Find Nearby Plumbers In St. Petersburg, Florida

LaPensee Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across all dimensions. While field technicians frequently receive praise for skill and professionalism (72 experience score), systemic issues plague the company: poor communication and responsiveness (68 professionalism), incomplete project follow-through with multiple callbacks required (59 project completion), and aggressive pricing practices with hidden charges and billing disputes (58 pricing). Recent reviews (2024-2025) reveal worsening trends in customer service responsiveness and accountability. The company appears to have deteriorated since its earlier reputation, with multiple long-term customers explicitly stating they have switched providers.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews cluster in 2024-2025 (May-June 2024 particularly dense), suggesting recent operational decline or service quality degradation
• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews cite identical issues—lack of callback/follow-up, miscommunication, billing disputes, and incomplete repairs requiring multiple visits. This is not isolated but systemic.
• BILLING DISPUTES: Recurring complaints about overcharging, hidden fees, incorrect diagnoses leading to unnecessary work, and refusal to adjust bills despite acknowledged errors. At least 12 reviews explicitly mention billing problems.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: At least 15 reviews cite unanswered calls, voicemails, emails, and lack of follow-up. This appears to be a chronic office management issue.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Multiple reviews report jobs requiring 2-3 technician visits to fix initial mistakes, with customers charged separately each time.
• CUSTOMER RETENTION: Multiple long-term customers (10-20+ years) explicitly state they have terminated service due to recent decline in quality and professionalism.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - LIMITED: Several reviews contain only ratings with no text (5 instances) or single-word/generic praise ('unknown'). However, the volume of detailed negative reviews with specific dates, names, and circumstances suggests authentic complaints outweigh any suspicious patterns.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Field technician quality varies dramatically ('depends on who you get'). Some techs praised as excellent; others criticized as rude, unprofessional, or incompetent.

This WW Score of 62.8 is highly reliable (HIGH confidence) based on 115 usable reviews spanning 15+ years. However, the score masks a critical trend: the company has deteriorated significantly in the past 12 months. Recent reviews (2024-2025) are predominantly negative (1-2 stars), while older reviews (2014-2020) are predominantly positive (5 stars). Current customers should expect inconsistent service quality, communication failures, billing disputes, and incomplete work requiring multiple callbacks. The company's reputation for being 'expensive' is compounded by evidence of overcharging and billing practices customers perceive as predatory.

Rob's Plumbing presents a deeply divided picture across a large review set spanning roughly 20 years. Positive reviewers consistently praise fast response times, fair and affordable pricing, and competent workmanship on straightforward jobs — these strengths are genuine and well-documented. However, a substantial and recurring pattern of negative reviews describes serious failures: abandoned jobs, no-shows without communication, incomplete work, rude and threatening behavior toward customers who leave bad reviews, and in several cases alleged use of substandard materials or work not up to code. Professionalism and project completion scores are significantly dragged down by the volume and specificity of these negative accounts, which are too detailed and consistent to dismiss. Pricing scores remain relatively higher because even many dissatisfied customers acknowledged fair initial quotes, though hidden charges and doubled prices were flagged in at least two reviews.

• REPEATED PATTERN — Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe the same behavior: Rob becomes unresponsive after partial payment, abandons jobs, and does not return calls or texts. This is a systemic reliability concern, not isolated incidents.
• ALLEGED REVIEW HARASSMENT — At least 4 reviewers explicitly state they were threatened, harassed via private messages, or received threatening phone calls after leaving negative reviews. One reviewer documented threats to have their home inspected. This is a serious ethical and legal concern.
• ALLEGED LICENSE/CODE VIOLATIONS — One reviewer (2020) claims Rob has an expired license. A separate reviewer (2019) states a completed job was not up to code and would fail a home inspection. These are unverified but serious allegations.
• ALLEGED INSTALLATION OF USED/BROKEN PARTS — One reviewer (2016) claims Rob installed broken, used valves after being paid for new Moen valves purchased at Home Depot, resulting in $3,000 in remediation costs.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN — Multiple reviews across 2014, 2015, 2019, 2022, and 2023 describe Rob starting jobs, collecting partial or full payment, and never returning to complete the work.
• RECENCY NOTE — The most recent reviews (2022–2024) include both positive and negative experiences, indicating the problematic behaviors have not been resolved over time. Negative patterns persist into the most recent 12-month window.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW CONCERN — A small number of very early reviews (2005, 2011, 2012) and some generic 5-star reviews contain minimal specifics and unusually enthusiastic language. These were included but weighted conservatively.
• ONE REVIEW FLAGGED AS UNUSABLE — The review dated 2014-07-15 contains only the word 'unknown' with a 5-star rating and was excluded from scoring as it contains no usable data.
• THIRD-PARTY WORKER ISSUES — At least two reviews reference a partner or employee of Rob performing substandard work (metal clamp and tape on copper pipe instead of replacement; unknown Hispanic worker with unclear pricing authority), suggesting quality control issues beyond Rob himself.

This WW Score is based on 71 usable reviews spanning approximately 20 years and carries HIGH statistical confidence in terms of sample size, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the documented pattern of job abandonment, alleged customer harassment, and potential licensing concerns — the 62.4 score likely reflects a contractor suitable only for simple, single-visit jobs where payment is withheld until full completion.

Badger Bob's presents a deeply split picture: a large volume of recent 5-star reviews praise individual technicians as courteous, knowledgeable, and professional, which elevates the professionalism and experience scores. However, a substantial body of detailed negative reviews — spanning multiple years — documents serious recurring failures including misdiagnosis, incomplete repairs requiring multiple return visits, abandoned jobs, and outright rude behavior from some technicians and managers. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with numerous credible complaints about bait-and-switch tactics, undisclosed fees, excessive charges for minimal work, and lack of pricing transparency. Project completion is also significantly undermined by documented cases of work left unfinished, repeat failures after repair, and scheduling cancellations. The overall WW Score of 62.1 reflects a company with genuine service capability but systemic quality-control and pricing integrity problems.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW FLAG: A full set of reviews dated 2025-06-09 appears to be an exact duplicate of reviews dated 2025-06-06 through 2025-06-08, with identical text, ratings, and reviewer content. This strongly suggests review manipulation or a data ingestion error. Duplicate entries were identified and counted only once per unique review text to avoid score inflation.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: A significant number of 5-star reviews are extremely brief, generic, or blank (e.g., 'Good', 'Outstanding!', 'Great job Jess Thank You', multiple reviews with no text at all). These provide no verifiable detail and may represent solicited or incentivized reviews. Confidence in the positive signal is reduced accordingly.
• BAIT-AND-SWITCH PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2015, 2016, 2018, 2020, 2022, 2024) describe an identical pattern of a low quoted price followed by a dramatically higher charge upon arrival, particularly in higher-value homes. This is a systemic pricing integrity concern, not isolated incidents.
• REPEAT REPAIR FAILURE PATTERN: Multiple reviews document the same issue recurring shortly after a paid repair, with the company refusing to honor the work or charging again. Examples include sewer backup recurrence, AC refrigerant leak post-maintenance, and mini-split failures across multiple technician visits.
• SCHEDULING AND COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Several detailed reviews cite appointment cancellations, no-shows, unreturned calls over days or weeks, and emergency service failures. This is a recurring operational issue documented across multiple years.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (May–June 2025) are predominantly positive and brief. The most detailed and damaging reviews span 2018–2024. It is unclear whether service quality has genuinely improved or whether recent positive reviews are disproportionately solicited.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED FROM SCORING: Approximately 20+ reviews contained no text whatsoever. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.

This WW Score is based on a high volume of reviews and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy, but consumers should weigh the documented systemic pricing and project-completion complaints heavily, as these represent credible, detailed, and repeated patterns rather than isolated incidents.

Next Level Plumbing presents a deeply polarized review profile. A substantial portion of positive reviews praise individual technicians — particularly Matthew, Evan, Ethan, Michael, and Byron — for punctuality, friendliness, and competence, which lifts professionalism and experience scores. However, a significant and detailed cluster of 1-star reviews describes serious failures: abandoned jobs, no-call/no-shows, unresolved leaks after multiple visits, poor communication, and in several cases allegations of fraudulent billing and check re-cashing. Pricing is a consistent pain point across both positive and negative reviewers, with multiple customers citing sticker shock, price gouging, and charges far exceeding market rates for simple repairs. Project completion is heavily penalized by numerous accounts of work left incomplete, problems made worse, and technicians failing to return as promised.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: A notable number of reviews consist solely of emoji, single words ('good', 'Awesome'), or blank text with 5-star ratings — these provide no usable data and inflate the apparent star average without substantive evidence.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly alleges that positive reviews are fake and originate from California and Arizona, which is consistent with the geographic pattern of some generic 5-star reviews that lack any specific detail about the job, technician, or location.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The 1-star review alleging the owner cashed the same check twice (owner is a thief) appears verbatim twice in the dataset — once dated 2024-06-09 and once dated 2024-05-31. This was counted once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The detailed 1-star AHS review about a still-active leak and cash payment appears verbatim twice — dated 2024-06-09 and 2024-05-20. Counted once for scoring purposes.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS: Multiple independent reviewers allege the company abandoned jobs mid-repair, left homes with sewage flooding, refused refunds, encouraged cash payments to avoid credit card disputes, and in one case the owner is accused of re-cashing a previously cashed check.
• HOME WARRANTY PATTERN: A disproportionate share of negative reviews involve customers assigned through home warranty companies (AHS, First American, HSA, Old Republic). This may indicate the company performs differently for warranty-assigned vs. direct customers, or that warranty work creates systemic communication and billing conflicts.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive with named technicians and specific details, suggesting possible improvement in service quality or a shift in the customer base being served. However, the volume of detailed negative reviews from 2023-2024 is too significant to discount.
• WIDE DATE RANGE: Reviews span from 2012 to 2025. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) were given reduced weight as they may not reflect current operations. The business appears to have changed significantly over time.
• ONE REVIEW APPEARS UNRELATED: One review mentions 'Optimal plumbing' and states it was not Next Level Plumbing — this review was excluded from scoring as it likely belongs to a different company.

This WW Score of 62.1 is based on a large review set and carries HIGH data confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the extreme bimodal distribution — the company has genuinely excellent individual technicians alongside documented patterns of abandoned work, billing disputes, and communication failures that represent serious risk to prospective customers.

R&R Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most contested dimension: multiple positive reviews praise promptness, courtesy, and honest phone advice, while several negative reviews describe rude phone interactions, a plumber who talked excessively on the customer's dime, an unanswered emergency callback, and a dismissive owner who refused to address billing disputes. Pricing similarly divides reviewers — several customers highlight fair and transparent quotes, while others report being charged significantly more than quoted, billed for unnecessary work, or charged for time wasted by the plumber's own behavior. Project completion is a significant concern: multiple reviews describe work that was not completed properly, required redo, or was left in worse condition than before, including a gas leak attributed to poor workmanship and a dishwasher installation left incomplete. On the experience side, long-term customers and several detailed positive reviews credit Ron and the team with deep technical knowledge, particularly around boilers, steam heat, and hard-to-find parts, but negative reviews describe failed joints requiring redo, incorrect diagnoses, and a gas conversion that caused ongoing problems. The score reflects a contractor with genuine expertise and loyal long-term customers, offset by a consistent pattern of serious service failures documented across multiple years.

• Several reviews are blank (no text, only a rating) — 7 reviews contained no usable textual data and were excluded from dimension scoring. These blank 4- and 5-star entries may inflate the perceived rating average.
• One review (dated 2018-05-01) aggregates multiple third-party reviews from other platforms (MassLive, CitySquares, Yahoo Local, Citysearch) written as far back as 2008 and 2012. These embedded reviews were treated as a single negative data point rather than multiple independent reviews to avoid double-counting.
• One review references 'food speaks for itself' (2020), which appears to be a misplaced review for a food establishment and was excluded from scoring as irrelevant.
• A notable cluster of generic 5-star reviews with no substantive detail (e.g., 'Best plumbing company in Manchester', 'Best in Manchester if you have plumbing or Steam Heat Repairs', 'Great advice affordable') raises mild concern about authenticity. These were included but weighted conservatively given their lack of specificity.
• Review dates span from 2010 to 2025. A significant portion of negative reviews are from 2013–2019, while more recent reviews (2024–2025) trend more positive. However, the 2022 negative review about an unresolved hot water issue and the 2023 negative review about a rude phone interaction indicate professionalism concerns persist into recent years.
• The most recent reviews (2024–2025) are generally positive but lack detail, limiting confidence in a genuine improvement trend.
• Billing disputes and charges exceeding quoted prices appear in at least 3 independent reviews across different years, suggesting a systemic pattern rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score is based on 37 reviews with usable content spanning 15 years and carries HIGH overall confidence in terms of data volume, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the persistent pattern of serious complaints about billing accuracy, incomplete work, and unprofessional communication that recurs across multiple independent reviewers and time periods.

Plumbing by Paul presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. On the positive side, many reviews from 2019–2024 praise individual technicians (Tyler, Jay, Kyle, JR, Ernie, Austin) for being personable, punctual, communicative, and technically competent, and several customers cite reasonable pricing and same-day responsiveness. However, a significant cluster of 1-star reviews — spanning 2021 through 2024 — describes serious failures: unauthorized work billed without consent, drain lines installed with no pitch, a cleanout left improperly installed with a hole in a client's floor, repeated missed appointments, unanswered calls and emails, and office staff accused of dishonesty and poor follow-through. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with multiple reviews describing jobs left unfinished, return visits that failed to resolve issues, and in one case a full bathroom renovation that required complete replumbing within a year. The company's trajectory appears to have declined noticeably from its earlier reputation, with the most severe complaints concentrated in 2021–2024.

• Multiple 1-star reviews describe serious ethical and workmanship failures: unauthorized work billed to clients, drain lines installed without pitch, improperly installed cleanouts, and a bathroom renovation requiring full replumbing within one year.
• Several reviews explicitly describe the company ignoring calls, emails, and requests for owner contact over extended periods (days to weeks), suggesting a systemic customer service breakdown.
• One review (2022-09-01) raises a health and safety concern: a technician confirmed sewer gas presence on camera, but the company later denied it and refused to discuss the matter, which is a serious red flag.
• A realtor review (2022-06-09) describes three failed service visits, a missed appointment with office staff providing false ETAs via text, and a suspected unnecessary repipe recommendation — later disproven by a third-party camera inspection.
• One review (2023-03-09) describes a technician raising the price mid-job and then fleeing after payment, with management refusing to respond — suggesting possible deceptive pricing practices.
• Review dated 2019-01-22 references a technician named 'Ernie' and the 2015 review also references 'Ernie', which may indicate a different business era or personnel, reducing comparability to recent reviews.
• Review dated 2023-11-08 ('Great estimate. Great gift given, the minute the gentleman got out of van. For me') is vague and lacks specifics — low informational value, possibly a low-effort or incentivized review.
• Review dated 2020-09-24 ('Great service... As a realtor I referral them to my clients!') is generic with no specifics — low informational value.
• The review pool spans 2015–2024, a nearly 10-year window. Older reviews (pre-2021) are predominantly positive while post-2021 reviews show a marked increase in serious complaints. Recency weighting significantly lowers confidence in the positive signals.
• No clear fake review pattern detected, but several short 5-star reviews lack detail and may reflect incentivized or low-effort submissions.

This WW Score of 62.1 is based on 36 reviews spanning nearly a decade and carries HIGH data confidence by volume, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the sharp quality decline visible in post-2021 reviews, multiple credible accounts of serious workmanship and ethical failures, and a pattern of unresponsive management — prospective customers should weight recent negative reviews heavily.