Find Nearby Plumbers In Orlando, Florida

The review set for this contractor is small (4 reviews) and deeply mixed, spanning from 2014 to 2018. Professionalism is a serious concern: two reviews explicitly describe ignored calls, a full voicemail inbox, and a contractor who disappeared for nine days after faulty work — dragging the professionalism score down significantly despite one glowing account of professional conduct. Project completion is similarly troubled, with one review describing abandoned work after a defective shower installation and another describing a no-callback situation. Pricing received relatively more positive mentions, with one reviewer praising the best quote available and another highlighting a fair and honest price, though the overall contractor pattern undermines confidence in consistent value delivery. Experience scores low-to-moderate due to an explicitly described haphazard installation resulting in two leaks, partially offset by one account of a quick and competent repair.

• Very small sample size of only 4 reviews — WW Score should be treated as highly provisional and not representative of consistent performance.
• Reviews span from 2014 to 2018; the most recent review is from January 2018, meaning all reviews are more than 6 years old. Current performance is entirely unknown.
• The two 5-star reviews contain specific details and appear genuine. However, the contrast between glowing praise and severe complaints suggests highly inconsistent service quality rather than fake reviews.
• One review explicitly mentions filing a complaint with the state licensing board against this contractor — a serious red flag that warrants caution.
• Voicemail inbox being full and repeated unanswered calls suggest possible business instability or abandonment of operations.

This WW Score carries very low reliability due to only 4 reviews, all older than 6 years, with sharply conflicting accounts of performance — prospective customers should seek current references and verify the contractor's license status before engaging.

AND Services receives an extremely low WW Score driven by an overwhelming volume of negative reviews across all four dimensions. While a cluster of recent 5-star reviews (primarily from June 2025) praise individual technicians for professionalism and communication, these are vastly outnumbered by detailed, credible 1-star reviews spanning 2020–2024 that describe systematic overcharging, misdiagnosis, abandoned or incomplete work, no-show appointments, rude customer service, and predatory upselling tactics targeting elderly customers. Pricing is the most severely penalized dimension, with dozens of reviewers reporting quotes 3–10x higher than competitors for identical repairs, bait-and-switch advertising, and non-itemized invoices. Project completion scores are critically low due to recurring reports of unfinished jobs, failed inspections, broken equipment shortly after installation, and technicians leaving without resolving the original issue. Experience scores reflect numerous accounts of technicians misdiagnosing problems, lacking proper tools, and recommending unnecessary full-system replacements for minor fixable faults.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW CLUSTER: A high concentration of 5-star reviews dated 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-08 share suspiciously similar structure — brief, generic praise for named technicians with little specific detail. Several of these reviews are blank (no text, only a 5-star rating). This pattern is consistent with coordinated review padding and should be treated with significant skepticism.
• 7 reviews contain zero text and only a 5-star rating — these provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Across more than 30 independent reviews, customers report being quoted prices 3x to 10x higher than what competitors charged for identical repairs. Multiple reviewers fixed their own issues for under $300 after AND Services quoted $3,000–$14,000.
• ELDERLY TARGETING: Multiple reviews explicitly describe technicians pressuring elderly customers (80s, 84 years old, 92 years old) into purchasing unnecessary full system replacements worth $10,000–$14,000.
• SCAM DIAGNOSIS PATTERN: Numerous reviewers report technicians diagnosing non-existent problems (e.g., claiming a unit had no control board when it did not exist, claiming freon was severely low when it was not, claiming pipes were cast iron when they were PVC). This suggests a systemic pattern of fraudulent diagnostics.
• RECENCY NOTE: The bulk of negative reviews span 2020–2024 and are highly detailed and specific. The positive reviews are heavily concentrated in a narrow window of May–June 2025, which may reflect a reputation management campaign rather than genuine service improvement.
• LEGAL AND REGULATORY FLAGS: Multiple reviewers mention filing complaints with the BBB, contacting the Florida State Attorney, disputing charges with lenders (Ally Bank), and threatening lawsuits. One review alleges the company operates under multiple DBAs and that 'AND Services' is a non-existent legal entity per their own attorney.
• BUSINESS INTEGRITY FLAG: One review alleges the company forged customer signatures on finance documents. Another alleges failure to pull permits after installation. These are serious legal and safety concerns beyond typical service complaints.
• CONFIDENCE REDUCTION APPLIED: Due to the suspected fake review cluster inflating the 5-star count, positive dimension scores were conservatively weighted. The high volume of detailed, specific negative reviews is treated as more reliable evidence than the sparse, generic positive reviews.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews (125 total) with strong data across all four dimensions, and the score of 28.4 should be considered highly reliable as a reflection of this contractor's overall service quality — the low score is supported by consistent, detailed, and independently corroborated negative experiences, while the positive reviews show patterns consistent with fake or incentivized submissions.

Frank Gay Services receives a critically low WW Score of 28.4, driven by overwhelming evidence of predatory pricing practices, systematic project failures, and poor follow-through. While a small number of reviews (3 out of 40) praise individual technicians for professionalism and skill, the vast majority document deceptive sales tactics, overcharging by 300-1000%, incomplete work, unresponsive management, and refusal to honor warranties or complete repairs. The company appears to employ a commission-based sales model that incentivizes unnecessary replacements rather than repairs, and consistently fails to follow up on callbacks and warranty obligations.

• SEVERE PATTERN OF PRICE GOUGING: 28 reviews explicitly mention egregiously inflated pricing (often 3-10x market rates). Examples: $7,000 for hydrojet cleaning (market $600-1,300), $1,200 for garbage disposal (customer installed for $125), $6,200 for zone control board (market $700), $14,899 for AC system (competitors quoted $6,000-8,000 less). This is not isolated—it is systematic.
• DECEPTIVE SALES PRACTICES: Multiple reviews document bait-and-switch tactics, sales staff posing as technicians, unnecessary replacements recommended without proper diagnosis, and pressure to buy services not needed. Company appears to prioritize commission-based sales over honest repair assessment.
• CATASTROPHIC PROJECT FAILURES: 22 reviews document incomplete work, abandoned repairs, failed inspections, damage caused during service (punctured AC coils, flooded apartments, damaged ductwork), and refusal to complete warranty work or callbacks. One customer waited 6+ months for promised repairs never completed.
• MANAGEMENT UNRESPONSIVENESS: 12+ reviews explicitly state that managers and office staff ignore calls, fail to return messages, and refuse to address complaints after payment is received. Pattern suggests deliberate avoidance of accountability.
• POTENTIAL REVIEW MANIPULATION: One review (2024-10-27) explicitly states 'they are constantly removing negative reviews from Google which is why they have all positive reviews.' This suggests the company may be artificially inflating its online reputation.
• DAMAGE AND LIABILITY ISSUES: Multiple reviews document property damage (flooded apartments, damaged water heaters, punctured AC coils, failed electrical inspections) with company refusing to complete repairs or honor insurance claims.
• RECENCY: 35 of 40 reviews are from the past 12 months (Nov 2023-Nov 2024), indicating these are current, ongoing problems, not historical issues.

This WW Score is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 40 detailed reviews with consistent, corroborating evidence across all four dimensions. The overwhelming majority of reviews (37 of 40) are 1-star ratings with specific, documented complaints about pricing, project completion, and management responsiveness. The three 5-star reviews praise individual technicians but do not contradict the systemic company-level failures documented in negative reviews. The pattern of complaints is too consistent and specific to be coincidental, and one review explicitly alleges review manipulation by the company itself.

Orlando Leak Detection has a deeply troubled review profile dominated by serious failures. Three of six reviews describe the company incorrectly locating leaks, resulting in customers paying for unnecessary and destructive slab or tile work — a fundamental failure of their core service. One reviewer explicitly describes a manager being rude, condescending, and refusing to resolve the issue, and another reports a promised refund that was never delivered after four weeks of unanswered calls. The two positive reviews praise responsiveness and professionalism, and one five-star review confirms a successful leak detection outcome, but these are outweighed by the severity and specificity of the negative accounts. The overall picture is of a company with inconsistent technical accuracy and poor accountability when errors occur.

• Three of six reviews describe the same core failure: leak marked in the wrong location, causing customers to pay for unnecessary destructive work by plumbers. This is a critical and recurring pattern, not an isolated incident.
• One reviewer reports being promised a full refund that was not honored after four weeks, with calls going unreturned — indicating potential deceptive business practices.
• One reviewer describes a manager (Maria/Mariah) as rude, yelling at the customer, and refusing to escalate or resolve the complaint — a significant professionalism red flag.
• The three five-star reviews are brief and lack specific detail (e.g., 'Fast and knowledgeable. Brad went above and beyond! We are so grateful!!!'), which raises mild concern about authenticity, though they cannot be confirmed as fake.
• All reviews are older than 12 months (most recent: 2021-03-30), with the majority from 2016–2018. No recent data is available to assess current performance. Scores should be treated with caution given the age of the data.
• Review volume is very low (6 reviews total), which severely limits statistical reliability of any score produced.

This WW Score has LOW reliability due to a very small review sample (6 reviews), all reviews being over three years old, and a stark split between detailed negative experiences describing core service failures and brief positive reviews with limited specifics.

Frank Gay Services receives an extremely low WW Score of 18.2, driven by overwhelmingly negative feedback across all four dimensions. Professionalism is severely compromised by chronic no-shows, failure to return calls, unprofessional communication, and unresponsive management. Pricing is the most damaging dimension, with systematic overcharging, hidden fees, deceptive quotes, and refusal to provide itemized billing cited in 68 reviews. Project completion is critically weak, with incomplete work, abandoned jobs, multiple failed callbacks, and warranty disputes appearing in 82 reviews. Experience shows inconsistent workmanship, with some positive individual technician mentions offset by widespread reports of poor installations, incorrect diagnoses, and repeated failed repair attempts. The company's pattern of taking payment then becoming unresponsive is documented repeatedly.

• CRITICAL: Systematic pattern of deceptive business practices including bait-and-switch tactics, hidden charges, and refusal to honor warranties
• CRITICAL: Overwhelming evidence of no-shows and failure to return customer calls/messages across 40+ reviews spanning 2022-2024
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document overcharging by 300-500% compared to competitor quotes for identical work
• CRITICAL: Documented pattern of taking deposits/payments then becoming unresponsive or ghosting customers
• RED FLAG: Several reviews mention company allegedly removing negative reviews from Google while maintaining fake positive reviews
• RED FLAG: Multiple customers report being offered partial refunds in exchange for removing or revising negative reviews
• RED FLAG: Documented instances of forged signatures on invoices and unauthorized charges
• RED FLAG: Pattern of aggressive upselling and pressure tactics, particularly for AC/HVAC replacements
• RED FLAG: Company allegedly uses third-party answering service to buffer customer complaints
• RECENCY: 85+ reviews are from past 12 months (Oct 2023-Oct 2024), indicating ongoing systemic issues
• POSITIVE OUTLIERS: 5 five-star reviews praising individual technicians (Tom Gould, Ethan White, Keith Robinson, Marcus Williams, Blaine) suggest some competent staff exist but are overwhelmed by systemic company failures

This WW Score of 18.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely; it is based on 100 detailed reviews with consistent patterns of documented harm across all dimensions, spanning multiple years and service types, with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions. The overwhelming volume of specific, detailed complaints with corroborating evidence (photos, documented quotes, BBB complaints, attorney general filings) far outweighs the small number of positive reviews, which appear to reflect individual technician quality rather than company-wide standards.

All three reviews are negative, painting a consistently poor picture of this contractor. Professionalism is heavily criticized across all reviews, with complaints about refusing to take responsibility for errors, dismissive communication, and one reviewer alleging aggressive driving behavior in a parking lot. Project completion is a significant concern, as one detailed review describes an incomplete installation where a critical solar temperature sensor was not transferred to the new tank, and the company refused to honor its own labor warranty or reimburse the resulting repair cost. Experience is also called into question, as the installation error described in the 2018 review suggests a lack of thoroughness or technical knowledge regarding solar water heater systems. Pricing received a limited mention in the context of a $1,800 job that resulted in additional unexpected costs due to the contractor's error, reducing perceived value.

• All 3 reviews are 1-star — no positive reviews are present in this dataset, which may reflect selection bias or a genuinely poor service record. Score should be interpreted cautiously given the very small sample size.
• One review (2021) does not describe a service interaction and instead references a parking lot incident. This review was counted for professionalism but excluded from project completion and experience scoring as it provides no workmanship data.
• Review dates span 2015 to 2021 — the most recent review is from 2021, which is over 3 years old. No recent reviews are available to assess current performance. Recency weighting is not applicable here as all reviews are older than 12 months.
• Sample size of only 3 reviews is extremely small. The WW Score is statistically unreliable and should be treated as indicative only.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all negative and all older than 3 years, making it a low-reliability signal — the score reflects serious concerns but cannot be considered a statistically confident assessment of the contractor's overall quality.