Find Nearby Plumbers In Orlando, Florida

Victor Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with responsive communication, courteous technicians, and clear explanations of work (4 mentions, score 88). Technical experience is solid with competent problem-solving and efficient job execution (3 mentions, score 82.5). However, project completion is significantly weakened by one severe review detailing incomplete work, payment acceptance without service delivery, and requiring multiple visits to resolve issues (3 mentions, score 65). Pricing is not addressed in any review, preventing evaluation of value. The company's score is pulled down substantially by the documented service failure, which directly contradicts claims of professionalism.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 4 of 5 reviews are from 2020 or earlier (oldest from Jan 2020, newest from Apr 2021). Only one review is from the past 3+ years, limiting current reliability assessment.
• CRITICAL SERVICE FAILURE: One 1-star review (Oct 2020) documents serious project completion failures including incomplete work, payment without service delivery, and requiring 10 visits to resolve issues. This directly contradicts positive reviews and suggests inconsistent service quality.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews total is a small dataset. Confidence in overall score is inherently limited.
• PRICING DATA ABSENT: No reviews mention pricing, value, or transparency of quotes, preventing assessment of this dimension.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (5 reviews), significant recency gap (most reviews 3+ years old), and one severe service failure that contradicts positive feedback, suggesting inconsistent quality or potential service issues that may not be fully resolved.

Tropical Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across most reviews, with staff consistently praised for knowledge, friendliness, and responsiveness. However, significant concerns emerge around project completion and follow-through, with multiple complaints about unfinished work, property damage, ignored callbacks, and unresolved issues. Pricing is generally viewed as fair, though some customers report being overcharged relative to competitors. The company shows a stark divide between positive routine service experiences and serious failures in complex projects and damage remediation.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two nearly identical reviews from Mary Seals-Kidd (2024-10-22) regarding septic tank property damage appear to be duplicates with minor text variations. Counted as separate reviews but represent single incident.
• SERIOUS PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2023, 2022, 2011) describe incomplete work, ignored callbacks, and refusal to remedy damage. This suggests systemic project completion issues beyond isolated incidents.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE COMPLAINTS: At least 3 reviews explicitly mention property damage (yard damage from septic service, flooded house from pipe installation, septic system over property line) with company refusing remediation.
• EMPLOYEE CONDUCT ISSUES: One review mentions driver road rage behavior (truck 55, 2025-01-10); another mentions employee refusing to wear mask (2023-06-10); one alleged employee complaint about unpaid wages (2022-03-20).
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: Most positive reviews cluster in 2024-2025 (recent), while serious complaints span 2011-2023. Recent reviews may reflect improved service or selection bias.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 8 reviews contain only ratings (5.0) with no text, reducing data quality for analysis.
• LANGUAGE DIVERSITY: One review in Spanish (2023-06-10) describing poor septic service and unresponsive follow-up.
• INCONSISTENT FOLLOW-UP: Multiple reviews cite ignored phone calls, emails, and requests for callbacks, suggesting administrative/communication breakdown.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While professionalism and experience scores are well-supported by 12-18 mentions, project completion is undermined by serious, credible complaints spanning over a decade regarding incomplete work and property damage. The recent surge of positive reviews (2024-2025) may not fully offset documented systemic issues with follow-through and damage remediation. Potential customers should specifically inquire about warranty, damage liability, and callback policies before engaging.

Walsh Plumbing demonstrates solid technical competence and generally reliable project completion, with multiple long-term customers praising expertise and work quality. However, professionalism and pricing consistency are significant concerns. Two recent negative reviews (2022, 2020) document poor communication, unresponsiveness, and failure to honor callbacks, while a 2011 review alleges substantial overcharging on labor despite a verbal quote. Positive reviews emphasize promptness, skill, and honesty, but the pattern of service failures and pricing disputes creates material risk. The company's strength lies in technical execution when engaged, but customer service and transparency require improvement.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 5+ years old (2011-2018). Recent reviews (2020, 2022) are predominantly negative, suggesting service quality decline.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: Two separate reviews document failure to return calls/respond to messages after initial contact, indicating systemic communication breakdown.
• PRICING DISPUTE: 2011 review alleges significant overcharge ($525 vs. $300 quoted) on straightforward labor. 2022 review mentions 'too payment' (likely typo for 'too much payment'). Pattern suggests pricing transparency issues.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: 2020 review explicitly states 'shotty job' on shower repair with no refund issued despite follow-up attempts.
• INCONSISTENT NAMING: Reviews reference both 'Kevin' and 'Leo' as owners/primary technicians—unclear if same person or different staff members, which complicates assessment.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW: 2015 review states 'See previous comment' with no substantive content—appears to be placeholder or duplicate.

This score should be treated with caution due to significant temporal bias (most positive reviews are 7+ years old) and documented service failures in recent years; the MODERATE overall confidence reflects conflicting evidence between historical long-term customer loyalty and recent communication/quality breakdowns.

This father-son plumbing team demonstrates strong technical skills and fair pricing, with multiple reviews praising their expertise, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by documented instances of rude and dismissive customer interactions, including an angry phone call and presumptuous behavior regarding job site waste disposal. While most reviews are positive and older (2015–2023), the pattern of interpersonal issues suggests inconsistent customer service that detracts from otherwise solid workmanship.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 5+ years old (2015–2018). Only 2 of 8 reviews are from 2023. Recent data is limited.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: Two separate reviews (2019 and 2015) document serious professionalism issues—one describing extreme rudeness and anger during a phone call, another describing presumptuous behavior and an 'off-putting' demeanor. These are specific, detailed complaints, not generic criticism.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW: Review dated 2018-09-15 contains the phrase '~Ron DeSantis for Governor 2018~' which appears to be unrelated political content inserted into a customer review. This is suspicious and suggests possible review manipulation or spam.
• INCONSISTENT CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE: Strong contrast between highly positive reviews (5-star) and negative reviews (1-star, 2-star) suggests either highly variable service quality or inconsistent interpersonal behavior depending on circumstances.

This score should be treated with caution due to age of data, small sample size, and documented interpersonal issues that conflict with technical competence; the WW Score reflects strong workmanship but significant professionalism concerns that may not be fully captured in the numerical rating.

Gas Plumbing Services demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with technicians consistently praised for knowledge, courtesy, and politeness. However, the company's WW Score is significantly dragged down by serious project completion and pricing concerns. Multiple reviews document incomplete repairs requiring callbacks, extended project timelines with unexplained delays, and aggressive billing practices including diagnostic fees for work-related failures. While recent reviews (2024-2025) are predominantly positive, older reviews reveal a pattern of follow-through failures and customer service breakdowns that undermine overall reliability.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document incomplete work requiring callbacks and additional charges. Review from 2024-06-09 (2.0 rating) describes carbon monoxide leak inadequately fixed, family re-exposed to danger, and manager refusing follow-up service without additional payment. Review from 2023-08-07 (1.0 rating) describes pilot light repeatedly failing to stay lit after service, with company charging additional $110 diagnostic fee instead of completing original job.
• PATTERN: Aggressive billing practices documented across multiple reviews. Company charges diagnostic/service fees for problems caused by their own installation errors (2024-06-09 review: $110 fee after failed tankless water heater install; 2023-08-07 review: $110 fee for incomplete pilot light repair). This suggests systematic practice of billing customers for company mistakes.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Multiple reviews document extended timelines and poor scheduling. 2021-06-10 review describes 4-day job spread over 3 weeks with different technicians each visit. 2022-06-10 review describes 8+ weeks waiting for water heater with poor communication and refusal to split shipping costs. 2021-01-22 review describes 3-week wait for appointment, then 5.5-hour no-show, requiring senior tech and discount to resolve.
• RECENCY BIAS ALERT: Recent reviews (2024-2025) are overwhelmingly 5-star with minimal critical detail, while older reviews (2019-2022) contain detailed negative experiences. This temporal pattern suggests either genuine service improvement or potential review manipulation. Conservative scoring applied.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Multiple reviews explicitly note unpredictable service quality. 2022-06-10 review (3.0 rating) states: 'You will get great service and then the opposite the next time.' This suggests systemic inconsistency rather than isolated incidents.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE FAILURES: Multiple reviews document poor communication, unresponsive management, and failure to honor commitments. 2024-06-09 review describes manager refusing callback after family carbon monoxide exposure. 2022-06-10 review describes 2-month billing delay with aggressive collection tactics. 2020-02-05 review describes no response to emergency after-hours call.
• AGGRESSIVE SALES TACTICS: 2020-06-10 review documents use of fake Florida Public Utilities disconnect notice left on door to scare new homeowners into scheduling inspection and service—described as 'scare tactics' and 'false advertisement.'
• WORKMANSHIP QUALITY CONCERNS: 2020-02-05 review documents damaged washing machine and sink drain lines during installation due to poor planning, filthy work area left behind, and no pride in workmanship. 2020-06-10 review documents aggressive upselling of unnecessary $1550 water heater replacement when existing unit was serviceable.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with MODERATE confidence and caution. While recent reviews show strong professionalism and technical skill, the company has a documented history of incomplete repairs, aggressive billing for work-related failures, poor project scheduling, and customer service breakdowns. The stark contrast between recent 5-star reviews and detailed negative experiences from 2019-2022 raises concerns about review authenticity or genuine service changes. Customers should be aware of documented risks around follow-through, billing practices, and management responsiveness before engaging this company.

Jim's Plumbing shows strong technical competence and generally reliable project completion, with experienced technicians who solve complex problems effectively. However, the company is significantly hampered by serious pricing concerns: multiple recent reviews (2023, 2019, 2018, 2016) document aggressive billing practices, including high diagnostic fees, inflated hourly charges, and attempts to overcharge customers. Professionalism is mixed—many reviews praise punctuality and courtesy, but several document poor communication, no-shows, and dismissive customer service. The company appears to have improved somewhat over time (older reviews are more positive), but recent pricing complaints are substantial enough to materially lower overall trustworthiness.

• PRICING RED FLAG: Multiple independent reviews from 2023, 2019, 2018, and 2016 document aggressive billing—$130/hour diagnostic fees for <10 minutes of work, attempts to charge for time spent writing invoices, and initial quotes nearly double the final negotiated price. This pattern suggests systemic pricing issues, not isolated incidents.
• FAKE REVIEW DETECTION: Three reviews contain only 'unknown' text with 5-star ratings (2016-02-03, 2015-03-12, 2015-01-13 rated 1-star). One review is a single period '.' with 5-star rating (2017-10-31). These appear to be placeholder or corrupted entries and reduce data reliability.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW: The tree-roots drainage repair review appears twice verbatim (2018-03-15 at 11:03:09 and 00:00:00), suggesting possible data duplication.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2011–2019. Recent reviews (2023, 2022) show significant service and billing problems, indicating potential decline in company standards.
• CREDIT CARD HOLD PRACTICE: Multiple reviews (2023, 2022) flag the company's practice of requesting credit card information to 'hold' appointments as a red flag, suggesting aggressive collection practices.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While the company demonstrates genuine technical expertise and project completion ability, the consistent pattern of aggressive pricing practices across multiple recent reviews substantially undermines overall trustworthiness; customers should expect to negotiate bills and verify charges carefully before engaging this company.