Find Nearby Plumbers In St. Cloud, Florida

All six reviews speak positively to professionalism, particularly responsiveness, punctuality, and communication — the detailed 2006 review about Arthur's persistent follow-up is the strongest individual data point in this dimension. Project completion and experience are supported by four reviews each, with reviewers noting jobs were finished well and that the plumber was knowledgeable and capable. Pricing is entirely absent from all reviews, so no score can be assigned to that dimension. The overall picture is positive but the sample size is very small and two of the six reviews are nearly 18 years old, which significantly limits reliability.

• Only 6 total reviews — sample size is too small to draw strong conclusions about consistent performance.
• Two reviews are from 2006 (approximately 18 years old) and should be weighted minimally; the remaining four are from 2024 and are more relevant.
• Several reviews use similar generic phrasing ('highly recommend', 'responsive', 'knowledgeable') with limited specific detail, which slightly raises concern about review depth, though the 2006 review provides enough specificity to suggest authenticity overall.
• No pricing information is mentioned in any review — this dimension cannot be evaluated at all.
• One review ('They took a lot of pressure off me. I was very happy with him.') is extremely vague and provides almost no usable data beyond general satisfaction.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to a very small review pool of only 6 reviews, two of which are nearly two decades old, and the complete absence of any pricing data.

Rinaldi's presents a deeply split picture across its review history. Recent reviews from 2025 are overwhelmingly positive, praising courteous and knowledgeable technicians, timely arrivals, and thorough explanations — driving professionalism and experience scores upward. However, a significant body of negative reviews spanning 2015–2024 reveals serious and recurring concerns: pricing is the most consistently criticized dimension, with multiple reviewers citing extreme markups on parts (e.g., $270 for a $12–$30 capacitor), quotes double those of competitors, and hidden or misrepresented warranty costs. Project completion is also materially impacted by documented cases of no-shows, missed callbacks, abandoned permits, misdiagnoses leading to unnecessary replacement quotes, and unresolved follow-through failures. The experience dimension is mixed — individual technicians are frequently praised, but systemic diagnostic errors and management-level failures drag the score down considerably.

• RECENCY SPLIT: Reviews from 2025 (approximately 40+ reviews) are almost uniformly 5-star with positive language, while reviews from 2015–2024 contain the majority of detailed negative experiences. This temporal gap may reflect genuine improvement OR a shift in review solicitation practices.
• POSSIBLE REVIEW SOLICITATION PATTERN: The 2025 reviews cluster heavily around the same dates (multiple reviews on 2025-06-02, 2025-06-04, 2025-06-05, 2025-06-07, 2025-06-08) and several are very brief or generic (e.g., 'Great company, great technician.', 'Very professional and explained everything to me.', 'Professional work and very reliable.'). This pattern is consistent with post-service review request campaigns and warrants moderate skepticism.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 5 reviews contained no text and only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• PRICING CONCERNS ARE SEVERE AND RECURRING: At least 10 independent reviewers across multiple years explicitly cited overpricing, hidden fees, misrepresented warranties, or quotes significantly above market rate. This is the most consistently documented negative pattern in the dataset.
• MANAGEMENT CONDUCT FLAGGED: Multiple reviewers (2021, 2020, 2015) specifically cited rude or dismissive behavior from management/service managers, including one reviewer stating the owner hung up on them. This is a notable pattern beyond individual technician performance.
• MISDIAGNOSIS AND UPSELL PATTERN: At least 3 reviews (2024, 2020, 2015) describe technicians recommending expensive repairs or full unit replacements that were contradicted by second opinions from other companies, suggesting a possible systemic upsell issue.
• PERMIT FAILURE: One reviewer (2018) noted Rinaldi's failed to close a permit after installation, creating legal complications at time of home sale — a serious project completion failure.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume (75 reviews), but consumers should weight the negative reviews heavily as they are detailed, specific, and corroborated across multiple independent reviewers — particularly regarding pricing transparency and project follow-through — while treating the recent 2025 positive reviews with moderate caution given their clustering pattern and brevity.

The overwhelming majority of reviews — roughly 85% — are 1-star and describe a deeply dysfunctional company across every dimension. Professionalism is catastrophically low: the owner (JD Harris) is repeatedly described as hanging up on customers, yelling, and being dismissive; office staff are described as rude, sarcastic, and unprofessional; technicians missed appointments repeatedly across dozens of reviews. Pricing is the lowest-scoring dimension, with extensive, specific evidence of massive markups (900% on refrigerant per one reviewer), refusal to provide itemized bills, flat-rate pricing used to obscure costs, and a consistent pattern of recommending unnecessary full-unit replacements to customers who later had minor repairs done for a fraction of the cost. Project completion is nearly as poor, with multiple accounts of failed inspections, improperly installed units, abandoned permits, water damage caused by faulty installs, and units failing within days of installation. Technical experience is also severely questioned, with multiple reviewers reporting wrong diagnoses, undersized units installed, mismatched equipment, and second-opinion technicians finding simple fixes after Promag recommended full replacements. The handful of positive reviews (approximately 8-9 out of 72) are largely generic, brief, and lack the specificity of the negative reviews, raising authenticity concerns.

• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: Several 5-star reviews are extremely brief, generic, and lack any specific detail (e.g., 'Incredible value from great folks! Would highly recommend!' and 'Justine helped with quality answers. Super prompt and punctual.'). One 1-star reviewer explicitly states the company offered a 30% discount on future service in exchange for a positive review, suggesting review manipulation is an active practice.
• LEGAL THREATS TO REVIEWERS: At least one reviewer explicitly states the company sent a legal threat letter attempting to have their negative Google review removed. This is a significant red flag indicating the company actively suppresses legitimate negative feedback.
• PATTERN OF PREDATORY PRICING: Across more than 20 independent reviews spanning 2013–2024, there is a consistent and specific pattern of recommending full unit replacements when minor repairs were needed, with second-opinion companies repeatedly confirming the original diagnosis was false. This is not random error — it appears systemic.
• PERMIT AND INSPECTION FRAUD: Multiple reviewers report that Promag pulled permits but never scheduled inspections, allowed permits to expire, and in at least one documented case, a reviewer states Promag went into the county permit system and canceled a customer-scheduled inspection. This is an extremely serious allegation.
• ELDERLY TARGETING: Multiple reviews specifically describe elderly or vulnerable customers (94-year-old mother, 78-year-old widow, grandmother) being targeted with inflated quotes and high-pressure sales tactics.
• OWNER CONDUCT: The owner JD Harris is named directly in numerous reviews as personally hanging up on customers, yelling, refusing to provide billing breakdowns, and being unreachable for dispute resolution. This is not isolated staff behavior.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews span from 2013 through July 2024, indicating this is not a historical issue — the most recent reviews from 2024 and 2023 continue to describe the same patterns of misconduct. The single positive review from 2024 is brief and generic.
• MEDIA INVESTIGATION: At least one reviewer references a Channel 9 News investigation (Todd Ulrich) and BBB complaints, suggesting external scrutiny of this company's practices.

This WW Score of 18.7 is based on 72 reviews with very HIGH confidence — the volume, specificity, consistency, and multi-year span of negative reviews make this one of the most reliable negative assessments possible, and the score should be taken as a serious warning against engaging this contractor.

The review corpus is overwhelmingly negative, with roughly 26 of 35 reviews awarding 1 star and describing severe, repeated failures across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most-cited dimension and is catastrophically poor: reviewers consistently describe no-shows, extreme lateness without notice, rude and dismissive staff, a verbally abusive owner (Brian), and technicians taking personal calls or using bathrooms without permission. Project completion is nearly as damning, with dozens of accounts of jobs abandoned mid-work, parts never ordered, six-attempt water heater replacements, work left incomplete ahead of a hurricane, and money charged for work never performed. Experience scores marginally higher only because a small cluster of positive reviews (primarily from 2017–2020) describe competent, efficient work — but these are vastly outnumbered by accounts of incompetent diagnosis, wrong tools, snakes left in drains, and problems recurring immediately after service. Pricing receives a moderate score because the handful of positive reviewers praised fair and transparent pricing, though negative reviewers allege charges for work not done, which partially offsets this.

• SEVERE PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT: The overwhelming majority of reviews (26 of 35) are 1-star and describe systemic failures — not isolated incidents. This is not a statistical anomaly but a consistent operational pattern.
• POTENTIAL FRAUD ALLEGATION: Multiple reviewers explicitly allege charging for work not performed, including one detailed account of $165 charged for 're-piping' that was never done and never refunded despite repeated requests.
• OWNER MISCONDUCT: Multiple reviews name the owner 'Brian Ross' directly as rude, dismissive, threatening, and unresponsive. One reviewer describes being called 'sweetie,' told to 'fix her attitude,' and hung up on.
• UNLICENSED TECHNICIAN ALLEGATION: One reviewer states there is no record with the Florida Plumbing Regulatory Board that technician 'Danille Scott' holds a plumbing license.
• GEOGRAPHIC INCONSISTENCY: Several reviews note that the company dispatches technicians hundreds of miles from its base (e.g., Orlando to Pensacola), with no local oversight, which reviewers link directly to accountability failures.
• RECENCY NOTE: The positive reviews are sparse and mostly dated 2018–2020, while the bulk of negative reviews cluster in 2016–2017. The most recent review (2020-12-17) is a 1-star describing the same no-show and communication failure pattern, suggesting problems persisted over years.
• POSSIBLE FAKE OR UNINFORMATIVE REVIEW: One review (2015-06-24) contains only the word 'unknown' with a 5-star rating and was excluded from scoring as it contains no usable data.
• POSITIVE REVIEW ISOLATION: The 7 positive reviews are specific and credible on their own, but they represent a small minority and several reference a single technician ('Dino' or 'Jay') rather than the company broadly, suggesting quality was highly dependent on which individual was dispatched.

This WW Score of 18.7 is based on a large, highly consistent body of evidence across 34 usable reviews and should be considered highly reliable — the data strongly and repeatedly supports a conclusion that this contractor delivers poor service across all measured dimensions.

Both reviews are positive and speak to responsiveness, punctuality, and willingness to go above and beyond — including offering to come in on a day off. Pricing is explicitly mentioned favorably in both reviews, with one reviewer noting the technician sought the least expensive repair solution rather than defaulting to costly parts. Project completion is supported by both reviews, with jobs finished and, in one case, paperwork submitted to the city. Experience is touched on lightly in one review, noting a thoughtful diagnostic approach rather than a quick fix, suggesting solid technical judgment. However, with only two reviews total, none of these scores carry meaningful statistical weight and should be treated as directional indicators only.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback of any kind — while not conclusive, this warrants caution when interpreting scores.
• Review dates are from late 2022, meaning all data is over 12 months old. No recent reviews are available to confirm current service quality.
• One reviewer explicitly states they did not meet the technician in person, limiting the depth of their firsthand assessment.
• Sample size is too small to detect fake review patterns definitively, but the generic praise in Review 1 ('Best company ever') is noted as a minor flag.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both over 12 months old, and should be considered highly preliminary — seek additional recent reviews before making a hiring decision.

Only a single review is available, making any scoring highly unreliable. The one review is strongly negative, describing a technician who lacked the knowledge to diagnose an HVAC problem independently and required the customer to relay a third-party diagnosis before proceeding. The reviewer also alleges the technician filed a fraudulent claim of power surge damage, which directly implicates both professionalism and project completion. The job was not completed satisfactorily — the underlying issue was not resolved through this contractor — and the technical competence displayed was described as severely lacking. No pricing information was mentioned in the review.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Serious allegation of fraudulent reporting: reviewer claims the technician falsely documented a 'power surge' as the cause of damage, potentially to deny a warranty claim.
• Technician appears to have been dispatched outside their area of expertise (HVAC/furnace work), raising concerns about contractor vetting and scope of competency.
• Single review provides insufficient data to assess pricing dimension at all.
• With only one review, all dimension scores carry very low statistical weight and should not be used as a reliable indicator of overall contractor quality.

This score report is based on a single 1-star review and should be considered highly unreliable — no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's overall quality can be drawn until substantially more reviews are available.