Find Nearby Plumbers In Pompano Beach, Florida

This contractor has a deeply mixed record across only 3 reviews, making any score highly provisional. One review describes a serious failure: a misdiagnosed AC leak that resulted in thousands of dollars of water damage after the customer was assured the problem was fixed — a significant red flag for both experience and project completion. A second review praises communication, price transparency, and competent diagnosis of multiple issues, including avoiding an unnecessary $3,000 repair recommended by competitors. The third review is brief and generic, offering little actionable detail. The negative review carries substantial weight given the severity of the outcome described, pulling scores for experience and project completion down considerably.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is statistically unreliable and should be treated with extreme caution.
• One review describes a serious misdiagnosis leading to significant water damage and a charge of $1,177 for what the customer describes as only a filter cleaning — this is a major quality and ethics concern.
• The 5-star review from 2023-09-10 is very brief and generic ('Excellent service and fair pricing') with no specific details — this pattern is consistent with a potentially unverified or low-effort review and has been given reduced evidentiary weight.
• All three reviews are from mid-to-late 2023, so recency is not a concern, but the small sample size prevents reliable trend analysis.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, one of which describes a serious service failure, making the overall score LOW reliability and insufficient to draw confident conclusions about this contractor's typical performance.

This contractor shows severe inconsistency across reviews. Two recent positive reviews (2019) praise rapid response, technical skill, and customer-focused scheduling, with one highlighting exceptional owner involvement. However, a January 2020 review documents serious contract breach, failure to follow up on commitments, and repeated permit denials due to inadequate paperwork preparation by a key employee. The professionalism score is heavily dragged down by documented communication failures and broken promises. Project completion and experience scores reflect the positive reviews' praise for speed and problem-solving, but the limited mention count and conflicting evidence create substantial uncertainty.

• CRITICAL: Severe contradiction between reviews suggests either significant operational inconsistency or potential service quality degradation over time. Two 5-star reviews from 2019 contrast sharply with a 1-star review from January 2020 citing contract breach and permit failures.
• The January 2020 review documents specific, verifiable failures (permit denials on 11/6/2019 and 12/20/2019) and alleges the owner failed to honor a callback commitment despite responding to the review. This suggests accountability and communication issues at management level.
• Only 3 reviews total is insufficient for reliable scoring. The WW Score should be treated as highly provisional.
• Review dates span October 2019 to January 2020 — all older than 4 years. No recent data available to assess current performance.

This score should be treated with extreme caution. With only 3 reviews showing contradictory patterns (two glowing, one documenting serious contract and communication failures), the WW Score of 56.8 reflects genuine uncertainty rather than confidence in contractor quality. The company may have experienced operational changes, or the positive reviews may not reflect typical customer experience. Additional recent reviews are essential before making a hiring decision.

The review set is dominated by two highly detailed, severely negative accounts that describe serious failures across nearly every dimension. The most damaging review (Jan 2022) documents a 21-week project delay, multiple plumber no-shows, incorrect work, failed inspections, poor internal communication, and dismissive management — representing a near-total breakdown in professionalism, project completion, and experience. A second negative review describes a plumber who was rude, evasive about pricing, and walked out mid-assessment. Three positive reviews exist but are brief, lack specific detail, and two are from 2018 and 2020, reducing their recency weight. The single positive experience with meaningful detail (Steven's camera inspection) partially supports the experience score but is insufficient to offset the volume and severity of documented failures. Overall, the WW Score reflects a contractor with serious and recurring operational and quality problems.

• RECENCY WARNING: The most detailed and credible negative review is from January 2022. The positive reviews are from 2018 and 2020, making them over 2 years old relative to the most recent negative review. Recent performance appears significantly worse than older reviews suggest.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW-MODERATE: The three positive reviews (Aug 2020 x2, Sep 2018) are brief, generic, and lack operational specifics. Phrases like 'A-mazing,' 'fast and reliable,' and 'very economical' with no detail about pricing, process, or problem-solving are consistent with low-effort or solicited reviews. The Jan 2022 negative review explicitly states the company 'constantly sends requests to write a review,' which may explain an inflated positive review count.
• MANAGEMENT CONDUCT FLAG: The Jan 2022 review documents office staff using foul language about a dissatisfied client overheard during a job visit, and management (Dean) failing to follow through on promised site visits. This suggests a systemic culture issue beyond individual plumber performance.
• PATTERN OF CHRONIC DELAYS: The Jan 2022 review explicitly states the reviewer overheard office staff discussing another client with the same late-start complaint, suggesting project delay is a recurring company-wide issue, not an isolated incident.
• HIDDEN FEES FLAG: The Mar 2020 review documents an undisclosed $100 after-hours fee revealed only after the appointment window had already been missed, indicating a lack of pricing transparency.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to the small review sample (6 reviews), significant recency imbalance favoring negative reviews, suspected solicited positive reviews with minimal detail, and the outsized but credible weight of one extremely detailed negative account describing systemic failures.

The review set is dominated by two highly detailed negative reviews describing serious failures: an abandoned $17,500 job left incomplete with property damage, and a contractor who does not answer phones or return messages regarding an open permit. These accounts directly and severely impact professionalism, project completion, and experience scores. The single positive review from 2017 provides a mild counterpoint on pricing and service quality, but it is over 7 years old and lacks specificity, limiting its ability to meaningfully offset the damaging accounts. Overall, the evidence paints a picture of a contractor with significant reliability and follow-through problems.

• RECENCY WARNING: The only positive review is dated 2017-10-08, making it over 7 years old. Both negative reviews are more recent (2019 and 2021) and should carry substantially more weight.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW: The 5-star review from 2017 is generic, brief, and lacks any specific detail about the job, technician, or circumstances. It follows a pattern common in fabricated positive reviews.
• OPEN PERMIT FLAG: One reviewer explicitly states the company left an open permit on a property and is completely unresponsive — this is a serious legal and regulatory concern for prospective customers.
• ABANDONED JOB FLAG: The 2019 review describes a $17,500 contract that was not completed, with property left in a damaged state. This is a critical project completion failure.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 3 reviews total. The WW Score cannot be considered reliable with this sample size. Treat all scores as highly provisional.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 7 years, with the sole positive review being potentially generic and outdated, making the overall score LOW reliability and should not be used as a confident basis for hiring decisions.

Both reviews explicitly praise professionalism (fast service, courteous demeanor, technical knowledge), and both confirm project completion (problems resolved same-day or quickly). One review mentions reasonable pricing compared to competitors. One review highlights technical expertise through customer education. However, with only 2 total reviews, all scoring carries LIMITED confidence. The older review (2013) is over 10 years old and should be weighted less heavily than the recent 2024 review.

• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per Step 4 guidelines
• One review is from 2013 (11+ years old) — recency is heavily skewed toward single recent review
• Both reviews are 5-star with uniformly positive language; however, specificity is present (clogged toilet, shower hot water issue, named technician 'Kurt'), so fake review risk is LOW
• Pricing dimension based on only 1 mention — extremely limited evidence

This analysis is unreliable for decision-making. With only 2 reviews (one from 2013), no WW Score can be calculated. Recommend collecting at least 5–10 recent reviews before drawing conclusions about contractor quality.

With only two reviews, the data is highly insufficient for a reliable assessment. The negative review (2023) describes a serious failure: an $1,800 charge for roughly 90 minutes of work, an unfinished job leaving a hole in the wall, and complete unresponsiveness to follow-up calls — all major red flags across professionalism, pricing, and project completion. The positive review (2018) praises responsive scheduling and transparent, fair pricing for a backflow service, but it is over five years old and therefore carries reduced weight under recency rules. The contrast between these two reviews is stark and unresolved, making any aggregate score unreliable.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The positive review is dated 2018, more than 5 years before the negative review (2023). Recency weighting significantly diminishes its relevance.
• The negative review describes potential consumer harm: alleged overcharging ($1,800 for ~1.5 hours), incomplete work (hole left in wall), and refusal to return calls — these are serious service failure indicators.
• The two reviews cover different service types (plumbing leak repair vs. backflow certification), which may reflect different staff, subcontractors, or service quality levels and limits direct comparison.
• Insufficient review volume to detect fake review patterns, but the generic enthusiasm in the 2018 review (no technician name, no specific address of work performed) warrants mild caution.

This score report is not reliable for decision-making purposes — only 2 reviews were available, the data spans 5+ years with conflicting signals, and the minimum review threshold for a valid WW Score has not been met.