Find Nearby Plumbers In Palm Coast, Florida

Action Handy Man has a strong base of positive reviews praising Mark and his team for responsiveness, technical skill across a wide range of plumbing and handyman tasks, and a willingness to go above and beyond — including late-night work and same-day emergency service. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and competitive, with one reviewer explicitly noting the company undercut a major competitor by two-thirds on an emergency repair. However, the score is meaningfully dragged down by a cluster of serious negative reviews describing no-shows, rescheduling failures, unreturned calls, incomplete work, a flooded living room, and one allegation of theft captured on security camera. Project completion is the most penalized dimension because multiple reviewers explicitly reported abandoned or unfinished jobs. Professionalism also takes a hit due to repeated punctuality failures and one review describing harassment of a client's staff.

• TWO NEAR-IDENTICAL REVIEWS DETECTED: The reviews dated 2024-11-11 and 2024-10-28 from what appears to be a property manager are nearly word-for-word duplicates with only minor rephrasing. This is a strong indicator of a potentially fake or manipulated review. Both were treated as a single data point for scoring purposes.
• TWO IDENTICAL REVIEWS DETECTED: The reviews dated 2023-11-13 (with and without a timestamp) are exact duplicates, likely posted twice by the same user. Counted as one mention.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENTS: At least one reviewer alleges theft of a tool bag captured on security camera (1-star, 2025-05-10). Another alleges a flooded dining room from a vacuum left full of water with no cleanup (1-star, 2025-05-10). A third alleges taking a $50 consultation fee and then no-showing with voicemail full (1-star, 2024-08-13). These are severe operational and trust failures that materially affect the score.
• REPEATED NO-SHOW / SCHEDULING FAILURES: At least three separate reviewers (2024-08-13, 2024-04-06, 2022-11-17) report being stood up with no call or inadequate communication. This is a recurring pattern, not an isolated incident.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Two reviewers (2023-05-13, 2025-05-10) explicitly state work was left unfinished and they had to hire someone else to complete or repair the contractor's work.
• CONSULTATION FEE CONTROVERSY: Multiple reviews reference a $50 estimate/consultation fee. One reviewer (2024-10-12) strongly objects to this practice and claims it cost the company over $10,000 in potential work. This is a reputational and pricing transparency concern.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most severe negative reviews (theft allegation, flooding) are from May 2025, the most recent period analyzed. This is a significant concern as it suggests problems may be worsening rather than improving.
• MOST REVIEWS ARE RECENT: The majority of reviews fall within the past 12–24 months, which is favorable for recency weighting. However, the concentration of negative reviews in the most recent months tempers this.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews (62) and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy, but prospective customers should weigh the serious and recent allegations of theft, incomplete work, and repeated no-shows heavily — these represent material risks that aggregate scoring alone cannot fully capture.

Terry's Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism, with consistently positive feedback on workmanship quality and honest diagnostics. However, the company is significantly hampered by persistent pricing concerns—many customers report overcharges, hidden fees, credit card surcharges, and quotes that far exceed market rates. Project completion shows mixed results with several reports of incomplete work, delayed callbacks, and follow-up issues. While the owner Terry and many individual technicians earn high praise for integrity and responsiveness, operational inconsistencies and aggressive pricing strategies create substantial customer dissatisfaction that offsets technical competence.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews dated 2025-05-10 and 2025-05-07 contain near-identical phrasing and suspiciously generic praise with minimal specifics. Multiple reviews use identical language ('very professional,' 'very friendly,' '100% satisfied') suggesting potential review manipulation. These 16 reviews (8 pairs) appear duplicated across two dates.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE PERVASIVE: 89 mentions of pricing issues reveal systematic overcharging pattern—customers report $500+ for simple faucet installations, $350 for 5-minute snake jobs, $249 per toilet for basic repairs, and unexplained credit card surcharges (15% in some cases). This is the single largest source of negative feedback.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Multiple reports of incomplete work, abandoned jobs, and failure to follow up on promised callbacks. One customer waited 2.5 months for promised follow-up work that never materialized. Another paid $525 for diagnostic work that yielded wrong diagnosis.
• INCONSISTENT STAFF PERFORMANCE: Wide variance in technician quality and attitude. Some reviews praise specific technicians (Rick, Jose, Derek, Wade) while others report rude, dismissive, or arrogant behavior from unnamed plumbers. One customer reported a plumber yelling at elderly father.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWNS: Multiple instances of no-shows, no-calls, missed appointment windows, and failure to return calls. One customer waited 4 hours past appointment window; another had plumber show up 1.5 hours late.
• WARRANTY AND GUARANTEE ISSUES: Company refuses to honor failed repairs beyond 30 days despite customer claims work was defective. One customer's repair failed after 36 days; company refused callback without additional service fee.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent reviews (May 2025) show suspicious clustering and duplication. Older reviews (2018-2022) show more balanced mix of positive and negative feedback, suggesting recent review activity may not be fully authentic.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while the score reflects genuine technical competence and professionalism (supported by 156+ mentions), the pervasive and consistent pricing complaints (89 mentions) and project completion failures (118 mentions) indicate systematic business practice issues that significantly undermine trustworthiness. The suspicious clustering of identical reviews in May 2025 further reduces confidence in the overall rating. Customers should expect quality workmanship but should obtain detailed written estimates and clarify all fees upfront before engaging this company.

Roto-Rooter scores very strongly on professionalism and technician experience, with hundreds of reviews praising individual technicians by name for being courteous, knowledgeable, communicative, and thorough. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs resolved same-day or within a short timeframe, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, broken promises on follow-up visits, and warranty disputes. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension across the entire review set — dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges as 'outrageous,' 'ridiculous,' 'a scam,' or triple the price of competitors, with specific dollar amounts cited ranging from $315 for 4 minutes of work to $8,700 for a water heater installation. Several reviews also describe deceptive pricing practices, including quotes that changed after work began, failure to disclose service fees upfront, and pressure tactics targeting vulnerable customers including seniors and non-English speakers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., multiple identical reviews for 'Gio,' 'Gabriel,' 'Daniel,' 'Gus,' 'Giovanni,' and others). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate a review solicitation system that caused customers to submit the same review twice, or potential manipulation. Confidence in raw review count is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 150-200 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (almost all 5-star). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from scoring but inflate the total count.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SEVERE AND SPECIFIC: Negative pricing reviews are not vague — they cite specific dollar amounts, compare to competitor prices, and describe practices such as quoting after work begins, refusing to honor coupons, and charging elderly or non-English-speaking customers without disclosure. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe technicians failing to arrive within promised windows, no-call-no-shows, and dispatch communication failures. This is a recurring pattern affecting the project completion score.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Several reviews describe Roto-Rooter refusing to honor stated warranties, including a 6-month guarantee and a 30-day guarantee, with customers being charged again for the same recurring issue.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: A small but notable number of reviews describe active harm caused by technicians — flooding a kitchen, improperly setting a toilet, changing the wrong pipe, leaving sewage handprints, and damaging property with no accountability.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians quoting extremely high prices and then reducing them when customers push back, suggesting initial quotes are inflated as a negotiating tactic rather than honest pricing.
• RECENCY: All reviews are dated between approximately May 7, 2025 and June 9, 2025 — all within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is fully applied.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review set and carries HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews inflating volume, a strong and consistent pattern of severe pricing complaints that meaningfully suppresses the score, and documented instances of incomplete work and warranty non-compliance that suggest the positive technician-level experience does not always translate to a satisfactory overall customer outcome.

Roto-Rooter receives consistently strong praise for technician professionalism, friendliness, and communication, with hundreds of reviews citing courteous, knowledgeable, and prompt service. However, pricing is a major and recurring pain point: dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges as excessive, shocking, or outright predatory, with specific complaints ranging from $400+ for a single drain snake to $1,600+ for incomplete work, significantly dragging down the pricing dimension. Project completion is mixed — the majority of jobs are completed successfully and often same-day, but a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, failed repairs requiring follow-up by other companies, and jobs left in worse condition than found. Technician skill and experience scores well overall, but is undermined by a notable subset of reviews describing misdiagnosis, incompetent repairs, and technicians who appeared uncertain or unqualified for the task at hand.

• PRICING CONCERN: Pricing is the single most negatively reviewed dimension. Dozens of reviews across multiple years and locations explicitly cite charges of $400–$1,600+ for basic drain cleaning or simple repairs as excessive, with multiple reviewers stating they found the same work done for 50–75% less elsewhere.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: A significant number of reviews describe jobs that were not completed, required multiple return visits, or were left in worse condition. Several reviews describe technicians abandoning jobs mid-work, failing to reconnect appliances, or leaving hazardous conditions.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: A recurring pattern of no-shows, missed appointment windows without notification, and poor dispatcher communication appears across multiple years and locations. This is a systemic operational issue.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians recommending expensive repairs (e.g., $3,000–$10,000 excavations) that were later found unnecessary by other plumbers who resolved the issue quickly and cheaply.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A cluster of reviews dated 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-02 share very similar short-form praise structures (e.g., 'Justin was awesome', 'Great Job Mo!', 'Justin saved our lives today!') with minimal detail. Several appear to be from the same franchise location and may reflect solicited or incentivized reviews. Confidence in the high-end scores is slightly reduced as a result.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 60–70 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (mostly 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive text are from 2024–2025 and are within the past 12 months. Older reviews (2013–2020) show similar patterns of both praise and complaints, suggesting these issues are long-standing and not improving significantly over time.
• GEOGRAPHIC VARIANCE: Reviews appear to span many different Roto-Rooter franchise locations across the US. Scores reflect aggregate performance across all locations, which may mask significant variation between individual franchises.

This WW Score is based on a very large review set (600+ reviews) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, making the aggregate score statistically robust; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously because it aggregates performance across many distinct franchise locations, and individual location quality varies dramatically — some franchises consistently earn 5-star praise while others generate repeated complaints about pricing, no-shows, and incomplete work.

This aggregated review set spans many years and appears to represent multiple businesses operating under similar or identical names (Royal Flush Plumbing, Pro Plumbing Service, and others), which significantly complicates scoring reliability. The majority of reviews are strongly positive, praising punctuality, communication, professionalism, and technical skill — with many customers citing same-day or emergency responsiveness as a standout quality. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews (roughly 15-20% of substantive reviews) describe serious issues including no-shows, missed appointments without notification, overcharging without upfront disclosure, incomplete or defective work, and poor customer service when complaints were raised. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers across different time periods describing charges they felt were excessive, non-transparent, or inconsistent with quoted amounts. Project completion scores are dragged down by recurring complaints about abandoned work, callbacks not honored, and jobs requiring multiple return visits to fix errors.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews reference multiple distinct business names including 'Royal Flush Plumbing,' 'Pro Plumbing Service,' and references to individual owner-operators (Jarrod, Steve, Ben, Doug, Ted, Jose, etc.) across different geographic markets (Atlanta GA, Philadelphia PA, Providence RI, Las Vegas NV, Hollister CA, Cleveland OH, Oregon City OR, and others). This dataset almost certainly aggregates reviews from multiple unrelated businesses, severely limiting the reliability of any single composite score.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: A significant number of reviews contain zero substantive detail — only a star rating or a single generic phrase like 'Great service!' or 'Amazing!' with no specifics. Approximately 60-80 reviews fall into this category. Several clusters of reviews share identical or near-identical dates (e.g., dozens of reviews dated 2025-05-10, 2025-04-10, 2025-03-11, 2025-02-09, 2025-01-10) which is statistically anomalous and suggests possible review manipulation or bulk import artifacts.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: At least one review (Ted and his crew sewer line replacement) appears to be posted twice with identical text and nearly identical dates (2024-07-18). Additionally, two reviews from 2021-09-24 are near-identical complaints about overcharging for a kitchen faucet installation.
• RECENCY NOTE: The dataset spans from approximately 2003 to June 2025. Reviews older than 12 months (pre-June 2024) should be weighted less heavily. The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive, but the volume of blank or generic 5-star reviews in recent months raises authenticity concerns.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY PATTERN: Multiple independent negative reviews across different years and locations describe a consistent pattern of pricing not disclosed upfront, charges significantly exceeding verbal quotes, and management being unresponsive or dismissive when customers raised billing concerns. This is a recurring structural issue, not isolated incidents.
• NO-SHOW / SCHEDULING PATTERN: A recurring theme across negative reviews spanning 2008 to 2022 involves technicians failing to appear within scheduled windows, no calls to notify customers, and rescheduled appointments also being missed. This pattern appears in enough reviews to be considered a systemic reliability concern rather than isolated incidents.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: Several detailed negative reviews describe defective workmanship including broken components attributed to technician error, incomplete jobs, and refusal to return to fix mistakes under warranty. These are high-severity complaints that meaningfully reduce the project completion score.

This WW Score carries LIMITED-to-MODERATE reliability for any single business decision due to strong evidence that the review dataset aggregates multiple unrelated businesses across different markets, combined with a statistically anomalous clustering of blank and generic 5-star reviews that suggests possible review inflation; the score is best interpreted as a broad industry-level benchmark rather than a precise assessment of any one contractor.

Advanced Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising responsiveness, professionalism, and technical skill across a wide range of jobs including water line replacements, water heater installs, and full repiping projects. However, a meaningful cluster of 1-star reviews — spanning multiple years and locations — raises serious concerns: recurring complaints include overcharging with non-itemized bills, pressure tactics, failure to return calls, incomplete or incorrect work, refusal to warranty poor workmanship, and in several cases hostile responses from ownership when customers raised concerns. Pricing is a particular weak point, with multiple reviewers citing unexpected charges, minimum fees for minimal work, and quotes dramatically higher than competitors. Project completion is also mixed, with several reviews describing jobs that required multiple return visits to correct errors, or work that was abandoned entirely. The positive reviews are numerous and often detailed, but the volume and specificity of negative reviews — including from experienced professionals in construction and architecture — prevent a high overall score.

• 35 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Two reviews are near-identical duplicates with the same wording about being 'absolutely amazing' and 'super sharp on plumbing needs' posted under different dates (2022-09-23 and 2023-06-07). This may indicate a fake or recycled review.
• Two reviews are near-identical duplicates praising 'Eric and Jessica' and 'Fred' with nearly word-for-word identical text posted on different dates (2018-08-22 and 2019-06-08). This strongly suggests a fake or copy-pasted review and confidence in the positive review pool is reduced accordingly.
• The review corpus spans from 2010 to 2025 and appears to aggregate reviews from multiple businesses operating under the name 'Advanced Plumbing' across different states (Virginia, Florida, Oregon, Michigan, Missouri, California, Texas). Scores from geographically distinct businesses may not reflect a single contractor's performance.
• Several negative reviews describe the owner or staff becoming hostile, making harassing phone calls, or calling customers liars when complaints were raised — a significant red flag for business conduct.
• One negative reviewer with 50+ years of architectural experience describes deceptive practices including faulty leak detection, pressure to over-scope work, and an inadequate insurance report — this carries elevated credibility weight.
• A 2010 review describes a lawsuit over a billing dispute where the written estimate was $1,300 but the final bill was $4,300 — an extreme pricing discrepancy that was never resolved through mediation.
• Recency note: The majority of reviews with substantive text are from 2017–2025, with the most recent cluster from 2024–2025. Older reviews (pre-2016) were given reduced weight in scoring.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence that reviews may span multiple unrelated businesses sharing the same name, the presence of suspected duplicate/fake reviews, and a persistent pattern of serious complaints about billing practices, incomplete work, and hostile customer service responses that meaningfully offset the large volume of positive feedback.