Find Nearby Plumbers In Sanford, Florida

R&H Plumbing has a strong track record of punctuality, responsiveness, and professional demeanor, with many reviewers across multiple years praising on-time arrivals, courteous communication, and organized work practices. However, the professionalism score is meaningfully dragged down by two notable negative reviews: one describing a no-show and a hang-up (2023), and another describing a plumber who forgot parts and caused a wasted hour (2011). Pricing is the weakest dimension — multiple reviewers explicitly called the company 'pricey' or 'not the cheapest,' and one review alleged a significantly inflated repair estimate alongside overpriced parts, which is a serious concern. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs described as finished correctly and on time, but the 2015 boiler review (incomplete service despite payment) and the 2013 drain hose review (problem not resolved) introduce meaningful doubt. Experience scores moderately well, with several reviewers praising quality workmanship and technical thoroughness, but the boiler review raises a red flag about diagnostic honesty and completeness of service.

• Two reviews contain only 'unknown' as text (2015-06-30 and 2014-05-31) — these provide no usable data and were excluded from scoring.
• Several reviews contain only generic phrases ('It went fine.', 'Very well.', 'I was very happy over all.', 'I said all this in the section above.') with no specific detail — these were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no actionable evidence.
• The majority of reviews (approximately 20 of 26) are older than 1 year, and most are significantly older (2006–2015). Only 3 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024). Recency weighting was applied: the 2024 reviews carry more interpretive weight, but the volume of recent data is thin.
• The 2023 negative review (no-show, hang-up) is the most recent negative signal and is particularly concerning as it suggests possible decline in service quality in recent years.
• The 2015 boiler review is detailed and credible — it alleges incomplete service delivery despite payment and a potentially inflated repair estimate. This is a significant quality and ethics concern that warrants attention.
• No strong fake review patterns detected, though several older 5-star reviews are suspiciously vague and content-free. These were excluded from scoring rather than penalized.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high structural reliability due to sufficient mention counts across all four dimensions, but the trustworthiness of the score as a current performance indicator is limited by the fact that only 3 of 26 reviews are from the past 12 months, and the most recent negative review (2023) suggests potential service quality issues that the older positive reviews cannot offset.

In Control Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews. While 9 reviews praise Chris Roney's professionalism, responsiveness, and technical skill, 5 reviews document serious failures: no-shows without communication, refusal to complete work, alleged misdiagnosis, and potential scamming behavior (charging $275 for a $29 cartridge replacement). Professionalism scores are dragged down by communication failures and unprofessional conduct in multiple instances. Project completion is compromised by documented abandoned work and incomplete diagnostics. Pricing appears reasonable in positive reviews but one detailed review alleges significant overcharging and deceptive practices. The company demonstrates capability but reliability is questionable.

• CRITICAL: Multiple serious allegations including no-show appointments without communication (2022-04-06), refusal to complete work citing safety concerns (2023-02-15), incomplete diagnostics (2021-12-17), and alleged scamming/overcharging (2022-01-10). The detailed 2022-01-10 review provides specific technical evidence that the plumber may have misrepresented job complexity to justify inflated pricing.
• Recency concern: Most negative reviews are from 2021-2023, while most positive reviews are from 2017-2020 and 2024. This suggests either recent deterioration in service quality or a shift in business practices.
• Pattern of home warranty assignments: Multiple reviews mention home warranty company assignments. Negative reviews include allegations that the plumber may have deliberately underperformed or misrepresented findings to warranty companies.
• Inconsistent communication: Positive reviews highlight excellent responsiveness; negative reviews document complete communication failures (no-shows, no callbacks, no reschedule offers).
• No fake review indicators detected, but the stark polarity (9 five-star vs. 5 one-star with no middle ground) is notable and suggests genuinely polarized customer experiences rather than fabrication.

This WW Score should be treated with caution. While the MODERATE overall confidence reflects adequate mention counts, the extreme polarization of reviews (5 serious failures vs. 9 strong endorsements) indicates this contractor's performance is highly inconsistent and context-dependent. The detailed allegations of misdiagnosis, overcharging, and poor communication in recent reviews are particularly concerning and warrant independent verification before hiring.

All four reviews speak positively about Dennis and the Millenia team, with professionalism being the most consistently mentioned dimension across every review — customers highlight his helpfulness, patience, promptness, and willingness to go above and beyond even outside warranty periods. Pricing is mentioned favorably in two reviews, with customers noting competitive rates and reasonable prices, though this is a limited data point. Project completion is inferred from two reviews where Dennis followed through on post-sale service and fixture checks on his own time, suggesting strong follow-through, but explicit job-completion language is sparse. Experience and product knowledge are noted in two reviews, particularly around fixture selection and knowledgeable guidance. The overall picture is positive but the review base is very small and all reviews are more than five years old, which significantly limits reliability.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score cannot be considered statistically reliable.
• All reviews are dated between 2016 and 2019 — none are within the past 12 months. Business performance may have changed significantly since these reviews were written.
• Reviews are uniformly positive with no critical feedback, which may reflect selection bias or a small, self-selected reviewer pool rather than a comprehensive picture of service quality.
• Two reviews (2019-04-30 and 2019-03-19) are very brief and generic in their praise with minimal specifics, which slightly raises a low-level concern about authenticity, though not enough to flag as definitively fake.

This WW Score should be treated with low confidence due to the very small review sample (4 reviews) and the fact that all reviews are over 5 years old, making them a poor indicator of current service quality.

Three of the four reviews contain usable detail, with professionalism being the most consistently mentioned dimension — reviewers noted punctuality, politeness, and personable behavior across multiple reviews. Pricing received only one explicit mention but was described positively as excellent value inclusive of parts and labor. Project completion is supported by two reviews indicating satisfactory finished work, though one review noted the customer was still awaiting an estimate, suggesting an incomplete engagement at time of writing. Experience was referenced in two reviews with comments about knowledgeability and efficiency, yielding a conservative but positive score.

• All reviews are significantly outdated — the most recent is from December 2014, over 10 years ago. These scores should not be treated as reflective of current service quality.
• One review has no text (listed as 'unknown') and could not be scored on any dimension.
• One review (July 2012) describes an incomplete service interaction — the customer was still waiting on an estimate — which limits its usefulness for project completion scoring.
• Sample size is very small (4 reviews total, 3 usable). The WW Score carries very low statistical reliability.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback. While the reviews do contain some specific detail, the uniformly perfect ratings across a small sample warrants mild fake review awareness caution.

This WW Score should be treated with very low confidence due to the extremely small review sample, the complete absence of reviews from the past decade, and the uniformly perfect ratings — it is not a reliable indicator of current contractor performance.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across dimensions. Technical experience and workmanship are strong (82/100), with multiple reviews praising skill and problem-solving. Project completion is solid (75/100), though some callbacks and follow-up issues are noted. However, professionalism is severely compromised (62/100) by multiple reports of rude, overbearing behavior from the owner, particularly in customer interactions and communication. Pricing integrity is the weakest dimension (45/100), with documented instances of bait-and-switch pricing, unexplained charges, and billing disputes. The company demonstrates competent technical work undermined by poor customer service and questionable business practices.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2020, 2019, 2009) describe the owner as rude, overbearing, disrespectful, and dismissive of customer questions. This is a pattern, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Review from 2015 documents systematic billing issues—quoted $75/hour then charged $85/hour, discrepancies between stated and actual time on-site, parts disputes, and delayed pricing disclosure. Review from 2019 alleges overcharging ($600+) and unnecessary work (pipes replaced when issue was water heater).
• SAFETY INCIDENT: Review from 2020 reports electrical fire in water heater after company service. Review from 2013 mentions ozone smell and electrical hazard traced to hot water heater work.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews are from 2006–2013 (10+ years old). Most negative reviews are from 2013–2020 (more recent). Recent reviews (2021) are positive but generic and lack detail.
• DATA QUALITY: Three reviews contain only punctuation or 'unknown' (2015, 2015, 2014)—minimal usable information. One 5-star review from 2021 is extremely brief ('Super friendly, prompt service') with no specifics.
• INCONSISTENCY: Same company receives both 5-star reviews praising the owner's professionalism and 1-star reviews describing the owner as a 'monster.' This suggests either significant service variation or potential fake reviews masking real problems.

This score should be treated with caution. While technical competence appears genuine (supported by 9 mentions across multiple years), the professionalism and pricing dimensions are heavily compromised by credible, detailed negative reviews describing owner misconduct and billing disputes. The recency of negative reviews (2013–2020) versus older positive reviews, combined with documented safety and billing concerns, suggests the company's reliability has declined. A score of 68.2 reflects real technical capability undermined by serious customer service and ethical concerns. Prospective customers should prioritize the documented professionalism and pricing issues over the older positive reviews.

This contractor shows severe inconsistency across reviews. Two early 5-star reviews praise quick service, fair pricing, and professionalism. However, a detailed 1-star review from May 2020 documents critical failures in project completion: promised drywall patching was never delivered, damage caused by plumbers went unrepaired, follow-up commitments were broken, and the company allegedly changed their story after payment. The professionalism score reflects mixed communication and responsiveness. Pricing appears fair but cannot offset the fundamental breach of contract and abandoned work documented in the negative review.

• CRITICAL: Severe contradiction between positive and negative reviews suggests inconsistent service quality or potential service delivery issues.
• RECENCY CONCERN: All reviews are from 2020 (3+ years old). No recent data available to assess current performance or whether issues have been resolved.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: The May 2020 review documents explicit non-completion of promised work (drywall patching), unrepaired damage, and broken follow-up commitments. This is a serious contractual failure.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: The negative review indicates the company changed their story post-payment regarding drywall work, suggesting dishonesty or poor internal communication.
• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews total limits confidence in any score. The single negative review carries disproportionate weight due to its specificity and severity.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited review volume, significant age of all reviews, and a critical contradiction between positive and negative experiences that suggests either inconsistent service delivery or unresolved systemic issues. The documented project completion failure in the 1-star review is particularly concerning and warrants direct verification before engaging this contractor.