Find Nearby Plumbers In Port St. Lucie, Florida

Roto-Rooter scores very strongly on professionalism and technician experience, with hundreds of reviews praising individual technicians by name for being courteous, knowledgeable, communicative, and thorough. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs resolved same-day or within a short timeframe, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, broken promises on follow-up visits, and warranty disputes. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension across the entire review set — dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges as 'outrageous,' 'ridiculous,' 'a scam,' or triple the price of competitors, with specific dollar amounts cited ranging from $315 for 4 minutes of work to $8,700 for a water heater installation. Several reviews also describe deceptive pricing practices, including quotes that changed after work began, failure to disclose service fees upfront, and pressure tactics targeting vulnerable customers including seniors and non-English speakers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., multiple identical reviews for 'Gio,' 'Gabriel,' 'Daniel,' 'Gus,' 'Giovanni,' and others). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate a review solicitation system that caused customers to submit the same review twice, or potential manipulation. Confidence in raw review count is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 150-200 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (almost all 5-star). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from scoring but inflate the total count.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SEVERE AND SPECIFIC: Negative pricing reviews are not vague — they cite specific dollar amounts, compare to competitor prices, and describe practices such as quoting after work begins, refusing to honor coupons, and charging elderly or non-English-speaking customers without disclosure. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe technicians failing to arrive within promised windows, no-call-no-shows, and dispatch communication failures. This is a recurring pattern affecting the project completion score.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Several reviews describe Roto-Rooter refusing to honor stated warranties, including a 6-month guarantee and a 30-day guarantee, with customers being charged again for the same recurring issue.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: A small but notable number of reviews describe active harm caused by technicians — flooding a kitchen, improperly setting a toilet, changing the wrong pipe, leaving sewage handprints, and damaging property with no accountability.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians quoting extremely high prices and then reducing them when customers push back, suggesting initial quotes are inflated as a negotiating tactic rather than honest pricing.
• RECENCY: All reviews are dated between approximately May 7, 2025 and June 9, 2025 — all within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is fully applied.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review set and carries HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews inflating volume, a strong and consistent pattern of severe pricing complaints that meaningfully suppresses the score, and documented instances of incomplete work and warranty non-compliance that suggest the positive technician-level experience does not always translate to a satisfactory overall customer outcome.

Oliver's Plumbing has a large and generally positive review base, with the majority of customers praising polite, courteous, and professional technicians by name across many jobs including repiping, water heater replacement, and drain work. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — roughly 15 to 18 out of 125 — raise serious and recurring concerns that significantly temper the overall score. The most damaging patterns include repeated no-shows and broken appointments (mentioned in at least 8 separate negative reviews), allegations of deliberate time-padding and overbilling (mentioned in at least 4 reviews), and at least one detailed account of poor workmanship left unresolved. Pricing is generally described as fair or competitive by satisfied customers, but several negative reviewers allege overcharging, hidden travel-time billing, and charging for incomplete or failed work. Project completion is the most penalized dimension, as multiple reviewers describe jobs that were abandoned, rescheduled repeatedly, or finished incorrectly. The experience dimension scores highest, as the majority of reviewers who comment on workmanship quality are satisfied, though a few describe technically deficient outcomes.

• REPEATED NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 8 independent reviews across multiple date ranges describe missed appointments, forgotten bookings, or repeated cancellations. This is a systemic reliability issue, not isolated incidents.
• OVERBILLING ALLEGATIONS: At least 4 reviews independently allege time-padding, charging for travel time without disclosure, or billing for more hours than worked. One review describes a plumber sitting in his vehicle before and after the job to inflate billable time.
• POOR WORKMANSHIP COMPLAINTS: At least 3 reviews describe work that was done incorrectly, left unfinished, or caused additional damage (e.g., hole drilled in a $1,700 vanity, body jets installed in wrong location, caulked fitting instead of bolted).
• UNRESPONSIVE TO COMPLAINTS: Multiple negative reviewers state that calls and messages went unanswered after problems arose, and one reviewer mentions the owner was heard saying 'let's just fix it and get these people off our asses,' suggesting dismissive internal culture.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews from 'Dianne Mitrano' dated 2023-09-22 appear to be near-identical in content and were submitted on the same date. These were counted as one unique mention to avoid score inflation.
• BLANK OR CONTENT-FREE REVIEWS: At least 6 reviews contain no text (only a rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review corpus spans from 2012 to 2025. Negative reviews citing no-shows and overbilling appear across multiple years including recent ones (2021–2024), suggesting these are not historical anomalies but ongoing issues. Positive reviews also span the full date range.
• POSSIBLE ENTITY CONFLATION: Some reviews appear to reference a solo operator named 'Ron Oliver' in a Wisconsin/Madison context, while others clearly reference a multi-technician company in Vero Beach, Florida. These may be two distinct businesses sharing the Oliver's Plumbing name. This conflation, if real, undermines the reliability of the aggregate score.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: While many reviews are positive, they generally include specific technician names, job types, and situational details. Generic praise reviews exist but are not dominant enough to flag as coordinated.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume (125 reviews), but the score itself should be treated with caution given the significant minority of detailed negative reviews describing systemic issues with reliability, billing transparency, and complaint resolution, and the possible conflation of two distinct business entities under the same name.

Precision Plumbing draws a large volume of strongly positive reviews praising individual technicians by name for professionalism, punctuality, clear communication, and technical skill — these positives are consistent and span many years and locations. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews (roughly 15–18% of substantive reviews) describe serious issues including no-shows, scheduling failures, poor communication, alleged price gouging, overcharging, warranty disputes, substandard workmanship, and in at least two cases regulatory investigations by the Nevada State Contractors Board. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers call pricing fair or reasonable, a notable cluster of negative reviewers describe charges they considered grossly excessive (e.g., $528/hour, $750 for a $1.99 fix, $1,400 for a 20-minute job, $650 for a cartridge replacement). Project completion is moderately strong but is dragged down by multiple documented no-shows, abandoned jobs, and at least one case of work left incomplete for weeks. Experience scores well overall given the volume of praise for diagnostic skill and quality workmanship, but is tempered by a handful of reviews describing incompetent diagnosis or dangerous substandard work.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Numerous reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., multiple identical 'Fast, affordable, friendly, and super reliable' reviews on 2018-02-22; identical 'Great family business' reviews on 2022-09-08; identical 'Will hire again' reviews on 2022-09-12; identical 'Great and quick service' and 'Excellent customer service' reviews on 2022-09-06; identical 'He did a good job and was nice to work with' reviews on 2022-10-20; identical 'Friendly service, great job' reviews on 2022-10-01; identical 'Kieth was very easy to work with' reviews on 2022-10-22; identical 'Very high quality work promp service' reviews on 2023-01-24; identical 'The young man did an expert job' reviews on 2022-12-16; identical 'Precision Plumbimg is a great Company' reviews on 2020-10-24 and 2020-10-25). This pattern strongly suggests review manipulation or system duplication and reduces confidence in the raw positive review count.
• REGULATORY FLAG: At least two reviews (dated August 2024) allege that Precision Plumbing (dba aaa Precision Plumbing, Las Vegas) was under investigation by the Nevada State Board of Contractors for substandard work, failed city inspection, a life-threatening gas leak, and deceptive practices. These are serious allegations that, if accurate, represent significant safety and integrity concerns.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to reference multiple distinct businesses operating under the 'Precision Plumbing' name across different geographic markets (Las Vegas NV, Bay Area CA, Michigan, South Carolina, California Central Valley, etc.) as well as references to 'Plumbing Squad' and 'Budget Water Heaters.' Scores may reflect an aggregation of different companies rather than a single contractor, which limits the reliability of any single composite score.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS PATTERN: A recurring pattern of pricing complaints exists across multiple reviewers and years — including allegations of price gouging against elderly or disabled customers, charges not matching quotes, refusal to provide itemized receipts, and hourly rates described as $600+ per hour for simple jobs. This is not isolated and depresses the pricing score significantly.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: Multiple independent reviewers across different time periods describe no-shows, missed appointment windows without notification, and failure to return calls. This is a consistent pattern affecting the project completion score.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are from 2019 through mid-2025, with the most recent cluster from May–June 2025. Reviews from 2025 are predominantly positive and recent, which is a positive signal, but the negative regulatory and safety reviews from mid-2024 are also recent and carry significant weight.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 40–50 reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules, but their volume inflates the apparent star average.

This WW Score of 72.1 carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate reviews suggesting possible manipulation, multi-entity ambiguity across geographic markets, serious unresolved regulatory allegations from 2024, and a consistent minority pattern of pricing, scheduling, and workmanship complaints that cannot be dismissed as outliers.

Advanced Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising responsiveness, professionalism, and technical skill across a wide range of jobs including water line replacements, water heater installs, and full repiping projects. However, a meaningful cluster of 1-star reviews — spanning multiple years and locations — raises serious concerns: recurring complaints include overcharging with non-itemized bills, pressure tactics, failure to return calls, incomplete or incorrect work, refusal to warranty poor workmanship, and in several cases hostile responses from ownership when customers raised concerns. Pricing is a particular weak point, with multiple reviewers citing unexpected charges, minimum fees for minimal work, and quotes dramatically higher than competitors. Project completion is also mixed, with several reviews describing jobs that required multiple return visits to correct errors, or work that was abandoned entirely. The positive reviews are numerous and often detailed, but the volume and specificity of negative reviews — including from experienced professionals in construction and architecture — prevent a high overall score.

• 35 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Two reviews are near-identical duplicates with the same wording about being 'absolutely amazing' and 'super sharp on plumbing needs' posted under different dates (2022-09-23 and 2023-06-07). This may indicate a fake or recycled review.
• Two reviews are near-identical duplicates praising 'Eric and Jessica' and 'Fred' with nearly word-for-word identical text posted on different dates (2018-08-22 and 2019-06-08). This strongly suggests a fake or copy-pasted review and confidence in the positive review pool is reduced accordingly.
• The review corpus spans from 2010 to 2025 and appears to aggregate reviews from multiple businesses operating under the name 'Advanced Plumbing' across different states (Virginia, Florida, Oregon, Michigan, Missouri, California, Texas). Scores from geographically distinct businesses may not reflect a single contractor's performance.
• Several negative reviews describe the owner or staff becoming hostile, making harassing phone calls, or calling customers liars when complaints were raised — a significant red flag for business conduct.
• One negative reviewer with 50+ years of architectural experience describes deceptive practices including faulty leak detection, pressure to over-scope work, and an inadequate insurance report — this carries elevated credibility weight.
• A 2010 review describes a lawsuit over a billing dispute where the written estimate was $1,300 but the final bill was $4,300 — an extreme pricing discrepancy that was never resolved through mediation.
• Recency note: The majority of reviews with substantive text are from 2017–2025, with the most recent cluster from 2024–2025. Older reviews (pre-2016) were given reduced weight in scoring.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence that reviews may span multiple unrelated businesses sharing the same name, the presence of suspected duplicate/fake reviews, and a persistent pattern of serious complaints about billing practices, incomplete work, and hostile customer service responses that meaningfully offset the large volume of positive feedback.

Mike's Handyman Services has a large and long-running review history with a strong core of satisfied customers who consistently praise punctuality, communication, professionalism, and quality of workmanship across a wide variety of tasks. However, a meaningful and recurring pattern of 1-star reviews — spanning from 2006 through 2024 — documents a serious responsiveness problem: multiple customers across many years report unanswered voicemails, being ghosted after initial contact, and in at least one case, work being abandoned mid-job (plumbing left disassembled with no return). Pricing drew mixed signals, with several reviewers noting costs came in higher than expected or higher than competitors, and one instance of an undisclosed additional charge after work began. Project completion scores are dragged down significantly by the abandoned-work incident and multiple no-show or cancellation complaints. The experience dimension scores highest, as customers who did receive service almost universally praised the quality of the actual work performed.

• RECURRING RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE: At least 14 reviews across the full date range (2006–2024) explicitly report no callback, being ignored, or being ghosted after initial contact. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• ABANDONED WORK (CRITICAL): One review (2024-06-03) describes Mike disassembling plumbing under kitchen and bathroom sinks and then never returning, which represents a serious project completion failure.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: One review (2022-04-21) explicitly states Mike charged an additional $40 beyond the quoted price after work began, and then failed to return to fix a messy job. Another reviewer (2021-08-23) noted pricing was approximately 30% higher than competing quotes.
• HIDDEN/SURPRISE CHARGES: Two older reviews (2017-02-15) mention charges being higher than expected with no prior discussion of costs.
• COUPON DISPUTE: One review (2011-05-31) notes Mike refused to honor a coupon listed on his Angie's List page.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2022–2024) still show the same responsiveness issues that appear in reviews from 2006, suggesting this is a persistent and unresolved operational problem rather than a temporary issue.
• REVIEW SPAN WARNING: Reviews span from 2005 to 2024 — nearly 20 years. The business or personnel may have changed significantly over this period. Older reviews (pre-2018) may reflect a different operator (Janie/Mike Sr.) than more recent reviews. Scores should be interpreted with this context in mind.
• POSSIBLE MIXED BUSINESS IDENTITY: Several older reviews reference 'Janie' as the primary worker, while more recent reviews reference 'Mike' exclusively. This may represent a business transition or different operators operating under the same name, which could affect score reliability.
• ONE REVIEW APPEARS UNRELATED: The review mentioning 'Handslick Painting' and 'interior designer Monica Ensign' (2016-11-27) appears to be for a completely different business and was excluded from scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews (136 total) spanning nearly two decades, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in terms of mention counts, but the score's reliability is meaningfully reduced by a persistent and documented pattern of responsiveness failures, at least one serious project abandonment, and possible business identity changes over time that make it difficult to assess the current operator's consistency.

Mickey's Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising individual technicians like Brian, Daniel, Gary, Alex, and Mike for punctuality, professionalism, and technical skill. However, the score is meaningfully dragged down by a recurring pattern of serious complaints about office/administrative staff being rude, condescending, and unresponsive — with multiple 1-star reviews specifically naming the same receptionist. Project completion is further penalized by several credible accounts of no-shows, missed appointments, uncharged callbacks, and one highly detailed review documenting systemic failures across a large renovation project. Pricing is generally viewed as fair or reasonable by most reviewers, but one reviewer explicitly described being charged twice the quoted amount. The gap between field technician quality and office/administrative quality is the defining tension in this review set.

• 11 reviews contain no text at all (only a star rating) and cannot contribute usable data to any dimension — these were excluded from scoring.
• Several reviews are older than 5 years (2008–2016) and may not reflect current business practices; recency weighting was applied, reducing the influence of older negative reviews somewhat, but the office staff complaints span 2015–2021 suggesting a persistent issue.
• The 2016 review from 'Todd' is exceptionally detailed and credible, documenting multiple project failures, wrong placements, unconnected hot water lines, and owner verbal abuse — this heavily penalized the project_completion and professionalism scores.
• Two separate 1-star reviews (2021-06-29 and 2021-04-19) and one from 2020 specifically cite the same office representative as rude and unprofessional, suggesting a systemic and persistent customer service problem at the administrative level.
• A 2012 review alleges the company charged $400 for work that was never actually completed and refused to refund — this is a serious integrity concern for project_completion.
• A 2019 review describes a technician abandoning a job mid-project, charging for idle time, and the company never following up — another credible project completion failure.
• No strong evidence of fake reviews detected; most positive reviews include specific technician names, job types, and situational details, lending them credibility.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over 15 years, with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but consumers should weigh the score carefully given the documented and recurring pattern of office staff misconduct and project abandonment complaints, which represent real risk even if field technician quality is generally strong.