Find Nearby Plumbers In Pinellas Park, Florida

The overwhelming majority of reviews across both R&R Plumbing and Professional Plumbing Solutions (PPS) praise professionalism, punctuality, and responsiveness, with many customers citing same-day or next-day service as a standout quality. Project completion scores well overall, with most reviewers confirming jobs were finished correctly and on time, though one review noted a no-show with no response, and another flagged a cancelled appointment with no notice. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviews describe fair and reasonable pricing, there are two credible negative reviews explicitly describing overcharging, hidden fees, and billing inconsistencies that meaningfully drag the score down. Experience is generally rated highly, with multiple reviewers citing skilled diagnostics, quality workmanship, and knowledgeable technicians across a wide range of plumbing tasks. The score is tempered by the presence of a small but notable cluster of negative reviews and some data quality concerns outlined in the flags below.

• MIXED BUSINESS DATA: Reviews appear to cover at least two distinct businesses — 'R&R Plumbing' (Rodney, Kerry, Patrick) and 'Professional Plumbing Solutions / PPS' (Shawn, Eric, Tony, Mark, Larry). These are likely different companies. Scores have been calculated across all reviews as submitted, but the WW Score may not accurately represent either business individually.
• LARGE VOLUME OF ZERO-STAR RATED REVIEWS: Approximately 30+ reviews carry a 0.0 star rating (not 5-star), likely indicating unrated or imported reviews from an older platform. These were treated as usable for qualitative content but their star ratings were excluded from confidence weighting.
• RECENCY IMBALANCE: A significant portion of reviews date from 2011–2014 and are more than 10 years old. These older reviews were given reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) are predominantly for R&R Plumbing and are more relevant to current performance.
• NEGATIVE PRICING REVIEW (2021): One reviewer explicitly described being quoted $105/hour but charged $299 for 90 minutes of work, with an unexplained $25 materials surcharge and billing that started from drive time. This is a credible and specific complaint that reduced the pricing score.
• NEGATIVE PRICING/BILLING REVIEW (2014): A second reviewer described being charged $270 for 15 minutes of work after a prior visit cost $112.50, with the technician giving contradictory explanations for the price increase. This further supports a pattern of pricing inconsistency for PPS.
• NO-SHOW COMPLAINT (2024): One reviewer (1-star, September 2024) cleared their day for a 4pm appointment, received no response to texts or calls, and was never served. This is a direct project completion and professionalism failure.
• APPOINTMENT CANCELLATION COMPLAINT (2017): One reviewer (1-star) had a week-out appointment cancelled the night before with no accommodation, requiring them to take time off work. This negatively impacts both professionalism and project completion scores.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: A number of reviews — particularly older PPS reviews — use very similar language ('prompt, courteous, professional') with minimal specifics. While not conclusive evidence of fake reviews, the repetitive phrasing across dozens of entries warrants mild caution.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2024-03-01 are word-for-word identical (Shawn installing a water heater). Only one was counted in mention tallies.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Several reviews contain no text (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable qualitative data.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability for general trend assessment, but should be interpreted cautiously given that it aggregates reviews from what appear to be two separate businesses, spans over a decade of data with significant recency imbalance, and includes credible negative reviews on pricing and reliability that represent real risk signals for prospective customers.

Johnson's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism across nearly all reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, politeness, and responsiveness. Project completion is solid but shows some variability—most jobs are completed successfully and on time, though a few reviews mention delays or incomplete follow-through. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and competitive, though one significant dispute over diagnostic fees and hidden charges emerged. Experience and technical skill are well-documented, with reviewers frequently citing 30+ years in the trade and expert problem-solving abilities. The business shows strong family involvement and a reputation for honesty that resonates across the customer base.

• One 1-star review (2022-08-12) describes a serious dispute over billing practices: a $128.50 diagnostic fee charged after a $429.67 faucet replacement, followed by alleged threatening behavior. This is a material concern for pricing transparency and professionalism.
• One 1-star review (2021-02-01) appears to reference a different plumber or service provider entirely—mentions 3 different plumbers and a $75 service call + $140 charge. This may not be about Johnson's Plumbing directly.
• One 3-star review (2014-09-27) describes a significant project completion issue: the plumber (Elton) abandoned the job mid-way for 2 days to work on another project, leaving the customer without access to their bathroom. This is a notable reliability concern.
• One 2-star review (2012-06-02) describes chronic non-completion: a kitchen faucet repair promised for 'next Saturday' was never completed over multiple months despite repeated calls. This is a serious project completion failure.
• One 3-star review (2020-08-09) notes the plumber was uncomfortable with non-standard situations (condo attic water heater), suggesting potential limitations in adaptability.
• One 1-star review (2014-01-17) describes a pattern of poor responsiveness: no callback on first attempt, missed appointment on second attempt, and lack of service orientation on third attempt. This contradicts the otherwise strong professionalism profile.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months (majority from 2012-2019). Only 3 reviews are from 2024, 1 from 2022, and 1 from 2021. Recent data is limited.
• No evidence of fake reviews detected. Reviews show specific details, varied experiences, and natural language variation.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable at HIGH confidence for overall professionalism and experience, but should be interpreted with caution regarding project completion and pricing due to several documented failures and disputes. The score is heavily weighted toward older reviews (pre-2020), so current service quality may differ. The presence of 4 low-star reviews (1-2 stars) describing serious issues with follow-through, billing practices, and responsiveness indicates this contractor has a meaningful track record of problems alongside many satisfied customers. Prospective clients should prioritize recent references and clarify billing practices and project timelines in writing before engaging.

The Drain Guys demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently punctual service, excellent communication, and courteous technicians across 98 mentions. Technical expertise is solid with 68 mentions of skilled workmanship and problem-solving. However, project completion reliability is compromised by multiple documented instances of incomplete work, callbacks not honored, and jobs requiring multiple visits to resolve. Pricing presents a significant concern with 52 mentions revealing inconsistent value—some customers report fair rates while others cite overcharging, aggressive upselling, and hidden fees. The company excels in initial responsiveness but struggles with follow-through and pricing transparency.

• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews (at least 8) report overcharging, aggressive upselling, or inflated quotes. Examples include $1000 for 1-inch pipe repair, $599 for incomplete scope work, $495 for 15-minute sump pump snaking, and $250 water test charges. This suggests potential commission-based incentive structure.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: At least 6 reviews document incomplete work requiring multiple callbacks or follow-up visits. Examples: p-trap leaking after installation (5 visits), incomplete drain scope, failed shower caulk repair, and unresolved water filter consultation.
• CALLBACK ISSUES: Multiple reviews (at least 4) report technicians failing to return as promised or ghosting customers after initial service.
• MANAGEMENT/COMMUNICATION PROBLEMS: At least 3 reviews cite rude or dishonest management, false statements about customer interactions, and poor follow-up on promised estimates.
• QUALITY CONTROL VARIANCE: Significant inconsistency in workmanship quality—some reviews praise exceptional work while others report shoddy installations (sink installation, shower caulk, p-trap).
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews cluster in 2021-2024 period, suggesting ongoing systemic issues rather than isolated incidents. Recent reviews (2025) are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail, which may indicate selective review posting.
• SUSPICIOUS PATTERN: Several 5-star reviews from 2025 and late 2024 contain generic praise with minimal specifics, contrasting sharply with detailed negative reviews. This asymmetry warrants caution.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while the score reflects genuine strengths in professionalism and responsiveness, it masks serious underlying issues with pricing transparency, project completion reliability, and management integrity that are well-documented across multiple independent reviews. The company excels at initial customer acquisition but demonstrates systemic weaknesses in follow-through and fair pricing that significantly impact long-term customer satisfaction.

Professional Plumbing Solutions scores reasonably well on professionalism, with multiple reviewers explicitly praising punctuality, friendliness, communication, and responsiveness — including after-hours availability. However, pricing is a notable weak point: several reviewers flagged costs as high or outrageous, weekend surcharges drew complaints, and one customer declined service entirely due to price, opting to buy and install a pump themselves. Project completion is mixed — most jobs were completed satisfactorily, but one reviewer reported the problem persisted after the visit and required a callback to fix, and two reviews describe work that was not completed at all. Experience scores moderately well, with reviewers noting knowledgeable technicians, meticulous workmanship, and good problem diagnosis, though one review noted the provider could not work on the customer's brand.

• 7 reviews contain only 'unknown' as text with no usable content — these were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• 2 reviews contain only a period '.' with no usable content — also excluded from dimension scoring.
• The two lowest-rated reviews (both 1-star, dated 2018-07-30) appear to describe the same incident from the same customer, with nearly identical details. This may represent a duplicate review submission and could artificially inflate the negative signal for pricing.
• All reviews are older than 12 months (most recent is July 2018, over 6 years ago). The WW Score should be treated with caution as it does not reflect current business performance.
• Several 5-star reviews with 'unknown' text or minimal content (e.g., 'Outstanding.', 'See above!!') provide no verifiable detail and may inflate the star rating average without contributing meaningful evidence.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: while dimension scores are based on a reasonable number of explicit mentions, the complete absence of reviews from the past 6 years means this score cannot be considered a current indicator of service quality.

The Experts in Room Additions shows a deeply polarized performance pattern. Recent reviews (2024, 2019) consistently praise professionalism, punctuality, quality workmanship, and project completion, with multiple mentions of on-time arrivals and thorough cleanup. However, older reviews (2016–2017) reveal severe systemic failures: missed deadlines (7 weeks vs. 2–3 week promises), non-responsive management, rude office staff, incomplete work requiring customer remediation, and overcharging. The company appears to have either undergone significant operational changes or exhibits inconsistent execution. Pricing concerns emerge in both negative reviews and one neutral mention. The stark temporal divide suggests either genuine improvement or a shift in customer base, but the severity of past failures (state complaint filed, 2-year nightmare, work abandoned) cannot be ignored.

• TEMPORAL POLARIZATION: All 5-star reviews are from 2018–2024; all 1-star reviews are from 2016–2017. This 6+ year gap suggests either major operational restructuring or data quality issues.
• RECENCY BIAS: Recent reviews (past 12 months) are uniformly positive with specific praise; older reviews are uniformly negative with detailed complaints of systemic failure. Weighting recent reviews heavily may mask historical pattern.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Positive reviews mention 'fair pricing' and transparent estimates; negative reviews cite overcharging and hidden costs. Only 3 explicit mentions of pricing across all reviews.
• MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY: Multiple negative reviews cite owner unavailability, control-freak behavior, and staff rudeness. Positive reviews praise 'Bobby' and crew chiefs. Suggests leadership or personnel changes may have occurred.
• SUBCONTRACTOR VARIABILITY: One 4-star review notes 'had to keep closer eye on a couple of subcontracted workers.' Negative reviews blame subcontractors for poor work. Quality control over subs appears inconsistent.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Recent 5-star reviews contain some generic praise ('everyone was friendly, professional') but are balanced with specific details (names, timelines, cleanup specifics). Not flagged as definitively fake, but generic elements noted.
• COMPLAINT FILED: One reviewer explicitly states a state license complaint was filed (2017). This is a serious red flag not reflected in recent reviews.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. The 11-review dataset is split into two irreconcilable eras: a recent positive period (2018–2024) and a historical negative period (2016–2017) with no transitional reviews. The WW Score of 68.2 reflects a mathematical average, but the underlying data suggests either a company that fundamentally changed operations or inconsistent service delivery. Prospective customers should heavily weight recent reviews but demand clarification on what changed and verify references from the past 12 months independently. The state complaint and multiple reports of non-completion are serious concerns that cannot be dismissed by recent positive sentiment.

Heatwave demonstrates critically poor performance across all four dimensions. Professionalism is severely compromised by pervasive non-responsiveness, missed appointments, and hostile owner behavior (refusing calls, blocking customers on social media, retaliating against negative reviews). Project completion is undermined by incomplete installations, repeated failed service visits, and multi-month delays on simple repairs. Pricing concerns are substantial, with documented overcharging, hidden fees, and upselling of unnecessary services. Experience/workmanship is consistently poor, with improper installations, incorrect materials, and technicians requiring YouTube tutorials. The company exhibits a pattern of deceptive practices including misrepresenting warranty coverage, failing to pull permits, and pressuring elderly customers into unnecessary replacements.

• CRITICAL: Overwhelming pattern of negative reviews (33 of 36 are 1-star ratings). Only 3 positive reviews detected, all praising individual technicians rather than company systems.
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document owner Dan's refusal to return calls or communicate with customers—this appears in at least 8 separate reviews and suggests systemic management failure.
• CRITICAL: Evidence of retaliatory behavior: one review explicitly states owner called customer to demand removal of negative review, then sent insulting text when customer refused.
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews allege fraudulent practices including fake diagnoses (non-existent freon leaks, false unit ages), failure to pull permits, incomplete work, and deliberate upselling.
• CRITICAL: Pattern of no-shows and missed appointments documented in at least 6 reviews, with customers taking time off work and receiving no notification.
• CRITICAL: Former employee review (2020-07-06) alleges systematic fraud, illegal practices, and deliberate sabotage of units to generate service calls.
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document property damage (TV screen, home exterior, ceiling collapse) with no accountability or compensation.
• CRITICAL: Recency concern: 28 of 36 reviews are from 2019-2024, indicating ongoing problems over 5+ years with no improvement.
• MODERATE: Three 5-star reviews exist but all focus on individual technicians (Christian, Ryan, Dan as technician) rather than company operations, suggesting isolated good experiences do not reflect systemic quality.
• MODERATE: One 2-star review (water softener repair) is neutral/transactional but pricing ($249 for 1-hour repair) aligns with overcharging pattern.

This WW Score of 18.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 36 reviews with consistent, explicit evidence across all dimensions. The overwhelming majority of reviews (92%) are 1-star ratings with detailed, specific complaints spanning 5+ years. The pattern is not random—it reflects systemic failures in management, communication, workmanship, and ethics. This company presents substantial risk to consumers.