experiences in the most recent reviews means the current service quality may be worse than the score suggests.

John's Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and professionalism from individual technicians, with many reviews praising punctuality, friendliness, and quality workmanship. However, the company is significantly undermined by persistent pricing concerns—numerous customers report excessive charges, inflated hourly rates, undisclosed fees, and billing for time not worked. Project completion issues include scheduling failures, no-shows, and incomplete work requiring callbacks. The company shows a stark divide between field technician quality and office/management accountability, with many negative reviews citing poor follow-up and unresponsive management when disputes arise.

• CRITICAL PRICING PATTERN: At least 25+ reviews explicitly cite overcharging, inflated rates ($185-$225/hour), billing for unworked time, and unauthorized parts charges. This is the single largest complaint category and suggests systemic pricing practices rather than isolated incidents.
• OWNERSHIP CHANGE NOTED: One detailed 5-star review (2023-02-06) explicitly references new ownership since May 2022 and asks readers to give the company a fair chance. However, negative pricing and scheduling reviews continue post-May 2022, indicating issues persist under new management.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: Multiple reviews (2020-07-31, 2020-06-29, 2019-10-23, 2017-03-24, 2016-10-17, 2015-01-22, 2014-11-01, 2013-09-16) document no-shows, broken promises, and failure to return calls. This pattern spans years and multiple ownership periods.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Several reviews report jobs left unfinished, leaks after repair, or work that failed shortly after completion (2023-05-25, 2024-09-27, 2016-10-17, 2012-09-19).
• OFFICE VS. FIELD DISCONNECT: Review from 2023-09-04 explicitly notes 'night and day' difference between excellent field technicians and poor office communication/management. This pattern appears in multiple reviews.
• DIAGNOSTIC OVERREACH: Multiple reviews (2023-07-16, 2024-02-21, 2013-05-25) report technicians recommending expensive solutions (whole-house repiping, $9,000 jobs) that other plumbers later identified as unnecessary or vastly overpriced.
• RECENT NEGATIVE REVIEWS: Negative reviews continue through 2024 (June, August, September, October), indicating problems are ongoing and not resolved by management changes.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - LOW: While many recent reviews are uniformly 5-star with generic praise, they contain specific technician names, detailed scenarios, and varied language patterns. The negative reviews are highly detailed and credible. No strong evidence of fake positive reviews, but the volume of recent 5-stars vs. older mixed reviews warrants noting.

This WW Score of 68.2 is reliable and conservative. The company excels in technical execution and individual technician professionalism (78.5 experience score) but is severely compromised by systematic pricing practices that customers perceive as exploitative and by recurring scheduling/follow-up failures. The HIGH confidence across all dimensions is based on 47-89 mentions per category, providing robust data. However, the score reflects a company with significant structural problems in billing transparency and management accountability that offset strong field-level performance. Customers should expect quality work but should obtain detailed written estimates, verify all charges, and be prepared to dispute bills.