Find Nearby Plumbers In Palm Bay, Florida

This contractor shows significant inconsistency in service delivery. While older reviews (2019–2021) consistently praise quick response times, professionalism, and fair pricing, more recent reviews (2023) reveal serious deterioration: unresponsiveness after job completion, poor workmanship, and failure to honor callbacks. The 2023 reviews describe overcharging, incomplete work, and avoidance of follow-up obligations—directly contradicting the positive pattern from earlier years. This suggests either a decline in business standards or a shift in operational capacity. Professionalism and project completion scores are pulled down by documented failures in responsiveness and follow-through, despite some strong technical execution noted in older reviews.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 3–5 years old (2019–2021). The two most recent reviews (2023, 2022) are significantly negative, suggesting a recent decline in service quality or business practices.
• PATTERN OF DETERIORATION: Early reviews praise responsiveness and professionalism; recent reviews explicitly cite dodged calls, cancellations, and failure to complete callbacks. This is a red flag for reliability.
• CALLBACK FAILURES: Multiple recent reviews mention contractor refusing or failing to return for follow-up work, which directly impacts Project Completion scoring.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: One 2023 review alleges 'double' pricing compared to competitors for substandard work, contradicting earlier claims of 'reasonable' rates. Suggests possible pricing escalation or selective pricing practices.
• WORKMANSHIP QUALITY CONCERNS: 2023 review explicitly describes incomplete work (debris not flushed, system not drained) on pipe replacement, indicating technical execution issues not present in earlier reviews.

This score should be treated with caution due to stark divergence between older and recent reviews; the contractor's current reliability appears significantly lower than historical performance suggests, and the most recent data points indicate serious service delivery problems that may not be reflected in the overall WW Score.

Total Plumbing exhibits a deeply polarized review pattern with stark contrasts between positive and negative experiences. Positive reviews (primarily from 2016-2025) consistently praise Ruben's professionalism, fair pricing, and quality workmanship. However, negative reviews (concentrated in 2017-2019, with some recent exceptions) reveal serious systemic issues: incomplete work, aggressive upselling tactics (particularly with AHS warranty claims), missed appointments, poor communication, and lack of accountability. Project completion is the weakest dimension, with multiple reports of abandoned jobs, callbacks that weren't honored, and work requiring correction by other plumbers. Pricing concerns center on undisclosed fees and inflated charges for standard services. The company's heavy reliance on home warranty referrals correlates with complaints about aggressive add-on charges.

• SEVERE POLARIZATION: Reviews split sharply between 5-star praise (mostly Ruben-specific) and 1-star condemnation (often other technicians). This suggests inconsistent service quality or possible selective review posting.
• SYSTEMATIC AHS COMPLAINTS: Multiple independent reviews (2017-2019) describe identical patterns: undisclosed fees, pressure to pay out-of-pocket charges, false claims about code requirements, and aggressive upselling. This is not isolated—it appears to be a business practice.
• INCOMPLETE/ABANDONED WORK: At least 8 reviews document unfinished jobs, callbacks not honored, or work requiring correction by competitors. Examples: garbage disposal replaced 3 times for same issue; sub-pump installed improperly causing $20-25K flood damage; dishwasher line replaced incompletely.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reports of missed appointments, no-shows without notice, blocked phone numbers, and failure to return calls. One customer was blocked after a scheduling miscommunication.
• CREDIBILITY CONCERNS: Several reviews describe technicians denying obvious mistakes (bent water heater, improper connections) and refusing to acknowledge damage caused by their work.
• RECENCY BIAS: Negative reviews cluster in 2017-2019 (older, lower weight) but recent negative reviews (2024-2025) suggest problems persist. Positive reviews span entire timeline but lack specificity in recent years.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: One empty review (5-star, no text, 2021-06-10) and several generic praise reviews with minimal detail. However, most reviews contain specific details and are not obviously fabricated.
• SAMPLE COMPOSITION: 45 five-star reviews vs. 24 one-star reviews creates appearance of 65% satisfaction, but depth analysis reveals serious structural problems in execution and ethics.

This WW Score of 62.8 should be treated with CAUTION. While the MODERATE overall confidence reflects adequate mention counts, the extreme polarization and documented pattern of systematic issues (particularly around AHS warranty work) suggest the company's actual reliability is lower than the score indicates. The score is pulled upward by numerous positive reviews about Ruben specifically, but masks serious problems with project completion, communication, and ethical pricing practices that affect a substantial portion of customers. Prospective customers should read the detailed negative reviews carefully, particularly those describing AHS interactions and incomplete work, before engaging this company.

Hans McKinney's service shows significant inconsistency across reviews. Positive reviews (3 five-star ratings from 2018–2021) praise promptness, kindness, technical skill, and reasonable pricing. However, a detailed one-star review from 2019 describes incomplete work, misleading diagnosis, aggressive upselling, and refusal to remedy the failed job—suggesting either a serious service failure or potential misrepresentation. A second one-star review alleges fraud and unlicensed operation. The WW Score of 62.8 reflects this polarization: strong professionalism and experience marks are offset by critical failures in project completion and pricing transparency. The business appears unreliable.

• CRITICAL: One review (2020-12-30) alleges the advertiser is an impostor using a false license number, with complaints filed to police and DBPR. This suggests potential fraud or identity misrepresentation.
• CRITICAL: One detailed review (2019-07-11) describes incomplete work, misleading diagnosis, refusal to remedy the job, and aggressive upselling ($260/month subscription, $7–8k replacement quote despite half the house functioning). Customer explicitly states the plumber knew it was a temporary fix and walked away.
• POLARIZATION: Three five-star reviews vs. two one-star reviews with no middle ground. The one-star reviews contain specific, detailed complaints; the five-star reviews are more generic.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2018–2021 (3–5 years old). The most damaging review is from 2019. No recent reviews provided to assess current service quality.
• LICENSING ALERT: One review explicitly questions license validity. Recommend verification of current licensing status with Florida DBPR before engaging.

This score should be treated with caution. While positive reviews suggest competent work, the allegations of fraud, incomplete repairs, and refusal to remedy failed work are serious red flags that cannot be ignored. The polarized review pattern and age of data (3–5 years) further reduce confidence. Verification of licensing and recent customer references is strongly recommended before hiring.

Burton Plumbing has a deeply polarized review profile: a cluster of enthusiastic 5-star reviews praising professionalism, punctuality, and quality work is offset by several serious 1-star complaints involving overcharging, upselling, incomplete work, and unresponsiveness. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple credible complaints about inconsistent quotes, charges far exceeding estimates, and allegations of scamming vulnerable customers. Project completion is also significantly dragged down by a no-show incident, an incomplete sink installation, a botched toilet install that caused structural damage, and a $5,000 repair that failed to solve the problem. Professionalism scores moderately due to many positive mentions of courtesy and punctuality, but is undermined by documented instances of no-call no-shows, unanswered callbacks, and dismissive behavior. Experience scores similarly mixed, with many reviewers praising skill but at least two reviews describing serious workmanship failures.

• SUSPECTED DUPLICATE REVIEW: Reviews dated 2023-09-29 (one at 15:25:20, one at 00:00:00) are word-for-word identical. This is a strong indicator of a fake or artificially duplicated review. One instance has been discounted in scoring.
• REVIEW CLUSTER CONCERN: A large number of 5-star reviews are dated within a very narrow window (2021-12-01 through 2021-12-04), with generic praise, no specific job details, and no mention of pricing or problems. This pattern is consistent with solicited or inauthentic reviews and reduces confidence in the positive signals.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2022–2024) skew negative, including overcharging, a no-show, and upselling allegations. The positive reviews are predominantly from 2021 or earlier, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.
• ELDER EXPLOITATION ALLEGATION: One review (2022-08-02) alleges that a customer with early-stage dementia was upsold a year-long contract and that cancellation and reimbursement requests were ignored. This is a serious ethical and legal concern.
• STRUCTURAL DAMAGE COMPLAINT: A 2012 review describes a botched toilet installation causing subfloor rot and a failed housing inspection, with no returned calls. While old, this complaint is specific and credible.
• BLANK REVIEW: One review (2016-03-28) contains only a period with a 5-star rating and no usable content. It was excluded from scoring.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: while there are enough reviews to calculate a score, the presence of suspected duplicate and clustered fake reviews, a sharp negative trend in recent reviews, and serious allegations of financial misconduct and workmanship failures mean this score should be interpreted cautiously — prospective customers should weight the 2022–2024 negative reviews heavily.

Aladdins Magic Plumbing shows a mixed and inconsistent track record across the reviews analyzed. Pricing is a significant concern, with one reviewer explicitly calling out charges equivalent to over $1,200 per hour and a $79 trip fee, while others describe rates as reasonable — this sharp divide pulls the pricing score down considerably. Project completion is similarly split: several reviews praise fast turnaround (same-day or next-day service), but one detailed 1-star review describes a technician walking off the job without providing a quote or completing work, and multiple unreturned phone calls from both the tech and the office. Professionalism suffers notably from that same review, which describes poor communication and a lack of follow-through, though other reviewers found technicians courteous and professional. Experience scores moderately, with positive mentions of knowledgeable technicians, though the misdiagnosis of a job scope in the negative review tempers confidence in consistent skill levels.

• Small sample size of only 6 reviews significantly limits reliability — WW Score should be treated as indicative only.
• Reviews span from 2014 to 2017; all reviews are more than 6 years old. There is NO recent data to reflect current service quality. This is a major reliability concern.
• The 1-star review from 2015-08-03 describes a serious pattern of non-communication and job abandonment, which is a significant red flag for project completion and professionalism.
• The 1-star review from 2014-04-07 explicitly flags pricing as predatory, including a $79 trip charge and extremely high effective hourly rate — this directly contradicts the 'reasonable pricing' claims in other reviews.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the generic positive phrasing in some 5-star reviews (e.g., 'so far so good') offers limited substantive detail.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to the very small review sample (6 reviews), the complete absence of any reviews from the past several years, and the presence of substantive negative reviews that reveal serious concerns about pricing transparency and job follow-through.

A1 Plumbing has a deeply polarized review profile, with a meaningful cluster of positive reviews praising promptness, efficiency, and fair pricing offset by a serious and recurring set of negative reviews alleging unprofessional conduct, incomplete work, overcharging, and in two cases behavior that reviewers described as intimidating or fraudulent. Professionalism scores were dragged down significantly by a no-show with no communication, a technician asking inappropriate personal questions, alleged intimidation of an elderly customer, and an employee cited for dangerous driving. Project completion suffered due to explicit accounts of incomplete or substandard work, a bathtub installation described as unfinished and using inferior materials, and a case where a removed faucet was not returned or replaced with equivalent value. Pricing received mixed signals — several reviewers praised affordability and fair quotes, while others described being charged for no work performed or receiving inferior materials after being promised quality replacements. Experience scores reflect genuine skill acknowledged in positive reviews but are tempered by accounts of a technician lacking basic tools, failing to diagnose correctly, and performing work so poor it was photographed as evidence. The overall WW Score of 58.3 reflects a contractor with real capability but a pattern of serious service failures that cannot be ignored.

• Several positive reviews are brief, generic, and lack specific job details (e.g., 'Exceptional service! If I could give 10 stars I would give 100. Best plumber in town.'). These may be inflated or unverified and were weighted conservatively.
• One review (2023-06-01) states the owner reported being retired and no longer in business. If accurate, this raises serious questions about whether this business is still operating under the same name or ownership.
• Two separate reviews allege the company took money without performing meaningful work, which is a significant integrity flag.
• One reviewer alleges theft of a removed faucet that was not returned or replaced with equivalent value, and reports the company ceased communication afterward.
• One reviewer describes being physically intimidated by employees at her home until she paid a disputed fee — this is an extreme professionalism and safety concern.
• A gender-based pattern was noted by one reviewer, who stated that multiple neighbors reported similar negative experiences and that all affected parties were female. This warrants caution.
• The majority of positive reviews are from 2017–2021, while negative reviews span 2019–2024. The recency trend skews negative, which is a meaningful signal about current service quality.
• One review references electrical work being performed by what appears to be a plumbing company, suggesting possible unlicensed work outside their trade scope.

This WW Score is based on 25 reviews spanning 2017–2024 with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but the score should be treated with caution due to the severity of misconduct allegations, a possible business closure or ownership change, a worsening recency trend, and several suspiciously generic positive reviews that may not reflect genuine customer experiences.