Find Nearby Plumbers In Pembroke Pines, Florida

Plumbing Unlimited has a large base of satisfied customers who consistently praise individual technicians — particularly Lamont, Ronnie, Emanuel, and Nick — for being professional, knowledgeable, punctual, and personable. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and competitive, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out affordability and value. However, the company is significantly dragged down by a recurring pattern of serious project completion failures: multiple 1-star reviews describe abandoned jobs, unresolved problems after payment, missed appointments with no communication, and situations left worse than before work began. These are not isolated incidents — they span multiple years and involve different customers and job types, lending them credibility. Experience scores are mixed: while many reviewers praise technical skill, several explicitly describe incompetent work, costly mistakes, and problems that required a second company to fix.

• 11 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Two reviews (dated 2024-08-13 and 2024-07-19) are near-identical in wording and describe the same complaint about 'Major' and a gas stove installation. This appears to be a duplicate review posted by the same customer on two dates. Only one instance was counted per dimension.
• Several 5-star reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Very professional and precise work!', 'Great workers. Above and beyond.') with no specific details. While not conclusively fake, they carry lower evidentiary weight and were scored conservatively.
• The review corpus spans from 2005 to 2025. Reviews older than 2 years (pre-2023) were given reduced weight in scoring, as they may not reflect current company performance. The majority of negative reviews are concentrated in 2022–2025, suggesting possible decline in quality control over time.
• Multiple serious 1-star reviews describe the company abandoning jobs mid-project, not returning calls after payment, and leaving customers without water or functioning toilets for extended periods. These are high-severity complaints that materially suppressed the project_completion score.
• The bait-and-switch pricing complaint (2022) and the $5,000 unresolved fix complaint (2024) are significant red flags for pricing transparency and were factored into the pricing score reduction.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence; however, the presence of serious and credible project abandonment complaints across multiple recent years means prospective customers should treat the score as a moderate-risk signal and carefully vet the company before committing to large or complex jobs.

Shawn Tukey demonstrates strong professionalism and technical skill based on two detailed positive reviews praising his responsiveness, quality workmanship, and problem-solving ability. However, a single 1-star review from November 2023 alleges non-delivery of services and financial misconduct, which significantly impacts overall reliability. With only 3 total reviews and conflicting signals, the WW Score reflects the positive dimensions (professionalism, experience) while being heavily discounted by the serious allegation and limited sample size. The score should be treated as preliminary pending additional verified reviews.

• CRITICAL: One review (1-star, Nov 2023) makes serious allegations of theft and non-delivery of services. This directly contradicts the two 5-star reviews and raises questions about service consistency or potential dispute resolution issues.
• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews total. All dimensions scored with LIMITED confidence due to 1-2 mentions each. Score reliability is low.
• CONFLICTING SIGNALS: Two glowing 5-star reviews vs. one damaging 1-star review creates high volatility. Unable to determine which represents typical service.
• RECENCY NOTE: Positive reviews are from February 2024 (recent); negative review is from November 2023 (older). Unclear if issue was resolved or if service quality changed.

This WW Score should be treated with caution and is not yet reliable for decision-making. The sample size is too small, confidence across all dimensions is LIMITED, and the presence of a serious allegation contradicting positive reviews suggests either a significant service failure or a dispute that requires clarification before trusting this contractor with substantial work.

This contractor shows strong technical skill and reasonable pricing, but professionalism is a significant weakness. Multiple recent reviews (2024, 2020) document serious communication failures, unresponsiveness, and poor customer service attitude. While older reviews and some recent ones praise work quality and fair pricing, the pattern of unprofessional behavior—including failure to provide receipts, non-responsiveness to calls/texts, and combative interactions—substantially undermines overall trustworthiness. Project completion is mixed, with some jobs finished well but at least one requiring a costly callback.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are recent (2024, 2020) while most positive reviews are older (2014-2015, 2022). This suggests declining service quality over time.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: Multiple independent complaints about communication failures, unresponsiveness, and poor attitude across different time periods and different technicians (Joe, Troy, Matt).
• CALLBACK ISSUE: At least one review documents a failed repair requiring a second visit and additional $150 charge, suggesting quality control problems.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE: Reviews mention multiple technicians (Joe, Troy, Matt, Jacob) with varying quality levels, suggesting inconsistent standards.
• GENERIC PRAISE: Review from 2022-05-01 uses suspiciously generic language ('Great work! Great family! Great prices!') with no specific details, though this is only one instance.

This score should be treated with caution due to significant recency bias favoring negative reviews and documented inconsistency in service quality across technicians; the contractor demonstrates technical competence but has serious professionalism and communication issues that warrant careful consideration before hiring.

Solid Construction shows mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism scores 75 based on three mentions highlighting punctuality, courtesy, and communication, though one critical review documents severe communication failure and contract breach. Project completion scores 65 due to conflicting evidence: two reviews praise timely, clean work completion, but one review documents complete project abandonment after deposit acceptance. Pricing scores 85 from two mentions of fair value and early completion. Experience scores 80 from two mentions of knowledgeable, skilled work. The low sample size (4 reviews) and significant recency gap (oldest review from 2019) limit confidence in this assessment.

• CRITICAL: One 1-star review documents severe breach of contract and non-responsiveness. Owner accepted deposit, then returned it and refused to perform agreed work. This directly contradicts positive reviews and raises serious reliability concerns.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Three of four reviews are from 2022 or earlier (oldest from 2019). No recent reviews available to assess current performance or whether issues have been resolved.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews analyzed. WW Score should be treated as preliminary and unreliable for major decisions.
• INCONSISTENCY: Positive reviews praise reliability and professionalism; negative review documents opposite behavior (unreliable, non-responsive, contract breach). This suggests either significant service variability or potential selective review posting.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (4 reviews), significant age of data (no reviews within past 2 years), and one critical negative review documenting contract breach that directly contradicts positive testimonials, suggesting either inconsistent service quality or incomplete review representation.

Atlas Plumbing receives strong praise in several reviews for punctuality, professionalism, and fair pricing, with specific callouts for technicians like Louis and Holland being on time, clean, and courteous. However, two significant negative reviews substantially drag down the scores: one describes a technician abandoning a job mid-visit and a complete failure of the emergency callback line, and another describes being ghosted entirely after agreeing on a price and a start time. These are serious project completion and professionalism failures that cannot be dismissed. Pricing and experience scores are bolstered by multiple positive mentions of reasonable rates and skilled diagnostics, but the abandonment incidents introduce meaningful doubt about consistency. The overall picture is a contractor with genuine strengths but a documented pattern of follow-through failures that prospective customers should weigh carefully.

• Two reviews (1-star, dated 2022 and 2021) describe serious project abandonment: one technician left mid-job and never returned, and one customer was ghosted after a quote and scheduling agreement. These are high-severity reliability concerns.
• The most recent reviews (2024) are positive but brief and lack specific detail, which slightly limits their evidentiary weight — though no fake review pattern is definitively detected.
• Several of the strongest positive reviews are from 2019–2021, meaning they are more than 3 years old. Recent performance data is thin (only 2 reviews from 2024), reducing confidence in current service quality.
• Shannon is praised by name in both a positive review and the negative 1-star review, suggesting office staff quality may be more consistent than field technician performance.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability: the review count is low (7 reviews), the time span is wide (2019–2024), and two credible negative reviews document serious completion failures that meaningfully offset the positive feedback.

Lone Star Plumbing shows a mixed performance profile with significant polarization in customer experiences. Professionalism scores are dragged down by multiple complaints about rude office staff and unprofessional behavior, though many reviews praise individual technicians like Omar, Alex, and Ramon. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with numerous detailed complaints about hidden charges, inflated labor hours, travel time fees, and surprise billing that substantially exceed initial quotes. Project completion and experience scores are stronger, with customers consistently praising quick turnaround, quality workmanship, and technical competence. However, one severe 2011 review documents incomplete work leading to water damage and mold, indicating occasional follow-through failures on complex jobs.

• PRICING PATTERN ALERT: At least 7 reviews (2020-2014) contain nearly identical complaints about hidden charges, inflated labor hours, and surprise billing. This suggests a systemic pricing transparency issue rather than isolated incidents.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews cluster in 2020-2014 period; more recent reviews (2019-2025) are predominantly positive. This may indicate business practice changes or review platform shifts.
• OFFICE STAFF ISSUE: Multiple reviews (2020, 2019, 2014) specifically criticize office manager/receptionist professionalism and rudeness, suggesting internal management problem.
• SEVERE QUALITY FAILURE: 2011 review documents incomplete work, improper installation, and resulting water damage/mold—indicates potential for serious project failures despite generally positive workmanship ratings.
• EMPTY/INVALID REVIEWS: 4 reviews contain no text or unusable data (ratings of 1.0, 3.0, 4.0 with no content), reducing reliable sample size.

This score should be treated with caution due to significant temporal clustering of negative reviews and documented systemic pricing issues; while recent reviews are more positive, the historical pattern of hidden charges and office staff complaints suggests ongoing business practice concerns that may not be fully reflected in the current score.