Find Nearby Plumbers In Palm Coast, Florida

This aggregated review set spans multiple contractors and companies — including Castle Plumbing, Jake's Plumbing, Ace Pelizon Plumbing, and others — which significantly complicates scoring reliability. Professionalism scores moderately well overall, with many reviewers praising punctuality, communication, and friendly demeanor, but is dragged down by a meaningful cluster of serious complaints including no-shows, rude behavior, and AI-only phone systems. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple explicit complaints about overcharging, hidden fees, inflated parts costs, and aggressive upselling — particularly in home warranty contexts — offsetting the positive mentions of fair and reasonable pricing. Project completion is mixed: many jobs were completed on time and thoroughly, but there are credible accounts of abandoned work, repeat failures to fix the same problem, and jobs left incomplete. Experience scores reasonably well, with many reviewers noting skilled diagnostics and quality workmanship, though a few reviews describe misdiagnoses and subpar technical problem-solving.

• MULTIPLE COMPANIES DETECTED: Reviews appear to cover several distinct businesses (Castle Plumbing, Jake's Plumbing, Ace Pelizon Plumbing, and others). Aggregating these into a single WW Score is inherently unreliable and should be interpreted with caution.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates (e.g., Roger emergency gas leak review posted twice on 2019-11-05, 'RODGER WAS EXCELLENT' posted twice in Jan 2019, 'Had a plumbing leak in the attic' posted twice on 2019-02-05, 'He's extremely competent' and 'Rodger is very thorough' each posted twice on 2018-08-23, 'nothing else. they did good job' posted twice on 2019-10-08, 'Roger was amazing' posted twice on 2018-09-07, 'MAster at his work' posted twice on 2018-08-22, 'Eric from Jakes plumbing' posted twice in Feb 2025). These duplicates inflate positive sentiment and have been counted only once each for scoring purposes.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 14 reviews contained no text — only a star rating (all 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A significant number of reviews are generic, very brief, or contain no specifics (e.g., 'Fast and reliable service', 'Great job', 'unknown', 'Good service, excellent work, professional technician'). The high concentration of 5-star blank or near-blank reviews raises concern about authenticity.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2012 to 2025. A substantial portion of reviews (roughly 40%) are older than 3 years, with many dating back to 2015–2019. More weight was given to reviews from 2024–2025 in scoring, but the older negative reviews (particularly regarding Castle Plumbing's Gus and Roger) document serious and recurring issues.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE PATTERNS: Multiple independent reviewers describe Gus (Castle Plumbing) engaging in mid-job price escalation, threatening to leave jobs incomplete unless additional cash was paid, and charging for unnecessary modifications — a pattern consistent across reviews from 2013 through 2020. One reviewer explicitly used the word 'Fraud.' These are not isolated complaints.
• HOME WARRANTY CONTEXT: A large proportion of negative reviews involve home warranty dispatches, which may introduce selection bias. However, the contractor conduct described (upselling, no-shows, incomplete work) reflects on the business regardless of referral source.
• NO-SHOW AND ABANDONMENT PATTERN: Multiple reviews (Castle Plumbing specifically) describe technicians failing to show up for scheduled appointments, leaving jobs incomplete, or disappearing without follow-up — a significant project completion concern.
• MIXED ENTITY PROBLEM: The 'Eric from Jake's Plumbing' review appears to have been submitted under what is likely an Ace Pelizon Plumbing profile, suggesting possible review cross-contamination or misattribution.

This WW Score carries LIMITED practical reliability due to the critical issue of multiple distinct companies being reviewed together, a high volume of blank and duplicate reviews inflating sentiment, and well-documented patterns of serious misconduct by at least one technician (Gus, Castle Plumbing) that are partially offset by genuinely strong reviews for other technicians — making this score unsuitable for evaluating any single contractor without first separating reviews by company.

Boyd Plumbing (now operating under Bonney Plumbing) presents a deeply mixed picture across its review history. Professionalism scores moderately well, with many reviewers praising individual technicians — particularly Eric, Colton, Jeremy, Zeb, and Jon — for punctuality, friendliness, and clear communication; however, this is offset by multiple complaints about poor office communication, missed appointments, and unresponsive management. Pricing is the most consistently criticized dimension, with numerous reviewers reporting quotes that were double or more than competitors, a fixed-cost pricing model perceived as exploitative, and charges that felt grossly disproportionate to the work performed. Project completion is mixed: many jobs were finished satisfactorily, but there are credible accounts of incomplete inspections, failed repairs, abandoned callbacks, and at least one case where a botched job caused significant downstream financial harm. Experience is similarly split — several technicians received high praise for skill and problem-solving, while others were described as inexperienced, unable to diagnose basic issues, and reliant on upselling rather than proper diagnostics. The acquisition by Bonney Plumbing appears to have coincided with a decline in service quality and a sharp increase in pricing complaints.

• PRICING CONCERN: Pricing complaints are pervasive and consistent across multiple independent reviewers spanning 2017–2023. Multiple reviewers report quotes 2x or more than competitors for identical work. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION (MODERATE): Several 5-star reviews are brief, generic, and lack specific detail (e.g., 'Boyd is the best plumbing company out there no doubt. Always a great time when they are here'). One reviewer explicitly alleges that 5-star reviews are fake and that 1-star reviews are suppressed. Confidence in the positive review pool is reduced accordingly.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent reviews (2022–2023) are predominantly negative and relate to the Bonney Plumbing acquisition period. The bulk of positive reviews date from 2018–2021. Scores may not reflect current service quality.
• SERIOUS COMPETENCE INCIDENT: One detailed review (July 2021) documents a technician who was unaware of a second heating element in a water heater, accidentally shorted the electrical system, and left without resolving the issue — billing nearly $900 for the failed attempt. This is a significant workmanship red flag.
• LEGAL/ETHICAL CONCERN: One reviewer (June 2022) documents a written assurance from Boyd that a sewer lateral was in good condition, when in fact only 40% was inspected. This resulted in approximately $30,000 in unexpected repair costs. The company allegedly refused to accept responsibility and did not return calls for multiple days.
• MANAGEMENT RESPONSIVENESS: Multiple reviewers report inability to reach managers, unreturned calls, and dismissive office staff — particularly in the post-Bonney acquisition period.
• ENTITY CHANGE NOTE: Boyd Plumbing was acquired by Bonney Plumbing. Several reviewers note the company now operates under both names. Reviews prior to the acquisition may not reflect current ownership, staffing, or pricing practices. This limits the reliability of older positive reviews.

This WW Score is based on a large review sample (72 reviews) spanning 2016–2023 and carries HIGH statistical confidence in terms of volume, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given credible fake review allegations, a significant entity change mid-period, a clear downward trend in recent reviews, and serious documented incidents involving incompetence, misrepresentation, and pricing exploitation.

Frank demonstrates strong technical competence and project completion capability, with multiple reviews praising quick turnaround, same-day service, and quality workmanship. Pricing is reported as reasonable and affordable in the reviews that mention it. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by one serious 2023 incident involving reckless driving and dismissive customer service response, which directly contradicts the positive recent reviews (2024) praising his professionalism. The recency gap and conflicting evidence on professionalism create moderate overall confidence in this score.

• CRITICAL: One 1-star review (Feb 2023) describes serious safety concern (reckless driving) and unprofessional dismissal of customer complaint. This directly contradicts recent 5-star reviews praising professionalism. Suggests either significant behavioral change or inconsistent service quality.
• RECENCY BIAS: Two most recent reviews (July 2024) are both 5-star with nearly identical timestamps (11:45 and 11:53), praising professionalism and responsiveness. While not definitively fake, the proximity and generic praise warrant caution.
• LIMITED SAMPLE: Only 5 reviews total. Score reliability is constrained by small sample size.
• PRICING DATA SPARSE: Only 2 reviews mention pricing; confidence in pricing score is limited.

This score should be treated with caution due to conflicting evidence on professionalism (serious 2023 safety incident vs. recent positive reviews), small sample size (5 reviews), and suspicious timing of recent reviews. The WW Score of 82.3 reflects strong technical performance but is tempered by unresolved professionalism concerns.

Wayne receives consistently positive feedback across professionalism, pricing, and workmanship from reviewers who provided substantive detail. Multiple reviewers specifically praised his punctuality, responsiveness, and cooperative attitude, including availability on weekends and for emergencies. Pricing was described as reasonable and cost-effective by several reviewers, supporting a solid but not exceptional pricing score. Project completion and experience scores are grounded in specific mentions of jobs being finished well and Wayne demonstrating technical knowledge and problem-solving ability. However, the majority of detailed reviews are from 2019–2020, with only two substantive reviews from 2023 onward, which limits confidence in how current this performance picture is.

• 5 of 12 reviews contain no substantive detail ('excellent', 'Excellently', 'Excellent service', 'Exceeded expectations', 'Service man was excellent') — these were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no actionable evidence.
• The 5 vague single-word or single-phrase reviews all carry 5-star ratings and cluster between February and October 2020, which raises a mild concern about authenticity or review solicitation during that period.
• 8 of 12 reviews are older than 3 years (pre-2022), and only 1 review is within the past 12 months (September 2024). The score may not reflect current performance.
• One review (2023) notes 'early miscommunications,' which is a minor professionalism flag and was factored into the professionalism score conservatively.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability — the substantive reviews are genuinely positive and specific, but the small number of detailed reviews, the age of most data, and the cluster of uninformative 5-star reviews reduce confidence in the score as a current performance indicator.

Bill Shafer Plumbing scores strongly on professionalism, with multiple reviewers highlighting fast response times (often within 30 minutes), courteous technicians, and even after-hours and weekend availability. Experience and workmanship are consistently praised across several reviews, with specific technicians like Carmen and Eric called out by name for their skill and problem-solving. Project completion is generally positive but is tempered by one notable 1-star review describing a missed appointment window with no follow-through, which meaningfully impacts that dimension. Pricing data is limited to three reviews but is favorable, with mentions of fair and competitive rates. Overall, the contractor demonstrates strong reliability in emergency situations but has at least one documented failure in scheduling follow-through.

• One review (2022-09-21) describes a missed appointment window with no resolution — this is a direct project completion failure and was weighted accordingly.
• Several reviews are older than 12 months (2020 dates), with only 3 reviews from 2023. Recency of positive feedback is moderate; older reviews were given slightly reduced weight.
• The short, detail-free review dated 2023-03-07 ('Replaced a residential water heater and attached the new relief tank') provides no evaluative content and was excluded from dimension scoring as it contains no usable sentiment data.
• No strong fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in length, detail, and rating, and include a negative review, which increases authenticity confidence.

This WW Score is based on a small but reasonably diverse set of 9 reviews spanning multiple years; the score carries moderate overall reliability and should be interpreted with awareness that a larger and more recent review sample would significantly improve confidence.

Florida Plumbing & Inspection demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, responsiveness, politeness, and knowledgeable workmanship. Project completion is solid with multiple jobs finished completely and to customer satisfaction. However, pricing presents a significant concern: one detailed 1-star review explicitly alleges overcharging, failure to provide estimates, and a 50% markup for team discussion, directly contradicting the positive pricing claims in other reviews. This pricing conflict substantially reduces overall confidence despite strong performance in other dimensions.

• PRICING CONFLICT: One 1-star review (2024-03-20) makes serious allegations of overcharging and lack of estimate transparency, directly contradicting positive pricing mentions in other reviews. This creates material uncertainty about actual pricing practices.
• POTENTIAL REVIEW PATTERN: Five of six reviews are 5-star ratings with similar enthusiastic language ('incredible,' 'fabulous,' 'outstanding'). While not definitively fake, the concentration of glowing reviews with limited specificity on pricing details warrants caution.
• RECENCY MIXED: Most reviews are from 2023-2024, which is recent and positive. However, the most damaging review (pricing complaint) is from March 2024, suggesting ongoing pricing concerns.

This score should be treated with caution due to conflicting evidence on pricing practices and a concentration of similarly-toned positive reviews; the strong technical performance is well-supported, but the pricing dimension is unreliable and requires independent verification before engaging this contractor.