Find Nearby Plumbers In Sarasota, Florida

This contractor has a mixed record across only 3 reviews, making any conclusions highly tentative. Two positive reviews highlight punctuality, pleasant demeanor, and successful job completion, while one strongly negative review alleges a significant price discrepancy between the phone quote ($175) and the on-site quote ($300+), which is a serious red flag for pricing transparency. The pricing dimension is notably dragged down by this complaint, which describes behavior consistent with bait-and-switch tactics. Project completion and experience scores are modestly positive but rest on very thin evidence. Overall, the score reflects genuine uncertainty rather than confidence in either direction.

• PRICING CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly alleges a bait-and-switch pricing practice — quoted $175 by phone, then told $300+ on arrival. This is a serious trust and transparency issue that significantly lowers the pricing score.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 3 reviews total. The WW Score is statistically unreliable at this sample size and should be treated with extreme caution.
• RECENCY NOTE: One review is from 2021 (over 3 years old) and was given reduced weight. The two more recent reviews (2023 and 2024) conflict directly with each other, making trend assessment impossible.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews differ in tone, detail level, and rating, suggesting they are likely authentic.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 3 years and should not be considered reliable — a minimum of 8–10 reviews would be needed to draw meaningful conclusions about this contractor.

Bill the Plumber receives sharply polarized feedback across its review history. Professionalism scores moderately — many individual technicians (Bobby, Paul, George, Matt, Russell, Steve, Bob) are praised as courteous, prompt, and knowledgeable, but this is significantly offset by multiple credible reports of rude phone staff, a technician who hung up on a customer, and high-pressure sales tactics during service visits. Pricing is the single most damaging dimension: an overwhelming volume of reviews — spanning nearly a decade — describe quotes that are two to five times higher than competitors for identical jobs, a non-transparent flat-rate model, refusal to itemize costs, and a service-call fee that customers feel is used to extract money even when no work is performed. Project completion scores positively where work was actually carried out, with several reviews noting jobs done correctly, warranty work honored, and callbacks addressed, though at least two reviews describe faulty workmanship requiring a second company to correct. Experience is generally adequate based on reviewer descriptions of technicians diagnosing and resolving issues, but is undermined by instances where techs failed to identify simple problems that customers later fixed themselves.

• Numerous blank or near-blank reviews (rating only, no text) were excluded from dimension scoring — 7 such reviews detected across multiple years.
• Pricing complaints are extraordinarily consistent across a 10+ year span (2014–2025), strongly suggesting a systemic business practice of premium/inflated flat-rate pricing rather than isolated incidents.
• Several positive reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Great service, I use them all the time,' 'Thank you Matt. Your service was great') with no specifics — these were given reduced weight in scoring.
• One review (dated 2023-06-10) references a call date of 6/4/24, suggesting a possible date mismatch or data entry error — treated as a 2023 review.
• The volume and specificity of negative pricing reviews (exact dollar amounts cited, competitor comparisons provided) lend them high credibility and they were weighted accordingly.
• Multiple reviews reference the same office staff member (Eva) positively, and the same technicians (Bobby, Paul, Russell, George) positively — this is consistent with a real business pattern, not fake review behavior.
• At least two reviews describe work that had to be corrected by another company, which negatively impacts both project completion and experience scores.
• Recency note: The majority of reviews with substantive content span 2014–2025. Pricing complaints are present in both older and recent reviews, indicating the issue has not been resolved over time. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) still include significant pricing complaints alongside positive service mentions.

This WW Score is based on a large, multi-year review set with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable — however, the extreme and consistent divergence between service quality praise and pricing complaints means the score accurately reflects a contractor that delivers competent work but at costs that a substantial majority of reviewers consider excessive or deceptive.

This is a franchise brand with hundreds of locations, and the review pool reflects wildly inconsistent quality across different operators and technicians. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a large volume of reviews describing rude, condescending, or outright hostile technicians and office staff, though many positive reviews praise specific named technicians as courteous and professional. Pricing is the most damaging dimension: an enormous number of reviews describe a bait-and-switch pattern where a low advertised rate (often $49) is used to gain entry, followed by aggressive upselling to hydro-jetting, camera inspections, and pipe replacement at prices reviewers consistently describe as two to ten times market rate. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are completed satisfactorily and quickly, but a significant minority of reviews describe incomplete work, warranty refusals, no-shows, and jobs that required a second company to actually fix the problem. Experience scores reflect genuine skill from certain technicians but are undermined by repeated accounts of misdiagnosis, fabricated damage, and work that failed within days or weeks.

• STRONG BAIT-AND-SWITCH PATTERN DETECTED: Dozens of independent reviews across multiple years and locations describe an identical pattern — low advertised price ($49 drain special) used to gain entry, followed by claims the snake cannot work and escalating upsells to hydro-jetting ($500-$1200), camera inspection, and full pipe replacement ($3,000-$15,000+). This is a systemic business practice, not isolated incidents.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE SIDE: A notable cluster of short, generic 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'Good experience', 'Great service!', 'You guys great!', blank text with 5 stars) appear throughout the dataset, many dated in close proximity. These lack specificity and are consistent with review padding. Confidence in the positive score pool is reduced accordingly.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact duplicates submitted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., identical text for 'Many other contractors proposed to snake the sewer line', 'Very Pleased with results', 'Did a great job excellent work', 'Prompt, polite, professional', etc.). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate manipulation.
• MULTI-LOCATION FRANCHISE ISSUE: Reviews clearly reference dozens of different geographic locations (Sacramento, Orange County, Reno, Framingham MA, Spartanburg SC, Baton Rouge, etc.) and different named technicians. This is not a single contractor — it is a franchise brand. Scores reflect the aggregate brand, not any single operator. Individual location quality varies enormously.
• SERIOUS FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews allege criminal-level conduct including: charging for work not performed, fabricating damage on camera footage, partnering with restoration companies (Bolmer Restoration named repeatedly) to generate fraudulent insurance claims, opening credit cards in customers' names, placing mechanics liens on homes, and targeting elderly and vulnerable customers. One review references a revoked NV business license and cancelled contractor license.
• WARRANTY REFUSAL PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe the company refusing to honor stated warranties when problems recurred within the warranty period, often citing new reasons to charge again.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURE PATTERN: A significant number of reviews describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and calls were not returned, sometimes leaving customers without water or sewage service for days.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review dataset spans from approximately 2010 to June 2025. Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show a continued mix of strong positives for specific named technicians and serious negatives for pricing and scam-like upselling, suggesting the pattern has not materially changed. More recent reviews were weighted slightly higher in scoring.

This WW Score of 58.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-LOW trust as a hiring signal: while it accurately reflects the deeply polarized nature of this franchise brand, the score is based on a mixed pool that includes suspected fake positive reviews, duplicate submissions, and reviews from dozens of geographically distinct franchise locations — meaning the score does not reliably predict the quality of any single local operator, and the systemic pricing and upselling complaints documented across hundreds of independent reviews represent a material risk that any prospective customer should investigate carefully before engaging this company.

Prestia Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by three separate reviews describing Giuseppe yelling at customers and refusing to address complaints, which directly contradicts the positive reviews praising his promptness and courteous manner. Project completion is the most concerning dimension: at least three reviews explicitly describe work failing within days to two weeks of completion, with the contractor refusing callbacks or demanding additional payment — a serious pattern of non-completion and failure to honor work. Pricing is generally viewed favorably by satisfied customers, though one reviewer noted high hourly rates and limited supplier inventory. Experience scores are undermined by documented instances of improper workmanship (impeller not tightened, drain not properly cleared) that contradict the positive impressions left by other customers.

• RECURRING PATTERN — FAILED WORK AND REFUSED CALLBACKS: Three independent reviews (2019-04-08, 2019-04-09, 2019-10-09) describe the same pattern: work failing within days to two weeks, followed by Giuseppe refusing to honor the work and reportedly becoming verbally aggressive. This is a significant reliability concern.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The three most recent reviews with usable data (2023 and 2024) are all 5-star and contain no negative detail. The cluster of 1-star reviews is concentrated in 2019. It is unclear whether service quality has genuinely improved or whether negative experiences are underrepresented in recent submissions.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: The 1-star reviewer from 2019-04-09 explicitly states a belief that positive reviews are from friends and family. While this cannot be confirmed, the contrast between glowing generic praise in some 5-star reviews and the specific, detailed complaints in 1-star reviews warrants caution.
• VERY OLD REVIEWS: Two reviews date from 2012 and 2013, which are over 10 years old. These were included in scoring but carry minimal relevance to current service quality.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: With only 10 total reviews spanning over a decade, the dataset is thin. Scores should be interpreted cautiously.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a small review pool spanning 12 years, a documented and repeated pattern of failed work and hostile customer interactions, and uncertainty about whether recent 5-star reviews reflect genuine improvement or selection bias.

Crown Bath receives strong praise for individual technicians — Eric, Scott, and Seth are each described as knowledgeable, friendly, and producing high-quality refinishing results. However, the company is significantly dragged down by serious operational failures: last-minute cancellations, unresponsive communication, and two documented cases where the owner (Don) explicitly abandoned or refused to complete jobs after work had begun or funds were collected. Professionalism scores are split sharply between glowing technician-level praise and deeply negative experiences with office staff and company leadership. Project completion is the most damaging dimension, with multiple reviews describing incomplete work, ignored callbacks, and a president who formally closed out jobs mid-dispute. Pricing received a limited-confidence penalty score due to one review describing an unexpected $225 labor charge added after an incomplete repair.

• Three of the four 5-star reviews mention specific technician names (Eric, Scott, Seth) with detailed praise — this is a positive authenticity signal and reduces fake review concern for those entries.
• Two reviews (2018 and 2017) describe the owner Don Potocki by name abandoning jobs — these are serious, specific, and credible complaints that carry significant weight.
• The 1-star review from 2023-09-26 is brief and lacks specifics, but is consistent with the communication and scheduling complaints seen in older reviews.
• Several positive reviews are older than 12 months (2022, 2018) and one dates to 2018 — recency weighting reduces confidence in the positive trend. Only two reviews are from 2024.
• The most recent reviews (2024) are positive, but the sample size is too small to confirm a reliable improvement in company operations.
• The abandoned-job complaint from 2018-11-28 has a suspicious timestamp (04:10:00 AM) but the content is detailed and credible — no deduction applied.
• Overall review volume is very low (8 reviews). Scores should be treated with caution and re-evaluated as more reviews are collected.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a small review pool of only 8 reviews spanning 7+ years, a sharp split between excellent technician-level performance and serious company-level failures in communication and project completion, and limited recency of positive reviews.

Jason's Plumbing shows a deeply polarized review pattern with stark contrasts between positive and negative experiences. Positive reviews (2019, 2018, 2016) praise professionalism, fair pricing, quick response, and honorable conduct, including one instance where Jason refused payment when unable to complete work. However, negative reviews reveal serious concerns: billing disputes with alleged double-charging and home liens (2017), incomplete repairs that worsened problems (2014), lack of licensing claims, poor follow-up on receipts (2019), and overpricing for simple jobs (2018). The pricing dimension is particularly problematic, with evidence of both "very reasonable" rates and charges of $600 for 2 hours of work or $6,000 for a single bathroom repair. Project completion shows mixed results with some jobs completed satisfactorily but others abandoned or made worse. The WW Score of 58.3 reflects this volatility and the serious red flags present in the review history.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews allege serious legal/financial misconduct including home liens, foreclosure threats, and alleged double-billing (2017 review). This is a major red flag requiring verification.
• CRITICAL: Review from 2014 alleges company is not licensed and failed to fix problem, making it worse. Licensing status should be independently verified.
• SEVERE PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Reviews describe both 'very reasonable pricing' and egregious overcharging ($600 for 2 hours, $6,000 for bathroom repair). This suggests either highly variable pricing practices or potential predatory billing.
• FOLLOW-UP ISSUES: 2019 review reports months-long failure to provide receipt despite multiple calls, indicating poor administrative professionalism.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2014-2017 (older than 5 years). However, a 2019 negative review about receipt issues suggests ongoing problems. Most recent positive review is 2019.
• PATTERN ALERT: The stark 5-star vs 1-star polarization with no middle-ground reviews is unusual and warrants caution. However, the negative reviews contain specific, detailed allegations (lien, foreclosure, licensing, double-billing) that appear credible rather than generic complaints.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on adequate mention counts, the extreme polarization between reviews, serious allegations of legal misconduct and unlicensed work, and significant pricing inconsistencies suggest this contractor carries substantial risk. Independent verification of licensing status and legal history is strongly recommended before engaging services.