Find Nearby Plumbers In Palm Coast, Florida

Reviews consistently highlight strong professionalism, with multiple mentions of punctuality, courteous behavior, clear communication, and respectful conduct on the job. Pricing is noted favorably in several reviews, with specific callouts to fairness, competitiveness, and honesty around parts usage — a meaningful positive signal. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers describing jobs finished thoroughly, on time, and with good follow-through including cleanup and instructions. Experience is reinforced by references to generational expertise, efficient execution, and sound technical judgment. However, the majority of reviews are from 2019 or earlier, with only one review from 2021, which limits confidence in how current this performance picture is.

• Five of the eight reviews are dated 2019-07-09 — the same exact date — which is a strong pattern suggesting these may have been submitted in bulk or solicited simultaneously. This raises a moderate fake review concern and reduces confidence in those five reviews.
• The four same-day reviews (2019-07-09) are notably brief and generic, lacking specific job details, which is consistent with solicited or coached reviews.
• Only one review is from the past 12 months relative to a 2022 reference point (the 2021-08-15 review). Most data is 3–6 years old and may not reflect current performance.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback, which warrants caution even if not definitively indicative of manipulation.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a small review pool, a suspicious cluster of same-day generic reviews, and the majority of data being over three years old — prospective customers should seek more recent and independently verified reviews before making a hiring decision.

The reviews paint a generally positive picture of this contractor, with the most substantive feedback coming from a single detailed review praising Keean's water heater replacement work, noting his respectfulness, speed, and clear technical competence. Professionalism is the best-supported dimension, with multiple reviews referencing response time, attitude, and top-notch conduct. Project completion is also reasonably supported, with references to work being done quickly and correctly. Pricing is entirely unmentioned across all four reviews, so no score can be assigned to that dimension. The overall score is tempered significantly by the very small review pool and the lack of any pricing data.

• Only 4 reviews total — this is below the threshold for high reliability; WW Score should be treated as preliminary only.
• Three of the four reviews are extremely brief and generic ('Awesome job! Thanks for the help!!', 'Great response time and got the work done quickly.') with no specific details — these provide limited usable signal and may reflect low-effort or prompted reviews.
• All reviews are 5-star with no dates provided, making recency weighting impossible and raising mild concern about review balance.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — the Pricing dimension cannot be scored.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to the very small sample size of 4 reviews, absence of dates, and three reviews lacking meaningful detail — treat this score as a weak early signal only, not a definitive assessment.

The reviews that contain usable data are largely positive, with multiple mentions of professionalism, prompt communication, reasonable pricing, and thorough job completion. However, the single most recent review (2020) describes a failure to return a call, which is a direct and concrete negative data point for professionalism and is weighted more heavily due to recency. The bulk of the positive reviews are between 7 and 18 years old, significantly reducing their reliability as indicators of current service quality. Pricing and workmanship are consistently praised across multiple reviews, but the age of that data limits confidence. The unanswered call review is the only data point from the past five years, which is a meaningful concern.

• RECENCY WARNING: 6 of 8 reviews are older than 10 years (2006–2017). Only 2 reviews are from 2019 or later. The score is heavily influenced by outdated data and may not reflect current service quality.
• ONE UNUSABLE REVIEW: The review dated 2015-05-28 contains only the word 'unknown' and was excluded from scoring as it provides no actionable data.
• NEGATIVE RECENCY SIGNAL: The most recent review (2020) is a 1-star complaint about an unreturned call, which is the strongest signal about current responsiveness and professionalism. This was factored into the professionalism score.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 8 total reviews span over 14 years, which is a very thin data set. Scores should be treated with caution.

This WW Score has LOW reliability due to the very small number of reviews, the extreme age of most positive feedback, and the fact that the only recent review is a negative one — consumers should seek more current references before hiring.

Advanced Air Home Services presents a deeply polarized review profile: a large cluster of recent 5-star reviews praising individual technicians for punctuality, courtesy, and professionalism sits alongside an extensive and detailed body of 1-star reviews describing systemic failures in pricing, warranty honoring, project completion, and customer service. The pricing dimension is the most severely damaged, with numerous credible, detailed accounts of extreme price gouging — including a $709 charge for 30 minutes of plumbing work, $491 for a $50 capacitor, and $7,900 for a $3,200 unit — dragging that score to the lowest of all dimensions. Project completion suffers significantly from repeated patterns of no-shows, abandoned warranty repairs lasting weeks or months, misdiagnoses left unresolved, and technicians leaving without confirming work was functional. Professionalism scores moderately due to many positive individual technician mentions, but is substantially offset by documented rude call center staff, unreturned calls, broken appointment promises, and management failures. Experience is mixed: many reviewers praise specific technicians as knowledgeable, but multiple reviews describe misdiagnoses, incorrect installations, and unqualified technicians being dispatched to jobs they were not certified for.

• SUSPECTED FAKE OR INCENTIVIZED REVIEWS: A large number of 5-star reviews dated 2025-06-07 through 2025-06-09 are extremely brief, generic, and lack specific detail (e.g., 'Excellent service.', 'Good service tech Abel', 'Great job as always.'). Several are completely blank with only a 5-star rating. This pattern — a sudden cluster of vague, high-rated reviews — is a strong indicator of review padding or solicited reviews, and confidence in those positive scores has been reduced accordingly.
• RECENCY SPLIT: The most recent reviews (2025) skew heavily positive but are largely low-detail. Reviews from 2022–2024 are predominantly 1-star and contain highly specific, credible accounts of systemic failures including warranty fraud, price gouging, no-shows, and misdiagnosis. The negative reviews carry substantially more evidentiary weight due to their specificity.
• WARRANTY FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe the company refusing to honor paid warranties, failing to file warranty claims with manufacturers, and using warranty situations as leverage to sell new units. This is a serious and recurring pattern.
• PRICE GOUGING PATTERN: At least 10 separate reviews with specific dollar figures document charges that are 3x–10x market rate for parts and labor, including non-itemized invoices that obscure markups. This is a consistent and credible pattern across multiple service types (AC, plumbing, pool heater).
• OWNERSHIP CHANGE NOTE: Multiple reviewers explicitly state that the company was sold and that service quality declined sharply after acquisition by a larger corporate entity. Pre-acquisition reviews (pre-2021 approximately) are more positive and may not reflect current operations.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two nearly identical reviews dated 2024-06-28 describe the same plumbing incident (invoice #71795454). These appear to be the same customer posting on multiple platforms. Only counted once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two nearly identical reviews dated 2022-11-14 describe the same post-hurricane service failure. Counted once for scoring purposes.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 13 reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.

This WW Score of 52.1 is based on a large volume of reviews and carries HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence of review padding among recent 5-star submissions and a clear post-acquisition decline in service quality that makes older positive reviews largely irrelevant to current performance.

This contractor has a deeply mixed record across all dimensions. Professionalism scores moderately — several reviewers noted courteous and professional technicians, but one detailed review described a tech who added no diagnostic value beyond what the customer already knew, and another (a contractor) described the company as unresponsive to a legitimate refund request. Project completion is the most damaging dimension: one review explicitly describes the leak being marked in the wrong location entirely, with no pipe found and the actual leak discovered 150 feet away by another contractor, while another reviewer paid $375 only to be told what they already knew. Experience is similarly split — one reviewer was impressed by accurate leak location, while two others described technically inadequate work. Pricing drew a negative signal, with the $375 flat fee criticized as poor value when no meaningful new information was provided.

• Three of the five reviews are 5-star and two are 1–2 star, creating a polarized pattern that may reflect genuinely inconsistent service quality rather than fake reviews.
• The oldest reviews (2016, 2018, 2019) account for three of the five reviews. Only two reviews are from 2022–2023. The score may not reflect current service quality.
• One reviewer (contractor, 2018) explicitly alleges 17 legal judgments against this specific franchise and describes it as a 'dirty company.' This is an unverified claim but is a serious flag.
• The 2018 negative review also raises a licensing concern — the reviewer claims this franchise lacks a license to perform repair work. This has not been verified but warrants caution.
• With only 5 total reviews spanning 7 years, the dataset is very small. The WW Score should be treated as indicative only and not definitive.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning 7 years and should be treated with significant caution — the small sample size, wide date range, and presence of serious unresolved complaints mean this score cannot reliably represent the contractor's current or consistent quality.

The reviews paint a deeply concerning picture of this contractor. Two of the three reviews describe serious failures: one details structurally deficient concrete work left incomplete, debris abandoned on the property, no response to follow-up contact, and a potentially invalid license number; the second describes a plumber who arrived without proper equipment and could not perform the job. The sole positive review tempers the picture slightly, noting reasonable pricing and satisfactory work quality, but also flags a punctuality problem. The weight of negative evidence across professionalism, project completion, and workmanship drives the WW Score very low. With only three reviews total, this score should be treated with significant caution.

• Potentially unlicensed contractor: Review 1 explicitly states the license number provided on the quote does not appear on the Florida state licensing database (myflordalicense.com). This is a serious legal and safety concern.
• Abandoned work reported: Review 1 describes a patio project left incomplete with debris, wood forms, rebar, and cement chunks left on the property, and no response to multiple follow-up attempts via phone, email, and messages.
• Structurally deficient workmanship reported: Review 1 states a separate A+ BBB-rated contractor assessed the poured concrete as structurally inadequate to support the intended load and requiring full demolition and redo.
• Unprepared service call reported: Review 2 describes a contractor who arrived for a leak detection job without any leak detection equipment, rendering the visit entirely unproductive.
• Very low review count (3 reviews): The WW Score cannot be considered statistically reliable. A single additional negative or positive review would significantly shift the score.
• Punctuality issue noted even in positive review: The one favorable review explicitly flags that the contractor arrived approximately two hours late relative to the agreed time.
• Positive review lacks direct inspection: The reviewer in Review 3 was not present during the work and relied solely on tenant feedback and contractor-provided photos, reducing the evidentiary weight of that positive assessment.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be considered highly unreliable as a definitive assessment; however, the severity and specificity of the negative reports — including potential unlicensed operation and structurally failed work — represent serious red flags that prospective customers should investigate thoroughly before engaging this contractor.