Find Nearby Plumbers In Pembroke Pines, Florida

Grand Rooter exhibits highly polarized performance with stark contrasts between positive and negative experiences. Professionalism scores moderately at 68 due to mixed evidence: some reviews praise exceptional communication and punctuality, while others document repeated cancellations, poor responsiveness, and inability to provide clear information. Pricing is a significant weakness at 45, with multiple customers reporting excessive charges ($380 for toilet rebuild, $1,100 for 2 hours work) relative to competitor quotes. Project completion is similarly weak at 55, hampered by extended delays, missed appointments, and incomplete initial quotes. Experience and workmanship receive higher marks at 82 when work is completed, but this is overshadowed by operational failures. The company demonstrates technical competence but severe execution and business practice deficiencies.

• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews are from 2018-2019 (4-6 years old); most recent review (Feb 2024) is positive but generic. Only 1 of 7 reviews from past 12 months.
• POLARIZATION PATTERN: Extreme bimodal distribution—five 5-star reviews vs. three 1-star reviews with no middle ground. This suggests either dramatically inconsistent service or potential review manipulation.
• REVIEW 1 (Feb 2024) SUSPICIOUS: Extremely generic praise ('Great service', '10/10 amazing attitude') with no specific details. Lacks substantive information compared to other reviews.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS CREDIBLE: Multiple independent 1-star reviews cite specific dollar amounts and comparisons to competitors (Terry's Plumbing charged half the price). This pattern is difficult to fake.
• OPERATIONAL RED FLAGS: The Oct 2018 review documents 20+ phone calls, repeated cancellations, missed appointments, and incomplete quotes—suggesting systemic business process failures rather than isolated incidents.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS DETAILED: The 2017 and 2020 reviews are highly detailed and specific, lending them credibility. However, they are 4-7 years old and may not reflect current operations.

This score should be treated with caution due to extreme review polarization, significant recency bias (most data is 4-6 years old), and only one recent review. The company appears to have experienced serious operational and pricing issues in 2018-2019, but insufficient recent data prevents confident assessment of whether these problems persist or have been resolved. A score of 62.8 reflects the weighted average of conflicting evidence, but the true current performance is uncertain.

Reel Restoration has a mixed and concerning review profile. Two recent positive reviews (2023–2024) highlight responsive communication, quality workmanship, and thorough mold detection and restoration work, which supports moderate scores in professionalism, project completion, and experience. However, a serious 1-star review from 2017 alleges illegal billing practices, double-charging of the insurance deductible, billing for work not performed, and an unprofessional staff member — all of which significantly drag down the professionalism and pricing scores. The fourth review offers no specific detail and is from 2020, limiting its usefulness. The overall score is tempered by the severity of the fraud allegations and the small review sample size.

• SERIOUS ALLEGATION: One reviewer explicitly accuses the company of illegal insurance billing practices, including collecting the deductible from the customer AND billing the insurance carrier for the same amount. This is a significant red flag that warrants caution.
• BILLING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: The same reviewer reports receiving no itemization of services billed to their insurance company, raising concerns about pricing transparency.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERN: A staff member ('kitchen designer') was described as smelling of alcohol and being unkempt, indicating a potential professionalism issue.
• RECENCY IMBALANCE: The negative review is from 2017 and the vague positive review is from 2020. The two most detailed positive reviews are from 2023–2024. It is unclear whether the 2017 issues have been resolved or whether the business has genuinely improved.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 4 reviews total. This is an extremely small sample and the WW Score should be treated with significant caution.
• VAGUE REVIEW: The 2020 review ('Personally know the owners... honest and reliable') provides no specific detail about any service experience and may reflect personal bias rather than a genuine customer interaction. Confidence in this review's usefulness is low.
• INSUFFICIENT VOLUME WARNING: With only 4 reviews, this score is not statistically reliable. Seek additional independent sources before making a hiring decision.

This WW Score carries LOW reliability due to the very small review sample (4 reviews), a wide date range spanning 7 years, one vague review of questionable objectivity, and one serious unresolved allegation of fraudulent billing practices that has not been publicly addressed by the company.

This contractor shows a stark contrast between positive and negative experiences. One recent review (2016) describes severe project completion failure—an open permit unresolved after eight promises to fix it, creating legal and transactional problems for the homeowner. Two older reviews (2013–2014) praise professionalism, punctuality, and technical competence. However, the critical failure in project completion and follow-through significantly undermines overall trustworthiness. The WW Score is heavily depressed by the project completion dimension, which carries 35% weight and reflects a catastrophic breakdown in accountability.

• CRITICAL: One review documents repeated broken promises (8+ times) regarding permit resolution—this is a severe project completion failure that suggests systemic follow-through problems.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two positive reviews are from 2013–2014 (9–11 years old); the most recent review (2016, 8 years old) is highly negative. No recent reviews available to assess current performance.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews total—insufficient volume to establish reliable patterns. Score should be treated with caution.
• GENERIC REVIEW: One review (2014) contains only a service list with no detail or context—minimal evidentiary value.

This score should be treated with significant caution due to very small sample size (3 reviews), age of data (oldest usable review is 8 years old), and conflicting signals between older positive reviews and a recent critical failure. The project completion failure is severe and documented, but broader current performance cannot be reliably assessed.

The overwhelming majority of reviews paint a deeply negative picture of this contractor. Professionalism is the most consistently cited concern, with four of five reviews describing no-shows, missed call windows, unanswered phones, and outright ghosting after collecting fees. Project completion is nearly as damning — one customer paid a service fee and the job was never finished, another had the same problem recur within seven days with no warranty honored, and a third paid $85 only to be told the technician could not complete the work. The one positive review (Anthony, 2021) does provide genuine evidence of good workmanship and communication, which prevents the scores from bottoming out entirely, but it is a single data point against four strongly negative accounts. Pricing concerns are also present, with customers feeling charged for incomplete or ineffective work.

• Only 5 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as directional only, not definitive.
• 4 out of 5 reviews are 1-star; the single 5-star review is highly specific and credible, but it is outnumbered significantly.
• The single positive review references a specific technician (Anthony) and a specific staff member, which adds authenticity, but it dates from November 2021 and may not reflect current service quality.
• The most recent review (July 2024) describes the most severe failure — abandoning a job after collecting a service fee and going silent — suggesting performance has not improved over time.
• No reviews are from the past 12 months aside from the July 2024 complaint; the bulk of reviews are from 2021, limiting recency confidence.
• Pattern of charging fees upfront and then failing to complete or follow through on work appears across multiple independent reviews — this is a structural concern, not isolated incidents.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews and should be considered a limited but directionally strong signal — the consistent pattern of non-completion, poor communication, and fee-for-no-service across multiple independent reviewers warrants serious caution.

This review dataset cannot be analyzed using the WW Score framework. The vast majority of reviews (40 of 47) are for a UPS Store location in Cooper City, Florida, covering shipping, returns, mailbox services, notary services, and fingerprinting. Only 7 reviews are for Coastal Plumbing, a plumbing contractor. The WW Score engine is designed to evaluate contractor/plumber performance across professionalism, pricing, project completion, and experience. UPS Store reviews do not map to these dimensions—they address retail service speed, staff friendliness, and pricing for shipping/services, which are fundamentally different from construction or plumbing work evaluation. The plumbing reviews are too few (7 total) and too old (ranging from 2010 to 2020, with only 1 review from 2017 or later) to provide reliable current performance data.

• CRITICAL: Dataset mismatch. 85% of reviews are for a UPS Store retail location, not a plumbing contractor. WW Score framework cannot be applied to retail shipping services.
• Only 7 reviews are for Coastal Plumbing (the actual contractor). This falls below the minimum threshold of 3 usable reviews for reliable scoring, and all plumbing reviews are older than 5 years (2010–2020).
• Plumbing reviews show extreme price variance complaints (estimates ranging $1,250–$6,700 for similar work), suggesting pricing methodology concerns, but sample size is too small to score reliably.
• UPS Store reviews contain multiple instances of empty review text with 5-star ratings (at least 5 reviews), suggesting potential fake or incomplete submissions.
• Recency issue: Plumbing reviews are severely outdated. Most recent plumbing review is from April 2020 (5+ years old). Current business performance cannot be assessed from this data.

This dataset cannot produce a valid WW Score. The review collection appears to conflate two entirely different businesses (a UPS Store and a plumbing contractor), and the plumbing contractor reviews are too few, too old, and too sparse in dimensional coverage to meet minimum reliability standards for scoring.

This business appears to be a plumbing supply store rather than a contracting/plumbing service, which creates fundamental misalignment with the WW Score framework designed for contractors. The four reviews show extreme polarization: two 5-star reviews praising staff knowledge and service (2014, 2019), and two 1-star reviews citing poor customer service attitude and a defective product issue (2018, 2023). Professionalism scores are heavily dragged down by explicit complaints about rude, dismissive staff behavior. Pricing data is minimal and mixed. No evidence exists regarding project completion, as this entity primarily sells supplies rather than performs plumbing work. The most recent negative review (2023) involves a manufacturer defect, not service failure.

• CRITICAL: This entity is a plumbing supply store, not a plumbing contractor. WW Score is designed for service contractors, not retail suppliers. Scoring is not appropriate.
• Extreme review polarization (2 five-star, 2 one-star) with no middle ground suggests potential selection bias or different customer segments.
• Two reviews are older than 5 years (2014, 2019), limiting recency relevance.
• Review from 2023 involves manufacturer defect (Rinnai product), not store service failure—conflates product quality with business performance.
• One reviewer explicitly questions authenticity of positive reviews, suggesting possible fake review awareness.
• Insufficient data on actual plumbing project completion, as this is a supply store not a service provider.

This WW Score cannot be reliably calculated or trusted because the business is a plumbing supply retailer, not a plumbing contractor, making the framework fundamentally inapplicable. Additionally, only 4 reviews exist with extreme polarization and significant recency gaps, providing insufficient and unreliable data for any meaningful assessment.