Find Nearby Plumbers In Ocala, Florida

AM PM Plumbing has a large and broadly positive review base spanning over a decade, with many customers praising punctuality, friendliness, and technical competence across numerous technicians including Jose, Brian, Dax, Frankie, Clint, and others. However, a significant cluster of negative reviews — many specifically tied to home warranty (AHS) jobs — describes a consistent pattern of inflated 'modification' charges ranging from $525 to $675+ for work customers and independent contractors deemed unnecessary or grossly overpriced, which materially drags down both the pricing and project completion scores. Communication failures, including no-shows, unreturned calls, and unresponsive office staff, appear repeatedly across multiple years and represent a genuine operational weakness. The professionalism score is tempered by multiple credible accounts of rude technicians, threatening behavior over payment, and poor follow-through on estimates and callbacks. Experience scores remain relatively higher because many positive reviews specifically cite skilled diagnostics and quality workmanship, but shoddy work complaints from a minority of reviewers prevent a top-tier score.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: A notable cluster of reviews dated 2025-02-09 and 2025-03-11 show highly similar patterns — short, generic praise with initials appended (e.g., 'JG', 'G'), repetitive phrasing ('top notch', 'knowledgeable'), and several blank 5-star reviews with no text. Multiple reviews reference 'Brian and his team' with nearly identical language and the same appended initials, suggesting possible coordinated or incentivized review activity. Confidence in the most recent review cluster is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 30+ reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These have been excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• HOME WARRANTY SCAM PATTERN: At least 7 independent negative reviews (spanning 2023–2024) describe a near-identical scheme involving inflated 'modification' charges ($525–$675+) on AHS/home warranty jobs for parts customers and independent contractors deemed unnecessary or worth a fraction of the quoted price. This is a serious and credible pattern, not isolated complaints.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly 5-star and include suspected coordinated reviews. The negative reviews are concentrated in 2023–2024 and represent a meaningful share of substantive feedback. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) are given reduced weight but still inform long-term patterns.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reviews across different years cite unreturned calls, no-shows, unresponsive office staff, and failure to follow up on estimates — indicating a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.
• BBB RATING: One reviewer explicitly states the company holds an 'F' rating on the Better Business Bureau, which corroborates the pattern of complaints about deceptive billing practices.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEWS: At least 2 reviews appear to reference a different company or service entirely (e.g., an HVAC technician named Fernando at a veterinary hospital, and a reference to 'PM Plumbing and Mechanical' with HVAC services). These were excluded from scoring.

This WW Score of 72.1 is based on a large review set and carries HIGH data confidence, but should be interpreted cautiously due to a credible and recurring pattern of deceptive billing on home warranty jobs, suspected coordinated positive reviews in the most recent period, and documented communication failures — consumers using home warranty services in particular should exercise significant caution.

Patrick's Heating & Air receives consistently strong marks for technician-level professionalism, with dozens of reviews praising individual techs as polite, courteous, knowledgeable, and on time — this is clearly the company's strongest dimension. However, pricing is a serious and recurring concern: multiple reviewers across different years report quotes that were dramatically higher than competitors (sometimes double), hidden upcharges, and aggressive upselling tactics targeting seniors and fixed-income communities, which significantly drags down the pricing score. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are completed well and promptly, but there are notable failures including a botched HVAC install that failed multiple permit inspections, a plumbing job abandoned after six visits, a misdiagnosed AC system requiring a third-party fix, and a billing dispute that went unresolved for nearly a month. Experience scores moderately well based on positive technician feedback, but is undermined by documented cases of misdiagnosis and incorrect installations. The overall WW Score of 72.1 reflects a company with strong frontline staff but meaningful systemic issues in pricing transparency and quality control.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple independent reviews across 2019–2025 report quotes significantly above market rate — one reviewer documented a $13,000–$14,000 quote vs. competitor quotes of $8,800–$9,500 for the same unit; another documented a $12,000 quote vs. $6,000 elsewhere; a 2019 reviewer noted a $2,500 difference on a new unit quote. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• UPSELLING CONCERN: At least two reviews explicitly describe aggressive upselling tactics — one reviewer was quoted $4,000 for a UV system when only a $50 bulb was needed; another described a salesman arriving with the service tech before diagnosis to push a new unit on a 7-year-old system.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURE: One detailed 2024 review describes a catastrophic HVAC installation requiring 6 visits by 4 technicians, failing permit inspection twice, and a separate plumbing job requiring 6 visits that was ultimately abandoned — the clog was fixed in under 15 minutes by a different plumber.
• MISDIAGNOSIS DOCUMENTED: A 2020 review describes two Patrick's technicians missing a broken refrigerant valve (charging $764 for Freon and $1,295 for duct work that did not fix the issue) before a third-party company identified and fixed the actual problem.
• BILLING DISPUTE: A 2020 review describes an incorrect charge that was promised to be refunded but was not resolved after nearly a month of repeated calls.
• OFFICE/ADMIN FAILURES: A 2019 review documents four false claims of scheduling a permit inspection with Sumter County, with the county confirming no inspection was ever scheduled until the customer complained. The salesman reportedly blamed the customer.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 21 reviews contained no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed. Their presence slightly inflates the apparent review volume.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of substantive positive reviews are from 2025 and 2021–2023. The most serious negative reviews (permit failure, misdiagnosis, upselling) span 2020–2024, indicating these are not legacy issues but ongoing concerns.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW TO MODERATE: A subset of very short positive reviews (e.g., 'great', 'they are great', 'professional / Did an excellent job', 'Very well done') with no specifics are consistent with padding patterns. However, many positive reviews do include specific technician names and details, which reduces the overall fake review concern. Confidence is not materially reduced but noted.
• SENIOR TARGETING CONCERN: Two separate reviews explicitly mention pricing practices targeting residents of 55+ communities (On Top of the World, The Villages), suggesting possible awareness of reduced price-shopping capacity in these demographics.

This WW Score is based on a large review set spanning over a decade and carries HIGH overall confidence, but readers should weight the pricing and project completion scores heavily — the documented patterns of overquoting, upselling, and incomplete work are credible, specific, and recurring across multiple years and reviewers.

Meeks Plumbing shows a deeply split performance profile across a large review base. When individual technicians perform well — names like Ronnie Brock, Abram, Luis, William, Eric, and others are praised repeatedly for professionalism, punctuality, and technical skill — the experience is genuinely excellent. However, a substantial minority of reviews (roughly 30%) describe serious failures in responsiveness, scheduling reliability, callback follow-through, and office-level customer service, which significantly drag down all four dimensions. Pricing feedback is mixed: some customers report fair or below-market pricing, while others describe charges as excessive or non-transparent, and one reviewer found a competitor who completed the same job for less than half the quoted price. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with multiple reviews describing incomplete repairs, abandoned jobs, no-shows, and at least two instances where a repair was left in worse condition than before. The experience dimension is buoyed by many skilled technicians but undermined by a handful of reviews citing misdiagnosis, wrong parts ordered, and poor workmanship on larger jobs.

• 18 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• A cluster of reviews from 2025-05-19, 2025-06-02, 2025-05-26, and 2024-10-12 share very similar date stamps with multiple 5-star reviews on the same day. While individual technician names differ (suggesting authenticity), the pattern warrants mild caution.
• Multiple reviews praising specific technicians (especially Ronnie Brock with 5 reviews in a short window) could reflect genuine satisfaction or coordinated solicitation. Scores were not inflated on this basis but confidence is noted.
• Recency note: The majority of reviews with substantive text are from 2021–2025, which is within a usable window. Reviews from 2014–2018 were included but given reduced implicit weight given the volume of recent data.
• At least 3 reviews describe the company falsely advertising 24-hour emergency service and then failing to deliver on that promise — this is a material reliability concern for emergency plumbing needs.
• Two reviews describe a pattern of potential upselling or misdiagnosis (cracked tank that wasn't cracked; sewer line filled with roots that was actually clear), which is a flag for experience integrity.
• One review describes a technician refusing to come out despite being on-call, directly contradicting the company's advertised 24-hour service guarantee.

This WW Score is based on 125 reviews with strong recency and high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable — however, the high variance between excellent individual technician experiences and systemic failures in scheduling, callbacks, and office communication means the score reflects an average that masks significant inconsistency; customers should be aware that their experience may vary substantially depending on which technician is assigned.

All County Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, satisfied customers who frequently praise responsiveness, punctuality, and friendly technicians — with multiple reviewers citing them as their go-to plumber for years. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews raises serious concerns: repeated no-shows and failure to follow through on scheduled appointments, at least one instance of faulty workmanship causing water damage to hardwood floors, a complaint about upselling unnecessary work, and a complaint about opaque emergency pricing practices. Pricing feedback is mixed — several reviewers praised fair or below-estimate billing, while others found the company very expensive for minor work. The volume of blank or content-free 5-star reviews (9 reviews with no text) slightly inflates the apparent rating and reduces confidence in the raw star average. The most recent substantive reviews (2020–2025) are generally positive but thin, making it difficult to assess current performance with high certainty.

• 9 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a 5-star rating. These provide no usable qualitative data and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• 2 reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates (same text about a missed appointment window, one dated 2020 and one dated 2018), suggesting a possible copy-paste error or duplicate submission. Treated as a single incident for scoring purposes.
• 2 reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates (same text about calling ACP for a quick assessment, one dated 2020 and one dated 2018). Treated as a single incident.
• Several generic 5-star reviews contain only 1–2 sentences with no specific details (e.g., 'Amazing!!', 'Great team and great people', 'Awesome service!'). These were given reduced evidentiary weight.
• One review (1-star, 2012) alleges the company fabricated a code violation to upsell an unnecessary $900 job — a serious integrity concern that was verified by a second licensed plumber and inspector.
• One review (1-star, 2021) describes significant property damage (hardwood floor and carpet) caused by improper installation of an overflow drain — a serious workmanship failure.
• One review (1-star, 2018) describes opaque emergency upcharge pricing with no estimate provided upfront — a transparency concern.
• One review (1-star, 2022) describes being referred to a dishonest affiliated company — a business practice concern.
• The majority of reviews are older than 3 years. Only 3 reviews are dated within the past 12 months (2024–2025), and only 1 of those contains substantive text. Current performance cannot be assessed with high confidence.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most reviews date from 2018–2020. Only one review from 2025 and one from 2022 contain usable content. Scores are weighted toward the larger historical dataset.

This WW Score is based on a moderately large review set with high mention counts across all dimensions, but reliability is reduced by a significant number of blank reviews, two sets of duplicate reviews, several vague generic reviews, a sparse recent review record, and a recurring pattern of no-show and follow-through failures that represent a systemic — not isolated — concern.

Heart Plumbing demonstrates strong project completion and technical experience, with multiple reviews praising prompt service, emergency response capability, and quality workmanship. Professionalism scores are pulled down by two explicit negative reviews citing rudeness and unprofessional behavior, though most recent reviews (2024, 2022) are highly positive. Pricing data is extremely limited with only two mentions, one describing a significant dispute over scope and payment. The company shows inconsistency in service quality and customer interaction, with excellent performance in some cases offset by serious professionalism lapses in others.

• Two explicit negative reviews (2013, 2012) describe rude behavior and incomplete work, creating a concerning pattern despite predominantly positive ratings
• Significant pricing dispute in 2014 review alleging incomplete work and unreasonable cost estimates—customer completed scope themselves and requested credit
• Most reviews are older than 2 years (12 of 16); only 1 review from past 12 months limits recency assessment
• Three reviews contain minimal or no substantive detail ('unknown', '.', 'good service'), reducing data quality
• Inconsistent service quality suggested by mix of same-day appointments and 4+ hour delays
• Professionalism score heavily influenced by recent positive reviews; older negative reviews suggest historical issues that may or may not persist

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to limited recent data (only 1 review in past 12 months), significant historical professionalism concerns, and minimal pricing information; the score reflects mixed performance with strong technical capability but inconsistent customer service delivery.

Grove Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across multiple reviews, with staff consistently praised for politeness, responsiveness, and skilled workmanship. However, the company is significantly hampered by serious project completion failures and pricing concerns. Two damaging 1-star reviews document critical failures: one involving unnecessary slab damage that was never repaired, and another involving callous treatment of a disabled customer unable to afford a service call. Pricing feedback is mixed—some reviews cite fair and competitive rates, while others highlight the company's inflexibility and lack of compassion. The oldest reviews (2007–2016) are predominantly positive, but more recent reviews (2017–2022) reveal deteriorating service quality and judgment.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 6+ years old (2007–2016). Recent reviews (2017–2022) show significant quality decline and serious service failures.
• CRITICAL PROJECT FAILURE: 2022 review documents major negligence—unnecessary slab damage left unrepaired despite customer's father-in-law explicitly warning against it. This is a severe project completion failure.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE FAILURE: 2021 review describes callous treatment of a disabled customer on disability income, resulting in financial hardship. Company refused to work with customer on payment timing despite customer's medical condition.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: Three reviews marked 'unknown' with 5-star ratings (2016-09-03, 2016-02-16, 2016-02-15) lack any detail or context. These may be placeholder or fraudulent entries.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Wide variance between glowing detailed reviews and severe failure reviews suggests inconsistent service delivery or staff performance issues.
• BBB ACCREDITATION: One review explicitly states the company is not accredited by the Better Business Bureau, which is a red flag for business legitimacy.

This score should be treated with caution. While the numerical WW Score of 76.8 appears moderate, the underlying data reveals a company in decline with serious recent failures in judgment, ethics, and project completion. The positive reviews are predominantly old (6+ years), while recent reviews document critical failures. The presence of three suspicious 'unknown' reviews and explicit mention of lack of BBB accreditation further reduce confidence. Potential customers should heavily weight the recent negative reviews over older positive ones.