Find Nearby Plumbers In Panama City, Florida

This contractor shows highly inconsistent performance across reviews. While some customers praise thorough work, technical expertise, and professionalism (particularly on septic and drain camera work), multiple recent reviews document serious failures: incomplete repairs requiring callbacks, property damage (water main breakage, scraped finishes), poor workmanship, and unprofessional behavior including intimidation. Project completion is particularly problematic, with evidence of abandoned work, extended timelines, and broken promises. Pricing feedback is mixed but some customers report being overcharged after damage. The 2024 and 2023 reviews are significantly more negative than older reviews, suggesting deteriorating service quality.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent reviews (2024, 2023) are 1-star with serious complaints, while older reviews (2014, 2020-2021) are 5-star. This suggests declining service quality over time or potential personnel changes.
• SAFETY/CONDUCT ISSUE: One 2021 review documents unprofessional and intimidating behavior (displaying weapon, political discussion, leaving mess), which is a serious red flag for professionalism.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE PATTERN: Multiple reviews mention damage caused by the contractor (water main breakage, scraped finishes, muddy boots left uncleaned), indicating carelessness.
• CALLBACK FAILURES: 2024 review explicitly states 3 callbacks required to fix poor initial work; 2023 review documents broken promises on follow-up repairs.
• OWNER ACCOUNTABILITY: 2020 review notes owner was 'rude and wouldn't accept responsibility,' suggesting systemic accountability issues.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 8 reviews with moderate mention counts, the stark divergence between older positive reviews and recent negative reviews, combined with documented safety concerns and property damage, suggests this contractor's reliability has significantly deteriorated. Recent customers should weight the 2023-2024 reviews much more heavily than older testimonials.

Corbitt Moseley Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension and is sharply divided: several reviewers praised responsiveness, punctuality, and courteous communication, while two reviews describe serious failures including a no-call/no-show and a missed scheduled appointment. Pricing is a significant liability — two detailed negative reviews cite charges described as far above market rate, with one reviewer providing a line-by-line breakdown alleging a $523.75 overcharge, dragging the pricing score down substantially. Project completion is similarly split: jobs that were attended were generally described as completed well, but the scheduling failures and no-show incident represent meaningful incomplete-service events. Experience scores moderately positive, as reviewers who received service generally described competent, effective work, but the sample is small and skewed by older reviews.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Only 2 of 7 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024 and 2022). Three reviews are from 2017–2020 and may not reflect current business practices. Scores should be interpreted with caution given the age of much of the data.
• SCHEDULING FAILURE: One review (2019) explicitly describes a no-call/no-show after a guaranteed appointment slot, with the customer having cancelled a competing plumber based on that guarantee. This is a serious reliability red flag.
• PRICING CONCERN: Two independent reviews (2021, 2023) raise pricing complaints. The 2023 review provides detailed line-item comparisons alleging labor rates of $270/hour versus a market rate of $150/hour, and a total overcharge of over $500. This is specific and credible negative pricing data.
• MIXED SIGNAL ON PROFESSIONALISM: The same dimension that receives praise in positive reviews (responsiveness, kindness) is directly contradicted by negative reviews citing missed appointments, refusal of payment arrangements, and no discounts for seniors or disabled veterans.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 7 reviews total. The WW Score should be treated as directional only. A minimum of 15–20 reviews would be needed for a reliable composite score.
• NO SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: Review language is varied, specific, and includes both positive and negative experiences with personal detail. No patterns of fake reviews detected.

This WW Score is based on a small and partially dated review set and should be treated as a low-confidence directional signal only — the pricing and scheduling concerns are specific and credible, but the limited sample size prevents a definitive assessment of current service quality.

David Piercy Plumbing shows severe deficiencies in professionalism and project completion, which are the two most critical dimensions. Five reviews explicitly mention professionalism issues including complete non-responsiveness to contact attempts, failure to follow up on promised repairs, and poor communication. Project completion is equally problematic, with multiple reviews documenting abandoned work, incomplete repairs that failed shortly after completion, and work left unfinished for weeks. While two positive reviews praise affordability and workmanship quality, they are heavily outweighed by four damaging reviews spanning 2014–2018 that describe serious failures in communication, accountability, and follow-through. The company's inability to respond to customer inquiries and complete promised work represents fundamental business failures.

• CRITICAL: Four of six reviews are 1-star ratings describing severe service failures. This is not a pattern of isolated complaints but systemic issues.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are from 2014–2015 (4 of 6 reviews). Only 2 reviews are from 2017–2018. However, the 2018 review still documents non-responsiveness, suggesting ongoing problems.
• PATTERN OF NON-RESPONSIVENESS: Multiple reviews (2018, 2014, 2014) explicitly state the company did not respond to contact attempts—this is a critical red flag for reliability.
• INCOMPLETE/FAILED WORK: Review from 2015 documents work left unfinished for weeks with false promises. Review from 2014 documents a repair that failed within 30 minutes. These are not minor issues.
• POTENTIAL WRONG-SITE WORK: 2014 review describes excavation work performed at wrong address with no communication or cleanup—suggests serious operational/communication breakdown.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS LACK DETAIL: The two 5-star and 4-star reviews are brief and generic. While not necessarily fake, they provide minimal substantive evidence compared to detailed negative reviews.

This WW Score of 42.8 should be trusted with MODERATE-to-HIGH confidence due to consistent patterns of failure across multiple independent reviews spanning 4 years, particularly in professionalism and project completion. However, the small sample size (6 reviews) and age of most reviews (2014–2015) introduce some uncertainty about current performance. The company's documented pattern of non-responsiveness and incomplete work represents serious red flags that warrant caution.

This contractor presents a deeply mixed picture across only 4 reviews. Two positive reviews praise a technician named Steve for emergency responsiveness, professional demeanor, and high-quality workmanship including repiping and water heater installation. However, two negative reviews raise serious pricing concerns — one describing a nearly $300 charge for a 3-minute p-trap reinstallation and another citing a quote more than double what was charged 4 years prior for the same toilet swap job. Professionalism is also mixed, with Steve receiving strong praise but the phone representative Rob described as disengaged and unhelpful. The pricing dimension is the most consistently flagged concern across the review set and significantly drags down the overall score.

• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews analyzed. WW Score should be treated as highly provisional and not representative of consistent performance.
• PRICING CONCERN: Two separate reviews (2023 and 2024) independently flag pricing as excessive or non-transparent. This is a recurring pattern and not an isolated complaint.
• VULNERABILITY CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly states they are a severely disabled wheelchair user and felt taken advantage of due to the absence of a written estimate. This is a serious ethical flag.
• RESPONSIVENESS ISSUE: One reviewer noted difficulty getting a callback and described the phone representative as disengaged and unwilling to negotiate or explain pricing flexibly.
• RECENCY NOTE: All 4 reviews fall within the past 12–24 months (May 2023 – August 2024), so recency weighting does not significantly differentiate them.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: The reviews vary in tone, detail, and rating, suggesting authentic authorship. No suspicious repetition or generic phrasing flagged.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews and should be considered highly unreliable as a definitive assessment — the score may shift substantially as more reviews are collected.

The review set is small (4 reviews) and deeply divided, with two strongly positive and two strongly negative accounts. Positive reviews praise punctuality, friendliness, fair pricing, and honest upsell-free service, while negative reviews allege deliberate rigging of plumbing to generate repeat business and multiple post-service leaks requiring the customer to fix the work themselves. The workmanship complaints are particularly serious — one reviewer explicitly states they had to correct three leaks after the plumber left, and the contractor declined to make it right on the bill. The insider negative review alleging intentional substandard work is a significant red flag that substantially drags down all dimensions. Most reviews are from 2019 or 2022, meaning none fall within the past 12 months, reducing recency confidence further.

• SERIOUS ALLEGATION: One reviewer (1-star, 2022) claims to be a former employee and alleges the company deliberately rigs plumbing to generate repeat service calls. This is an integrity-level concern that cannot be dismissed.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURE: A 1-star reviewer (2019) documented three post-service leaks they had to fix themselves after paying over $400, and the contractor refused to adjust the bill.
• RECENCY WARNING: No reviews are within the past 12 months. The most recent review is from December 2022, over two years ago. Current service quality is unknown.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews total. Scores are based on very limited data and should be treated with caution.
• SPLIT SENTIMENT: Reviews are evenly split 2 positive / 2 negative, indicating inconsistent service quality or experience that varies significantly by job or technician.

This WW Score has LOW reliability due to only 4 reviews, a deeply polarized sentiment split, serious unresolved allegations of intentional substandard work, and no reviews within the past 12 months — prospective customers should seek additional references before hiring.

This contractor's review profile is severely damaged by two serious complaints from 2023 alleging that Matt Smith accepted deposits and failed to complete work, with one reviewer actively pursuing small claims court action and another reporting six months of non-response. These are not minor grievances — they describe potential fraud and complete abandonment of paid work, which heavily drags down both professionalism and project completion scores. The two positive reviews (one from 2022, one from 2020) do provide some evidence of responsiveness, quality work, and fair pricing, but they are older and insufficient to offset the recent serious allegations. The recency weighting further penalizes this profile, as the most recent reviews are the most damaging.

• TWO SERIOUS FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Two reviewers explicitly state they paid deposits and received no work in return. One is pursuing small claims court. This is a critical red flag and not a minor service complaint.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The two most recent reviews (2023) are both 1-star fraud complaints. The two positive reviews are from 2022 and 2020, making the positive data significantly older and less reliable.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews total. This is insufficient to draw confident conclusions in any direction, but the pattern of recent fraud allegations is deeply concerning.
• POSSIBLE PATTERN OF ABANDONMENT: Both negative reviewers independently describe the same behavior — taking a deposit, becoming unresponsive, and never completing the job. This consistency across two separate customers increases the credibility of these complaints.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS LACK SPECIFICITY: The two positive reviews are brief and generic, offering limited detail about the scope or nature of the work completed. While not definitively fake, they do not carry strong evidentiary weight.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews and should be treated with significant caution; however, the two recent fraud allegations are credible, consistent with each other, and represent a serious risk pattern that prospective customers should not ignore.