Find Nearby Plumbers In Miami, Florida

Peter's Plumbing presents a deeply polarized review profile spanning roughly 2006 to 2025, with a large volume of glowing 5-star reviews heavily concentrated in the 2015–2020 era and a devastating wave of 1-star reviews dominating the 2021–2025 period. The professionalism dimension is severely dragged down by pervasive, recurring complaints about no-shows, broken promises, ignored phone calls, management refusing to return calls, and in at least one case a technician harassing a 71-year-old woman at her door at nearly 11pm. Pricing is the lowest-scoring dimension, with dozens of independent reviewers describing bait-and-switch tactics, wildly inflated quotes, undisclosed charges, non-refundable deposits taken without disclosure, and prices that were 3–10x what competitors charged for identical work. Project completion is critically weak in the recent period, with multiple customers reporting abandoned jobs, work left incomplete for months, failed warranty callbacks, work done without permits, and customers forced to hire other companies to fix or finish what Peter's started. Experience scores slightly higher due to a meaningful number of positive reviews praising specific technicians by name, but is undermined by repeated accounts of incorrect diagnoses, improper installations, code violations, and technicians lacking basic tools or parts.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW CLUSTER: A significant cluster of 5-star reviews dated 2025-05-07 and 2025-05-16 are highly suspicious. They are generic, lack specific job details, use nearly identical praise language ('amazing,' 'professional,' 'highly recommend'), and several name the same technicians (Roberto, Johnny, Justin, Jensen) across multiple reviews posted on the same date. Confidence in these reviews is very low and they have been weighted accordingly.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least three reviews appear to be exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., the cast-iron pipes complaint posted 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04; the insurance paperwork complaint posted 2025-06-06 and 2025-06-03; the $225 scam complaint posted 2025-06-06 and 2025-06-03; the tankless water heater overcharge complaint posted 2025-06-06 and 2025-06-03). These duplicates were counted only once per unique incident for scoring purposes.
• SEVERE RECENCY TREND: The review profile shows a dramatic deterioration in quality from 2021 onward. Reviews from 2021–2025 are overwhelmingly negative (approximately 80%+ are 1-star), while reviews from 2015–2020 skew positive. This recency trend is a critical red flag and recent reviews were weighted more heavily in scoring.
• OPERATING UNDER MULTIPLE NAMES: Multiple reviewers allege that Peter's Plumbing operates under at least one additional business name ('Five Star Plumbing & Septic') and that the owner may use this to obscure the company's negative reputation. One reviewer also alleges a related company 'All Star Plumbing' shares customer data with Peter's Plumbing.
• PERMIT AND LEGAL VIOLATIONS: Multiple reviewers report work performed without permits, city violations issued, and at least one reviewer reports the company's permit was expired. One reviewer reports a 7-month project that resulted in city violations, open trenches, and safety hazards.
• PATTERN OF PREDATORY PRICING: An unusually high number of reviewers independently describe the same pattern: an initial reasonable quote, followed by escalating charges after work begins, pressure to finance, and refusal to refund deposits. This pattern across dozens of unrelated reviewers strongly suggests a systemic business practice rather than isolated incidents.
• EMPTY REVIEWS EXCLUDED: Approximately 15 reviews contained no text (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data per scoring rules.
• BLANK 5-STAR REVIEWS: Several blank reviews with 5-star ratings dated in clusters (e.g., November 2024) are suspicious and may represent fake positive reviews intended to inflate the overall star rating.

This WW Score of 38.2 is based on a very large review dataset (210 reviews) and carries HIGH overall confidence; the score should be treated as a serious warning signal, as the recent review record (2021–2025) is overwhelmingly negative with credible, detailed, and independently corroborated accounts of fraud, predatory pricing, abandoned work, and harassment, while the positive review base shows significant signs of inauthenticity.

The review set paints a predominantly negative picture of A-1 America's Handyman across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the weakest area, with multiple reviews describing rude, threatening, and dismissive communication from the office manager Stefano, including harassing callbacks and aggressive payment demands — only two reviews offered genuinely positive impressions of responsiveness and attitude. Pricing drew consistent criticism for being high and opaque, with one reviewer citing $800 for a single fence post and another paying $950 for substandard cement work, though two reviewers did find the pricing fair for their jobs. Project completion was mixed but leaning negative: several reviews describe incomplete work, rescheduled visits without notice, jobs not done as quoted, and one instance of a blind replacement done incorrectly and incompletely. Experience scores slightly higher than the other dimensions but is still dragged down by accounts of shoddy cement work, incorrect blind slat counts, and improperly fixed shelving, offset by a couple of reviews praising skilled and motivated workers.

• All five-star reviews are older than 5 years (2017–2019), while the most recent review (2021) is one-star. The score may not reflect current service quality.
• All reviews are older than 3 years as of a 2024 reference date; recency weighting significantly reduces confidence in the overall score representing present-day performance.
• The three positive reviews use somewhat generic praise ('Amazing!', 'Great service', 'Overall experience was great') with limited operational specifics, which warrants mild fake review caution, though they do include some job-specific details.
• The office manager 'Stefano' (also spelled 'Estefano') is named both positively and very negatively across reviews, suggesting inconsistent or context-dependent behavior rather than a systemic personnel issue alone.
• Only 7 reviews total — confidence in all dimension scores is limited by small sample size despite HIGH mention counts within this set.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to the small total review count of 7 and the fact that all reviews are more than 3 years old, making it difficult to assess the contractor's current quality with confidence.

This contractor has a deeply polarized review profile, with strong positive experiences from some customers and serious allegations of scamming, incomplete work, and rude behavior from others. Two reviews explicitly describe work being left incomplete after payment — including a pipe being capped rather than repaired — and one review describes the owner yelling at and hanging up on a customer. On the positive side, several reviews praise professionalism, punctuality, cleanliness, and problem-solving ability, with one detailed positive review describing thorough and courteous service. Pricing is a consistent concern even among satisfied customers, with one reviewer noting charges exceeding $400 for roughly three hours of work and explicitly stating the company is not price-competitive. The combination of credible scam allegations and incomplete-work complaints significantly drags down the project completion and professionalism scores.

• Two reviews (1-star, July–August 2013) contain credible and specific allegations of incomplete work after payment, with one describing the technician capping a pipe instead of repairing it and refusing to return calls — this is a serious red flag.
• One reviewer (2-star, February 2013) reported receiving unsolicited SPAM text messages from the company after their service, which is an unprofessional and potentially illegal business practice.
• The review dated 2013-03-11 ('Excellent', 5 stars) contains no usable detail and was excluded from dimension scoring — it may be a low-effort or fake review.
• All positive reviews are from 2008–2013 and all reviews are more than 10 years old. No recent reviews are present, making it impossible to assess current service quality. This score should be treated with extreme caution for any present-day hiring decision.
• The two most detailed negative reviews (2013) are more recent than most of the positive reviews (2008–2011), suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time within the review window.

This WW Score carries LOW reliability due to the small number of reviews, the age of all reviews (all pre-2014), a credible pattern of serious complaints about incomplete work and misconduct in the most recent reviews, and the complete absence of any data from the past decade.

This contractor has a mixed record across a very small and largely outdated review set. Three of the five reviews are from 2013–2017, with only one review from the past 12 months, significantly limiting the reliability of any positive signals. The most recent substantive negative review (2023) describes a serious allegation — theft of a bathtub and complete job abandonment — which heavily penalizes the project completion dimension. Positive reviews consistently praise professionalism, knowledge, and fair pricing, but these are too old to carry full weight. The single recent positive review (2024) is generic and lacks specific detail, raising minor concern about its authenticity.

• SERIOUS ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2023) claims the contractor stole their bathtub and abandoned the job entirely. This is an extreme negative data point that significantly impacts the project completion score.
• RECENCY WARNING: Three of five reviews are more than 7 years old (2013, 2014, 2017). Only one review is within the past 12 months (2024). The score should not be treated as reflective of current performance.
• GENERIC REVIEW FLAG: The 2024 five-star review uses vague, non-specific praise ('punctual, professional, knowledgeable') with no job details. This pattern is consistent with potentially unverified or low-detail reviews and has been treated with reduced confidence.
• VERY SMALL SAMPLE: Only 5 reviews total. No dimension reaches the 5-mention threshold for HIGH confidence. All scores should be treated as preliminary estimates only.

This WW Score has LOW reliability due to a very small review sample, predominantly outdated reviews, one serious unresolved allegation of theft and job abandonment, and a lack of recent verified feedback — this score should not be used as a confident indicator of current contractor quality.

ARK Plumbing's review corpus is dominated by deeply negative experiences, particularly among customers assigned through home warranty companies. Professionalism is the most-cited dimension and is catastrophically poor: dozens of reviewers explicitly describe the phone receptionist and owner (Elana) as rude, argumentative, dismissive, and in one case using profane language toward a customer. Project completion is similarly alarming, with numerous accounts of jobs left unfinished, leaks not repaired after multiple visits, open walls and pipes abandoned, and work that caused additional damage. Pricing drew consistent complaints of hidden charges, inflated out-of-pocket fees, and suspected fraudulent reporting to warranty companies to extract extra payments. Experience scores marginally higher due to a subset of positive reviews praising specific technicians (Jason, Sal, Juan, Derek, Andrew), but is undermined by multiple accounts of incorrect diagnoses, improper installations, and work that had to be redone by other companies. The positive reviews, while genuine in some cases, are vastly outnumbered and do not offset the overwhelming pattern of failure across all four dimensions.

• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A cluster of 5-star reviews dated 2023-06-09 with identical dates, very short and generic text (e.g., 'Amazing customer service', 'ARK was super nice to me', 'Best plumbing company in town'), and no specific details are consistent with coordinated or incentivized review activity. These reviews were scored conservatively.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: Several 5-star reviews from 2014–2017 contain text such as 'unknown', '.', or 'see above' with no usable content. These appear to be placeholder or imported reviews and were excluded from scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two pairs of near-identical 1-star reviews were found (e.g., the 'worst, rude, unprofessional' review appears twice with dates 2024-06-08 and 2024-03-22; the 'Worst service I've ever had' review appears twice with dates 2024-03-18 and 2024-03-18). These were counted as single mentions to avoid double-weighting.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTE: The majority of detailed, substantive reviews are from 2022–2025. Reviews from 2008–2017 are largely positive but many lack detail or contain placeholder text. The recent trend is strongly negative and was weighted more heavily.
• ETHICAL CONCERN — FRAUDULENT REPORTING: Multiple independent reviewers allege that ARK Plumbing submitted false or inflated reports to home warranty companies (misclassifying repairs as 'modifications', reporting non-existent issues, or claiming work was complete when it was not). This pattern across many unrelated reviewers suggests a systemic business practice rather than isolated incidents.
• OWNER CONDUCT WARNING: Multiple reviewers specifically name the owner 'Elana' as the source of rude, threatening, or abusive behavior, including one reviewer alleging the owner said 'F_CK OFF' and another reporting the owner threatened legal action in response to a review. This is a significant red flag for business integrity.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: A high volume of reviews describe technicians leaving jobs unfinished, abandoning open walls or pipes, or failing to fix the stated problem across multiple return visits. This is a systemic project completion failure, not isolated incidents.

This WW Score of 28.4 is based on a large volume of detailed, specific reviews spanning multiple years and is assessed with HIGH confidence; the score accurately reflects a contractor with severe and consistent deficiencies across all four measured dimensions, and prospective customers should treat this score as a strong warning against engagement.

This company exhibits severe and consistent deficiencies across all dimensions. Pricing is predatory, with customers reporting charges 2-10x market rates and bait-and-switch tactics. Professionalism is critically compromised by deceptive practices, lack of transparency, missing documentation, and evasive behavior. Project completion is severely flawed, with incomplete work, damage caused during installation, and refusal to honor callbacks or warranty obligations. Technical execution shows poor workmanship, incorrect installation methods, and failure to diagnose problems correctly. The single 5-star review from March 2023 is vastly outweighed by six 1-star reviews documenting systematic fraud patterns.

• CRITICAL: Pattern of alleged fraud and scam behavior across multiple independent reviews. Customers report bait-and-switch pricing, inflated invoices, unnecessary work recommendations, and deliberate evasion of accountability.
• CRITICAL: Consistent reports of undisclosed pricing increases at time of service, with no estimates provided before work begins.
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews cite same individual 'Samuel' and reference to a non-existent or unreachable 'boss' (Yomel Reyes) as excuse for charges and refusal to provide documentation.
• CRITICAL: Company operating under multiple names (Eagle Eye Plumbing, Angi, Yelp) suggesting possible account cycling to evade negative reviews.
• CRITICAL: Documented refusal to provide required licensing, insurance, and documentation despite claims of having them.
• CRITICAL: Multiple reports of property damage (flooding, water damage) caused by negligent installation with refusal to honor warranty or fix issues without additional charges.
• CRITICAL: Subcontracting work without disclosure and collecting payments directly from customers without proper invoicing.
• The single 5-star review (March 2023) appears isolated and lacks detail compared to comprehensive negative reviews. Given the overwhelming pattern of fraud allegations, this positive review should be treated with skepticism.
• Most reviews are from past 12 months (5 of 7), indicating ongoing problematic behavior rather than historical issues.

This WW Score of 28.3 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. The score is based on seven reviews with consistent, detailed allegations of fraud, negligence, and predatory practices across all four dimensions. The pattern of behavior is corroborated across independent reviews with specific names, dates, and dollar amounts. This company presents severe risk to consumers and should be avoided.