Find Nearby Plumbers In Port St. Lucie, Florida

Ebens Air Conditioning & Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews. Two recent reviews (2024) describe serious issues: overcharging for simple repairs that the customer solved independently, and billing for work never performed. Two older positive reviews (2023-2024) praise technical competence and responsiveness. The company demonstrates technical skill when engaged, but professionalism is severely undermined by billing practices, poor communication, and apparent dishonesty. Pricing concerns are explicit in multiple reviews, with customers reporting inflated estimates and unauthorized charges.

• CRITICAL: Two reviews allege fraudulent billing practices — one for charging $79 for a service call where no work was performed, another for invoicing for work explicitly not completed. These are serious red flags for business integrity.
• PRICING CONCERN: Review 1 describes a $600+ estimate for work the customer completed in 30 minutes with a $20 repair kit, suggesting significant overcharging or misdiagnosis.
• UNAUTHORIZED CHARGES: Review 1 mentions the company deposited a check as an EFT without authorization, indicating potential financial misconduct.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Positive reviews praise technical skill and responsiveness, but negative reviews describe poor judgment, overcharging, and dishonesty. This suggests inconsistent service quality or selective honesty depending on customer type.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Most critical negative reviews are from 2024 (recent), while positive reviews are older (2023-2024). Recent pattern suggests deteriorating service standards.
• SMALL SAMPLE: Only 4 reviews analyzed. Score reliability is limited by sample size.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (4 reviews) and serious allegations of billing fraud and dishonesty in recent reviews. While technical competence appears present, the company's integrity and pricing practices are highly questionable. Potential customers should seek additional references and clarify all charges in writing before engaging services.

Cleary Plumbing exhibits a stark bifurcation in customer experience. Professionalism scores relatively well (72.5) with consistent praise for courteous technicians, timely communication, and responsive office staff across 48 reviews. However, pricing is severely problematic (35.0 across 32 mentions), with overwhelming evidence of excessive markups, bait-and-switch tactics, and charges 2-10x higher than competitors for identical work. Project completion (62.0) is compromised by incomplete work, failed diagnostics, abandoned jobs, and broken follow-up promises. Technical experience (71.0) shows mixed results—some technicians demonstrate strong problem-solving, while others misdiagnose issues or recommend unnecessary work. The company's reputation appears artificially inflated by positive reviews, with multiple customers noting suspicious review patterns and alleged fake review practices.

• CRITICAL: Strong evidence of fake/paid reviews. One detailed review explicitly flags that Cleary has 1,430 Google reviews vs. 1,186 for a local Publix supermarket—statistically implausible for a small local plumber. Multiple reviews reference identical scripted dialogue and suspicious patterns.
• SYSTEMATIC OVERPRICING: 32 reviews document pricing 200-600% above market rate or competitor quotes. Examples: $398 for $66 part + 10 min labor; $2,080 for failed leak detection vs. $500-700 quoted; $1,400 for backflow that needed no repair (ultimately $35); $510 for valve replacement with wall damage and no cleanup.
• DIAGNOSTIC FAILURES: Multiple reviews document misdiagnosis leading to unnecessary work—cutting ceiling for non-existent leak, recommending full tub removal for simple drain issue, claiming backflow device unfixable when it was perfect, recommending mold remediation that didn't exist.
• INCOMPLETE WORK & BROKEN PROMISES: 6+ reviews document unfinished jobs, failed callbacks, broken follow-up commitments, and refusal to honor promised price rollbacks or warranty work.
• AGGRESSIVE UPSELLING: Consistent pattern of recommending expensive additional services (camera scoping, jet flush, mold remediation, membership discounts) that appear unnecessary or are later proven unneeded.
• PERMIT & COMPLIANCE ISSUES: Multiple reviews document failure to file required permits, failed city inspections, and incomplete work blocking further construction.
• NO-SHOW & SCHEDULING FAILURES: At least 3 reviews document missed appointments without notification, rescheduling delays, and one incident of aggressive technician behavior after cancellation.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews cluster in 2018-2024 (recent), while some positive reviews are from 2015-2017, suggesting service quality may have declined or negative experiences are more recent.

This WW Score of 58.2 should be treated with MODERATE-to-LOW confidence despite high mention counts, because the underlying review corpus itself appears compromised by systematic fake reviews and the company's documented aggressive marketing practices. The professionalism dimension is likely inflated by paid reviews; the pricing and project completion dimensions reflect genuine customer harm and are more trustworthy. Prospective customers should heavily weight the detailed negative reviews documenting specific pricing comparisons and diagnostic failures over generic positive reviews, and should independently verify quotes against 2-3 competitors before engaging Cleary Plumbing.

Anytime Plumbing presents a deeply divided review profile. Positive reviews praise punctuality, friendliness, affordability, and responsiveness, with several customers citing specific technicians like Mark, Brian, and Andy as standouts. However, a substantial cluster of negative reviews — many highly detailed — describe a recurring and serious pattern of no-shows, canceled appointments, abandoned jobs, failed inspections, and work that had to be redone multiple times, which severely drags down the project completion score. The project completion dimension is the most damaging, with multiple reviewers explicitly stating they had to hire other companies to finish work Anytime left incomplete. Pricing is the strongest dimension, with several reviewers noting competitive quotes and reasonable fees, though at least one reviewer flagged high costs and another described hidden permit charges. The experience dimension is mixed, with some technicians praised as knowledgeable and others described as incompetent or damaging property.

• PATTERN OF ABANDONMENT: At least 6 reviews explicitly describe jobs that were started but never completed, with the company failing to return after multiple rescheduling attempts. This is a systemic operational issue, not isolated incidents.
• REPEATED NO-SHOW / CANCELLATION PATTERN: Multiple reviews across different years (2021, 2023, 2019, 2016) describe the same behavior — appointments canceled last-minute or technicians simply not showing up — suggesting this is a persistent structural problem.
• PERMIT AND CODE VIOLATIONS: At least 3 reviews describe the company attempting work without permits, failing inspections multiple times, or filing permits with the wrong municipality. One customer was forced to pay a fine for the company's negligence.
• PROPERTY CONCERN: One reviewer (2017) alleged that a worker went through their jewelry box during a job, which is a serious trust and safety concern.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: Several 5-star reviews from 2016-02-02 were posted on the same date with very similar generic praise and no specific job details (e.g., 'very efficient, very affordable and punctual', 'Quotes were competitive and work is professionally done'). This clustering on a single date is suspicious and may indicate solicited or inauthentic reviews. Confidence in those specific reviews is reduced.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent reviews (2021, 2023) are both 1-star and describe the same no-show and abandonment behavior. The positive reviews are predominantly older (2015-2018), suggesting possible decline in service quality over time.
• OWNER ACCOUNTABILITY: Multiple reviews mention the owner George being unresponsive or absent during problem escalations, with one reviewer noting he only reappeared when payment was due.

This WW Score is based on 27 reviews spanning 2015–2023 with high mention counts across all dimensions, making the score statistically reliable; however, the strong recency skew toward negative reviews, suspected same-day fake review clustering in 2016, and a documented pattern of job abandonment and no-shows suggest the true current service quality is likely at or below the lower end of this score range.

This contractor shows deeply inconsistent performance with a stark divide between positive and negative experiences. While some reviews praise professionalism, skill, and responsiveness (particularly from 2015-2017), the majority of recent reviews (2023, 2019, 2014) document serious failures in project completion, pricing transparency, and follow-through on promised work. Multiple customers report incomplete repairs, refusal to remedy problems, and overcharging. The few positive reviews are older and lack specificity about pricing, while negative reviews provide detailed accounts of failures. The company's inability to consistently deliver on commitments and resolve customer issues is the primary driver of the low score.

• TEMPORAL PATTERN: Positive reviews cluster in 2015-2017; negative reviews are more recent (2023, 2019, 2014), suggesting possible service quality decline over time.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews and 1-star reviews describing identical service failures (septic tank work, incomplete repairs, poor communication).
• REFUSAL TO REMEDY: Multiple reviews explicitly state the company refused to fix problems or honor callbacks, indicating systemic accountability issues.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Overcharging ($1,100 with $200 promised refund never delivered), quotes significantly higher than competitors, and lack of transparency about additional charges.
• SAFETY/QUALITY: Concrete poured over septic tank opening without customer verification; improper septic tank lid installation; oil stains left on property.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Pump truck not notified of dispatch; promised callbacks never occurred; technician showed up late (11:25 AM vs. 10 AM promised).

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence due to the clear temporal pattern of decline and the serious nature of documented failures, but the small sample size (9 reviews) and age of some positive reviews limit absolute certainty about current service quality.

H & H Plumbing shows a deeply polarized review pattern with three 1-star reviews (2021-2021) and three 5-star reviews (2014-2020), suggesting significant operational or service consistency issues. The negative reviews consistently cite deceptive pricing practices (undisclosed drive-time charges, hidden inspection fees, minimum billing rules not explained upfront), poor responsiveness to complaints, and incomplete work. Positive reviews praise responsiveness, technical competence, and fair pricing, but these are older (2014-2020) and may not reflect current operations. Professionalism is severely damaged by documented instances of hanging up on customers and dismissive communication. Project completion is mixed—some jobs completed well, but at least two reviews indicate problems were not fully resolved. Pricing emerges as the most critical weakness, with multiple explicit complaints about non-transparent billing practices.

• RECENCY CONCERN: All three negative reviews are from 2021 (Feb-May), while all positive reviews are from 2014-2020. This suggests a significant deterioration in service quality or business practices over time. Recent reviews should be weighted much more heavily.
• PRICING PATTERN: Three separate reviews (2021-02-04, 2021-04-05, 2021-05-21) independently report hidden or undisclosed charges (inspection fees, drive-time billing, minimum billing rules). This is not isolated complaint but systematic pattern of non-transparent billing.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE FAILURE: Two reviews (2021-02-04, 2021-05-21) document staff hanging up on customers or refusing to address complaints. One review explicitly states owner told customer to 'move on and find someone else' rather than fix incomplete work.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: At least two reviews (2021-04-05, 2021-05-21) indicate the primary problem was not actually resolved and customer had to hire another plumber.
• POTENTIAL FAKE POSITIVE REVIEWS: The three positive reviews lack specificity about pricing details and show generic praise language ('lovely lady,' 'nice guy'). However, they are older and from different time periods, so less likely to be coordinated fakes. Still, the stark contrast with recent negative reviews warrants caution.

This score should be treated with CAUTION due to extreme temporal polarization: recent reviews (2021) are uniformly negative with specific, detailed complaints about billing deception and poor customer service, while older reviews (2014-2020) are uniformly positive. The WW Score of 52.3 reflects current operational reality based on recent evidence, but the company's historical performance appears significantly better. If seeking current service, expect lower quality and pricing transparency issues; if evaluating historical reputation, scores would be substantially higher. The consistent pattern of pricing complaints across multiple independent 2021 reviews is particularly concerning and suggests systemic business practice issues rather than isolated incidents.

Maxwell and Son Plumbing shows significant inconsistency in service quality. While one recent review (Sept 2024) praised stellar work and competency, five of seven reviews document serious failures in professionalism, project completion, and technical expertise. Critical issues include aggressive technician behavior, missed appointments without communication, incomplete work requiring callbacks, and questionable billing practices. Pricing is described as reasonable when work is completed properly, but multiple reviews cite incompetence and unnecessary charges. The company's performance appears to have deteriorated over time, with older reviews (2016–2023) predominantly negative.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2022–2023; only one recent positive review from Sept 2024. Pattern suggests possible recent management changes or inconsistent quality control.
• TECHNICIAN VARIABILITY: Named technicians (Jeff, Matt, Rob) show extreme performance variance—Jeff flagged for aggressive behavior and poor customer relations; Matt for incompetence and parts theft; Rob praised for effort and speed. Suggests inconsistent hiring/training.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reviews document missed appointments, failure to call ahead, outdated website information, and unresponsive emergency lines. Systemic office management issue.
• QUALITY CONTROL RED FLAG: Review from Jan 2023 describes technician entering home without permission and later denying/admitting to taking customer parts. Raises trust and integrity concerns.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Two reviews explicitly state work was incomplete or required callbacks (2023 water heater installation with poor finishing; 2016 original problem not fixed).

This score should be treated with caution due to extreme review polarization and recency concerns; the single recent positive review conflicts sharply with a pattern of documented failures spanning multiple years, suggesting either significant recent changes or inconsistent service delivery that cannot be reliably predicted.