Find Nearby Plumbers In Ocala, Florida

The review set is very small (4 reviews) and spans nearly a decade, making it difficult to assess current performance reliably. Positive reviews highlight timely response, fair pricing, and polite demeanor, which push professionalism and pricing scores upward. However, the 1-star review is a significant drag across all dimensions: it describes a failure to deliver the correct products (wrong color, wrong style, cheaper model), a pricing discrepancy, and poor attention to detail — directly impacting project completion and experience scores. The negative review is specific and credible, while some positive reviews lack detail, further limiting confidence. One review appears to reference 'Roto-Rooter' rather than the subject contractor, raising a minor attribution concern.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as highly provisional and not representative of consistent performance.
• One review (2021-06-12) appears to reference 'Roto-Rooter' rather than the contractor under review (DJ's Root Scooter Plumbing). This review may be misattributed and its data should be treated with caution.
• One review dates from 2014 — nearly 10 years old. It carries minimal weight in assessing current performance.
• The 1-star review is specific, detailed, and credible: wrong toilet color delivered, wrong style installed, cheaper model substituted without disclosure, and an additional charge demanded to correct the error. This is a meaningful quality and integrity concern.
• Review volume is insufficient to establish reliable patterns. Score confidence is LOW across all dimensions despite MODERATE labels driven purely by mention counts.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning 9 years, including one potentially misattributed review and one very old review, making it a low-reliability signal that should not be used as a primary basis for hiring decisions without seeking additional recent references.

Mike Scott Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. On the positive side, numerous reviewers praised individual technicians by name — Alvaro, Bryant, Angel, Blake, Jose, Calvin, and others — for being prompt, professional, knowledgeable, and courteous, and several reviews noted fair or reasonable pricing. However, a substantial volume of negative reviews drags every dimension down significantly: complaints include technicians with poor attitudes or rude demeanors, supervisors responding aggressively to customer concerns, jobs left incomplete or requiring multiple return visits, charges for work not performed, and serious allegations of shady business practices including failure to pull permits and uncooperative behavior during insurance claims. Project completion is particularly concerning, with multiple reviews describing abandoned work, drain fields failing prematurely, recurring problems after service, and a no-guarantee policy on workmanship. The experience dimension is similarly split, with some reviewers praising technical skill and others explicitly calling technicians incompetent or inexperienced. Overall, the score reflects a company with capable individual workers but systemic issues in quality control, accountability, and customer service management.

• 4 reviews contained no text (rating only) and were excluded from dimensional scoring as they provide no usable data.
• Several negative reviews describe serious business practice concerns: failure to pull permits on water heater installations, refusal to provide legible receipts for insurance claims, and a drain field allegedly designed to fail just after warranty expiration — these are significant red flags beyond typical service complaints.
• A pattern of unresolved follow-up issues was noted across multiple reviews: quotes never delivered, callbacks never made, and supervisors only responding after social media threats — suggesting systemic office/management failures.
• Two 1-star reviews (driving complaint on I-75, refusal to drive on dirt roads) are not directly relevant to service quality and were weighted minimally in professionalism scoring.
• Several older reviews (2020–2022) describe serious incidents including a flooded home and a failed drain field; these were included but given slightly reduced weight relative to 2024–2025 reviews per recency rules.
• No clear fake review pattern detected; reviews vary in length, detail, tone, and rating, and many name specific technicians — this suggests an authentic review set.
• The volume of detailed, specific negative reviews (approximately 25 out of 59 usable reviews, or ~42%) is high enough to materially suppress all dimension scores and warrants serious consumer caution.

This WW Score is based on 59 reviews with usable content spanning 2020–2025, with strong representation across all four dimensions, yielding HIGH confidence — however, the high proportion of detailed negative reviews and serious allegations of misconduct means prospective customers should treat this score as a genuine warning signal rather than a borderline pass.

Gary's Plumbing shows severe inconsistency across reviews. Professionalism is a critical weakness, with multiple documented failures: missed appointments without notice (3 reviews), late arrivals (1 review), and failure to follow through on commitments. However, when he does show up, customers praise his technical skill, honesty, and fair pricing—he actively avoids upselling and provides transparent solutions. The business appears to suffer from reliability and punctuality issues that undermine otherwise solid workmanship. Recent reviews (2022–2023) show the same problems persisting, suggesting systemic operational challenges rather than isolated incidents.

• CRITICAL: Severe pattern of no-shows and missed appointments across multiple years (2020, 2021, 2023). Three separate reviews document failure to arrive or communicate.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are older than 2 years (2018–2021). Only 2 reviews from 2022–2023, both showing continued professionalism problems.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between positive reviews (5-star, praising honesty and skill) and negative reviews (1-star, citing no-shows). This suggests either highly variable service delivery or customer selection bias.
• OPERATIONAL RED FLAG: One review explicitly quotes Gary saying he gets business from competitors not calling back, suggesting he may rely on emergency situations rather than maintaining reliable scheduling.

This score should be treated with caution. While the data is genuine and not fabricated, the small sample size (6 reviews) and extreme polarization (three 1-stars, three 5-stars) limit confidence. The consistent pattern of punctuality failures across multiple years is credible and concerning, but the positive reviews suggest competent work when service is delivered. This contractor appears high-risk for scheduling reliability despite technical competence.

Allen Curry Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism is undermined by a serious complaint about a staff member's disrespectful conduct toward a customer, an unanswered callback about a water quality concern, and a five-month permit delay, though several reviewers do note friendly and courteous technicians. Pricing drew significant criticism, with one customer citing over $700 in undisclosed costs above the quoted price and another describing the gas company referral arrangement as a potential rip-off, though two reviewers found pricing fair or reasonable. Project completion is a notable concern: a permit was not delivered for five months, a tankless water heater installation left water smelling of joint compound for days with no resolution, two defective connections caused property damage, and one customer cancelled their order entirely due to delays. On the experience side, most straightforward jobs such as drain clearing and pipe repair were handled competently and quickly, but the installation-related failures and unresolved damage suggest inconsistency in workmanship quality on larger or more complex projects.

• Two reviews from 2014 and 2015 are very old (9–10 years) and carry minimal relevance to current service quality; one of these ('Very pleased.') contains no usable detail and was excluded from scoring.
• The 2015 water heater review and the 2021 tankless installation review both describe hidden or undisclosed costs, suggesting a possible pattern of non-transparent quoting on larger jobs.
• The 2022 review describes property damage caused by the company (defective connections, cut electrical lines) and an aggressive response from a pricing manager named Richard — this is a serious conduct and liability flag.
• The 2024 review describes a five-month permit delay with repeated unfulfilled promises, indicating a possible systemic issue with permit follow-through.
• No reviews are suspected to be fake; language is varied, specific, and includes both positive and negative detail consistent with genuine customer experiences.
• Only two reviews fall within the past 12 months (2024 and mid-2024), and both are negative or mixed, which is a recency concern for the contractor's current performance.

This WW Score is based on only 9 reviews spanning a decade, with just two from the past 12 months — both of which are negative or mixed — making the score directionally informative but not statistically reliable; prospective customers should seek additional recent references before hiring.

This contractor demonstrates severe deficiencies across all dimensions. Professionalism is undermined by no-shows, failure to follow up on promised callbacks, and dismissive customer service. Pricing concerns are substantial, with evidence of overcharging, failure to honor quoted work scope, and reluctance to issue promised refunds. Project completion is critically weak, with incomplete repairs, work that failed immediately after service, and unresolved issues requiring customer intervention. Technical competence is questionable, evidenced by improper toilet installation requiring customer adjustment and misdiagnosis of problems. The single positive note (one reviewer appreciated an apology for a no-show) is insufficient to offset the pattern of failures.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (3 of 5) rate 1.0 stars with detailed complaints of service failures, overcharging, and incomplete work. This is not a pattern of isolated incidents but systemic issues.
• PATTERN: Two separate reviews describe being charged full price for work not completed as promised (toilet not removed, machine not used; burner chamber cleaning promised but never delivered).
• PATTERN: Two reviews explicitly mention failure to follow up on promised callbacks or refunds, suggesting poor accountability.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two most recent reviews (Feb 2024, Jan 2024) are among the most damaging, indicating problems are ongoing, not historical.
• SCAM INDICATORS: Review 2 explicitly uses the word 'scammed' and mentions intent to report to BBB. Review 1 describes a $1550 quote for work that manufacturer says takes 1 hour, suggesting predatory pricing.
• QUALITY CONTROL: Review 5 describes improper toilet installation requiring customer to manually adjust internal components post-installation, indicating lack of quality assurance.

This WW Score of 32.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong warning signal. The score is based on 5 reviews with consistent patterns of failure across all dimensions, including two very recent reviews (2024) showing ongoing problems. The contractor demonstrates systematic issues with professionalism, pricing transparency, and work quality that warrant serious caution.

This contractor's review profile is deeply mixed and spans a wide date range (2011–2019), with the most recent usable review from 2019. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is severely dragged down by multiple credible, detailed negative accounts: a reviewer reported the plumber left alcohol bottles at the property, another described unprofessional language, smelling of cigarettes, and inappropriate comments about the homeowner's valuables, and a fifth reviewer was simply never called back after providing contact information. Positive professionalism mentions exist but are outnumbered and less specific. Pricing received its lowest score due to one highly detailed account of an alleged $864 estimate for work the reviewer completed themselves for $16 in parts, plus a mandatory $89 estimate fee — a strong indicator of predatory pricing practices. Project completion is mixed: one reviewer reports a toilet leaking after service, another says work was top-notch and guaranteed, and one review ('It didn't.') strongly implies the job was not completed satisfactorily. Experience scores modestly due to one strong positive account of multi-year repeat work and one account of a successful repair, offset by the failed toilet repair and the pricing-manipulation behavior suggesting upselling over honest diagnosis.

• One review ('unknown', 5 stars, 2016) contains no usable content and was excluded from scoring.
• One review ('It didn't.', 2 stars, 2017) is extremely vague — it implies failure but provides no detail; scored conservatively as a negative project completion signal.
• The review corpus spans 2011–2019; no reviews are within the past 12 months relative to a current evaluation, significantly reducing recency reliability.
• The most detailed negative reviews (2011 and 2018) are older but contain highly specific, credible details (dollar amounts, part names, behavioral descriptions) that increase their credibility weight.
• No fake review patterns detected; reviews show natural variation in tone, length, rating, and detail. The positive reviews are not suspiciously generic enough to flag as coordinated.
• Alcohol consumption on the job site (empty liquor bottle and empty beer case left behind) is a serious professionalism and liability concern explicitly mentioned in one review.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to a small review pool of only 7 reviews, all older than 12 months, with one unusable entry — however, the presence of multiple detailed, specific negative reviews across independent dimensions (professionalism, pricing, and project completion) lends meaningful signal to the low score.