Find Nearby Plumbers In Miami, Florida

Miami Emergency Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising responsiveness, professionalism, and technical skill — particularly from individual plumbers like Ivan, Adrian, Roy, and Jose. However, the review set contains a meaningful number of 1-star reviews that explicitly cite unprofessionalism, poor communication, unresolved issues after multiple visits, and overcharging, which significantly tempers the scores. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while several reviewers praised fair or reasonable pricing, multiple 1-star reviewers described charges of $399–$450 for quick jobs with poor follow-through, and one reviewer noted getting the same work done for one-third the price elsewhere. Project completion is also dragged down by reviews describing repeat visits that failed to resolve issues, a refused callback after a toilet re-clogged within 24 hours, and a hole left in a wall. The majority of reviews are from 2016–2019, with only two reviews from 2021–2022, suggesting the most recent data is limited and the score may not reflect current performance.

• Most reviews are older than 3 years; only 2 reviews date from 2021–2022, meaning current performance is largely unknown and the score reflects historical data.
• Several 1-star reviews describe a pattern of unresolved issues, refused callbacks, and overcharging — these are substantive complaints, not just vague dissatisfaction.
• One reviewer explicitly reported being charged $450 for a 30-minute job with under $50 in materials and a hole left in the wall — a significant red flag for pricing transparency and workmanship.
• One reviewer reported a toilet re-clogging within 24 hours and the company refusing to return to fix it — a direct project completion failure.
• One reviewer reported 4 failed visits without resolution and plumbers leaving dirty sewage gloves on the property — a serious professionalism and competence concern.
• No strong fake review patterns detected, though many positive reviews are highly enthusiastic and name specific plumbers; this appears genuine rather than fabricated given the specificity of details.

This WW Score is based on 31 reviews with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but reliability is moderately reduced by the age of the data (most reviews are from 2015–2019) and a consistent pattern of serious negative reviews that cannot be dismissed as outliers.

Service Experts demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with technicians consistently praised for punctuality, friendliness, and knowledge. However, the company is severely hampered by pervasive pricing concerns—customers repeatedly report markups of 300-800% on parts, diagnostic fees that seem excessive, and aggressive upselling tactics. Project completion is mixed, with many reports of incomplete work, multiple callbacks, and scheduling failures. The company's Advantage Program lease model is particularly controversial, with numerous complaints about predatory terms and hidden costs. While individual technicians often perform well, systemic issues with sales practices, pricing transparency, and follow-through significantly undermine customer satisfaction.

• STRONG PATTERN OF PRICING COMPLAINTS: Approximately 287 reviews explicitly mention overpricing, with customers reporting parts marked up 300-800% above retail, diagnostic fees of $99-$175 for simple issues, and labor rates of $150-$300+ per hour. This is the single most consistent complaint across the entire review set.
• PREDATORY ADVANTAGE PROGRAM: Multiple reviews describe the lease-based Advantage Program as a scam, with customers paying $140-$300/month for 7-10 years, totaling $12,000-$36,000 for equipment worth $5,000-$8,000. Customers report being misled about ownership, early termination penalties of 50-94% of original cost, and liens placed on homes without clear disclosure.
• AGGRESSIVE UPSELLING AND SALES TACTICS: Approximately 180+ reviews describe high-pressure sales tactics, including sending salesmen without customer consent, recommending unnecessary replacements, and using fear tactics about system failure. Technicians appear incentivized by commission to recommend expensive upgrades.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY AND MULTIPLE CALLBACKS: Approximately 120+ reviews report technicians returning multiple times to fix the same issue, incomplete work, incorrect diagnoses, and poor workmanship. Some customers report 3-6 visits for single problems.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW ISSUES: Approximately 95+ reviews report missed appointments, no-shows without notification, late arrivals, and poor communication about delays. Several customers report waiting 4+ hours with no contact.
• DISHONEST DIAGNOSTICS: Approximately 85+ reviews describe technicians making false diagnoses (claiming units need replacement when only minor repairs needed), deliberately breaking equipment during service, or misidentifying problems. Multiple customers report getting second opinions that contradicted Service Experts' diagnosis.
• POOR CUSTOMER SERVICE AND UNRESPONSIVE MANAGEMENT: Approximately 110+ reviews report difficulty reaching management, unanswered callbacks, refusal to honor warranties or service agreements, and dismissive treatment of complaints.
• ADVANTAGE PROGRAM HIDDEN TERMS: Multiple reviews describe discovering liens on homes, inability to refinance, non-transferable leases, and surprise charges after signing. Customers report being told one thing verbally and finding different terms in fine print.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Approximately 40-50 reviews from June 2025 and June 2006 contain nearly identical phrasing ('Hays/Hayes was on time, professional, friendly...', 'Ali came over...genuine, efficient, knowledgeable...'), suggesting possible review manipulation. These appear clustered by date.
• INSTALLATION DEFECTS: Multiple reviews report incorrect installations, wrong equipment sizes, improper wiring, missing permits, failed inspections, and equipment that failed within days of installation.
• MAINTENANCE CONTRACT FAILURES: Approximately 60+ reviews describe maintenance contracts that were not honored, services not performed despite payment, and inability to use contracted services within specified timeframes.

This WW Score of 62.3 should be treated with HIGH confidence due to the large sample size (1,000 reviews) and consistent patterns across multiple dimensions. However, the score masks a deeply problematic company: while technicians are often professional and knowledgeable, systemic issues with pricing, sales practices, and contract terms create significant customer harm. The pricing dimension (38.2) is particularly reliable and represents the company's most serious weakness. Potential customers should be aware that low individual technician ratings are frequently contradicted by complaints about company-level practices, hidden fees, and aggressive sales tactics. The presence of potential fake reviews in specific date clusters slightly reduces confidence in the overall rating distribution, but does not materially affect the validity of the core findings about pricing and sales practices, which are corroborated across hundreds of independent reviews.

This contractor exhibits highly polarized performance with significant inconsistency across engagements. While technical expertise and problem-solving ability are consistently praised (leak detection, creative solutions avoiding structural damage), professionalism and project completion are severely compromised by communication failures, missed appointments, incomplete work, and hostile customer interactions. Recent reviews (2024, 2021) show critical professionalism issues including rudeness and lack of follow-through. Pricing appears reasonable when work is completed, but several customers report incomplete deliverables (missing reports, documentation). The contractor's willingness to threaten legal action and abandon jobs mid-completion raises serious reliability concerns.

• CRITICAL: Extreme review polarization — 11 five-star reviews vs. 7 one-star reviews with almost no middle ground. This suggests either genuine service inconsistency or potential review manipulation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2013–2019 (6+ years old). Recent reviews (2024, 2021, 2020) are predominantly negative, indicating deteriorating service quality or business practices.
• PATTERN OF INCOMPLETE WORK: Multiple reviews cite missing documentation, reports, and follow-up deliverables despite payment received. Review from 2019-06-11 explicitly states contractor blocked communication after cashing check.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Multiple reviews document ignored calls, blocked communication, text-only cancellations, and hostile responses to customer concerns (2020 review: hung up on customer, threatened lawsuit).
• BUSINESS LEGITIMACY QUESTIONS: Review from 2018-10-15 flags multiple non-existent or residential addresses listed for business, raising concerns about operational transparency.
• PAYMENT PRACTICES: Review from 2018-01-22 reports contractor refused cards/cash (check only), added unexpected charges at end of job, and became unreachable after payment.
• CONTRACTOR IDENTITY INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference both 'Stephen L. Davis' and 'Dick Rosher Plumbing' — unclear if same entity or operating under multiple names.
• LEGAL THREATS: 2020 review documents contractor threatening lawsuit and lien against customer, then demanding additional payment to complete work.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical WW Score of 68.2 reflects mixed data, the extreme polarization between recent negative reviews and older positive reviews, combined with documented patterns of incomplete work, communication failures, and hostile customer interactions, suggests the contractor's actual current reliability is likely LOWER than the score indicates. The recency of negative reviews (2020–2024) is particularly concerning. Potential customers should heavily weight recent reviews and independently verify business legitimacy before engaging.

This contractor shows strong professionalism and technical skill when jobs are completed, with multiple reviews praising punctuality, communication, and quality workmanship. However, project completion is a significant weakness, with two detailed 1-star reviews documenting incomplete work, abandoned callbacks, and follow-through failures that directly contradict the positive reviews. Pricing appears fair when transparent, but the limited mentions reduce confidence in that dimension. The stark polarization between 5-star and 1-star reviews, combined with explicit allegations of dishonesty and non-completion, suggests serious operational inconsistencies that undermine overall trustworthiness.

• CRITICAL: Severe polarization detected — 5 five-star reviews vs. 3 one-star reviews with no middle ground. This pattern suggests either highly inconsistent service quality or potential review authenticity issues.
• Two detailed negative reviews (2023, 2018) explicitly allege non-completion of work, abandoned callbacks, and dishonesty. These are specific, credible complaints with dates and details.
• Review from 2023-07-26 alleges the contractor denied a customer's call history, suggesting communication/honesty issues.
• Review from 2018-09-16 documents incomplete clog repair and a 4-day no-show after promising follow-up work.
• One review (2016-01-24) appears to be for a different company ('Rooter plumbing' vs. 'EZ plumbing'/'Oscar') and may have been misattributed or is a competitor review.
• Most positive reviews are 3+ years old (2016–2021); most recent review is negative (2023). Recency favors negative feedback.
• Positive reviews lack specificity on pricing details; one explicitly states landlord paid so customer has no price awareness.

This score should be treated with caution. While the numerical WW Score of 68.2 reflects the data, the extreme polarization and credible allegations of incomplete work and non-responsiveness suggest the contractor's actual reliability is likely lower than the score indicates. The presence of recent negative reviews (2023) combined with older positive reviews raises concerns about service degradation or inconsistency. Do not rely on this score alone; investigate the specific complaints about project completion and follow-through before engaging.

Horne Plumbing shows strong technical expertise and generally reliable project completion, with multiple reviews praising quality workmanship and on-time delivery. However, significant professionalism and pricing concerns emerge from recent negative reviews (2020-2024), particularly regarding communication breakdowns, aggressive billing practices, and lack of transparency in quotes. The company demonstrates inconsistent service quality—highly praised by contractor clients but criticized by residential customers for hidden labor charges and poor customer service recovery. Recent reviews (2020-2024) are substantially more negative than older reviews (2017-2018), suggesting a decline in service standards.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2018-2020 (4-6 years old). Most recent reviews (2024, 2020) are 1-star, indicating potential service degradation over time.
• PRICING RED FLAG: Multiple explicit complaints about hidden charges and lack of transparency in quotes (2020 and 2017 reviews). One customer reported being charged double the quoted price due to undisclosed labor costs.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE ISSUE: 2020 review documents aggressive communication, refusal to negotiate on callback pricing, and hanging up on customer mid-conversation. This directly contradicts 'above and beyond' claims in older reviews.
• WORK QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: 2020 review shows incomplete diagnosis (blamed toilets when issue was drain line), requiring rework by competitor within 3 weeks. Contradicts claims of expertise.
• PAYMENT RESTRICTION: Cash-only policy noted in 2020 review, which limits consumer protections and raises transparency concerns.
• UNRELATED REVIEW: 2024 review about aggressive drivers appears unrelated to plumbing service quality and may indicate broader operational issues.
• CONTRACTOR BIAS: Positive reviews skew toward contractor/commercial clients; residential customer reviews are predominantly negative, suggesting service quality varies significantly by customer type.

This score should be treated with caution. While the WW Score of 68.2 reflects mixed data, the temporal pattern is concerning: older reviews (2018-2020) are highly positive, but recent reviews (2020-2024) reveal serious issues with pricing transparency, customer service, and work quality. The company appears to have experienced a significant decline in service standards. Prospective customers should heavily weight recent negative reviews and request detailed, itemized quotes with explicit labor costs before engaging services.

Lion Plumbing shows a deeply polarized review pattern with 4 severe 1-star complaints and 5 strong 5-star reviews, all dated 2020 or earlier. The negative reviews document serious failures: no-shows without communication, unprofessional dismissal of a female customer, and incomplete work (installing shut-off valves instead of fixing frozen pipes while charging $350). Positive reviews praise professionalism, communication, and work quality, but lack specificity and cluster suspiciously on a single date (Feb 13, 2020). The WW Score of 62.8 reflects this contradiction: strong marks for experience and professionalism when service is delivered, but critical failures in project completion and responsiveness that directly harm customers. The lack of recent reviews (all from 2020 or earlier) prevents assessment of current performance.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Five 5-star reviews posted on identical date (2020-02-13) within 6 minutes, with similar phrasing ('highly recommend,' 'professional,' 'amazing staff'). This clustering is statistically suspicious and suggests coordinated posting.
• SEVERE SERVICE FAILURES: Three 1-star reviews document critical issues—no-shows without communication, unprofessional customer dismissal, and incomplete work with overcharging. These are not minor complaints.
• NO RECENT DATA: All reviews are from 2020 or earlier (oldest from 2017). No reviews from past 12 months. Current performance is unknown.
• POLARIZATION RED FLAG: 4 of 9 reviews are 1-star with detailed complaints; 5 of 9 are 5-star with generic praise. This extreme bimodal distribution suggests either serious operational inconsistency or review manipulation.
• INCOMPLETE WORK DOCUMENTED: Review from 2021-03-26 explicitly states the plumber installed shut-off valves instead of fixing frozen pipes—a fundamental failure to complete the contracted job.

This score should be treated with caution. While based on 9 reviews, the extreme polarization, suspicious clustering of positive reviews, complete absence of recent data, and documented service failures create significant uncertainty about current reliability. The company may have changed management or operations since 2020, or the positive reviews may not reflect typical customer experience.