Find Nearby Plumbers In St. Petersburg, Florida

The three reviews present a mixed picture of Batton Plumbing. Professionalism receives moderate coverage: one reviewer praised punctuality, friendliness, and a no-cost callback, while another found the technician professional enough to assess the job, and a third noted timely arrival — however, the first reviewer's strong implication of an inflated quote tempers the overall professionalism score. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with one explicit complaint that a $400+ quote for a job the homeowner completed in 20 minutes with $10.65 in parts represents a significant value concern. Project completion is partially supported — the 5-star reviewer noted a follow-up issue was resolved at no cost, and the third reviewer confirmed the problem was fixed, but the first reviewer's job was never completed. Experience signals are modest: the two positive reviewers noted efficiency and competence, but the pricing complaint raises questions about whether the technician accurately assessed the scope of work.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is statistically unreliable and should be treated with significant caution.
• Two of the three reviews are from 2016 and 2019, making them 5–8 years old. Only one review is from 2020. No reviews from the past 12 months are present, so recency weighting is poor.
• The 1-star review raises a potential price-gouging concern: a $400+ quote for a repair the homeowner completed in 20 minutes with $10.65 in parts is a significant red flag for pricing transparency.
• The two positive reviews are relatively generic in detail (e.g., 'professional and courteous,' 'knew what to do and were efficient') with limited specifics, though they do not appear to be fabricated — they contain enough distinct detail to be considered authentic.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all older than 3 years, with limited dimension coverage and a notable pricing complaint — it should not be relied upon as a confident assessment of current service quality.

Brown Heating Cooling and Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores moderately, as many positive reviews praise courteous, on-time technicians by name, but this is significantly offset by multiple accounts of staff hanging up on customers, technicians refusing to work on certain units, and a general manager making measurement errors. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with repeated and specific complaints about overcharging, inability to cancel contracts, billing errors, surprise charges, and quotes described as thousands of dollars above competitors — though a handful of reviewers found pricing fair or reasonable. Project completion is also troubled, with a major case of a $10,000 HVAC unit never working properly for three months, an installation that required multiple return visits due to incorrect measurements, a 30-day-only warranty that left a customer with recurring issues, and a plumbing job left incomplete — partially offset by positive accounts of thorough, prompt, and complete work. Experience scores in the lower-moderate range: several technicians are praised for diagnosing difficult problems and performing quality work, but others caused damage to a functioning unit, failed to diagnose root causes over months, and one refused to service a common brand entirely.

• Several 5-star reviews with no date provided are notably generic (e.g., 'Great job', 'Timely and effective service', 'Did a great job') and lack specific detail — these may inflate the positive signal and should be treated with caution.
• The review corpus spans from 2014 to 2024, a 10-year range. Reviews older than 2022 (approximately 15 of 33) may not reflect current business practices and were weighted accordingly.
• The most recent dated negative reviews are from 2021–2022; the most recent dated positive review is from August 2024. It is unclear whether service quality has genuinely improved or whether recent negative experiences are underrepresented due to undated reviews.
• One review (1-star, no date) contains only 'Misleading pricing, deceptive business practices' with no elaboration — included in pricing signal but flagged as low-detail.
• No clear fake review pattern detected, but the cluster of undated 5-star reviews with vague praise warrants mild suspicion of possible review solicitation without corresponding specificity.

This WW Score is based on 33 reviews with sufficient volume for statistical confidence, but reliability is moderately reduced by a wide date range spanning a decade, a significant cluster of undated reviews, and recurring patterns of specific, detailed negative experiences that directly contradict the positive reviews — consumers should weigh the negative reviews heavily given their specificity and consistency.

St Pete Plumbing shows a deeply polarized customer experience with stark contrasts between positive and negative reviews. Pricing emerges as the primary weakness, with multiple customers citing aggressive upselling tactics and charges significantly above market rates ($700 for minor repairs, $575 for drain cleaning vs. competitor quotes of $250–$375). Professionalism is mixed: positive reviews praise responsiveness and communication, but negative reviews document missed appointment windows and pressure-sales tactics. Project completion appears adequate when work is performed, though one customer disputes whether the work was necessary. Technical skill is mentioned positively in favorable reviews but questioned in the negative review where a retired plumber easily fixed what the company deemed a total replacement. The company's small sample size and recency bias (3 of 6 reviews are from 2022) limit confidence.

• SEVERE PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple independent reviews (3 of 6) explicitly cite overpricing and aggressive upselling. One customer reports being quoted $700 for a minor hose bib repair and an additional $700 for a related shut-off valve repair. Another reports $575 for drain cleaning when competitors quote $250–$375 for identical service. This pattern suggests systematic overcharging rather than isolated incidents.
• POTENTIAL UNNECESSARY WORK: Review from 2024-10-20 alleges the company recommended a full water heater replacement when only rewiring was needed. A retired 40-year plumber confirmed the fix was simple. This raises questions about diagnostic integrity.
• APPOINTMENT RELIABILITY: One review documents a missed appointment window (quoted 11:00–11:30, customer called at 1:00 pm with no arrival). This contradicts positive reviews praising quick response.
• RECENCY BIAS: 50% of reviews (3 of 6) are from 2022 or earlier. Only 1 recent review (2024-10-20) is available, and it is highly negative. Current service quality is uncertain.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 6 reviews total limits statistical reliability. Polarization (3 one-star, 3 five-star) suggests either highly inconsistent service or potential review manipulation, though no identical language patterns detected.

This score should be treated with caution. While based on explicit evidence, the small sample size (6 reviews), extreme polarization (50% one-star, 50% five-star), and recency concerns (most data from 2022) significantly limit confidence. The consistent pricing complaints across independent reviews are credible red flags, but the overall WW Score of 52.8 reflects high uncertainty rather than a stable assessment of current performance.

FAST of Florida demonstrates severe systemic failures across all dimensions. While individual technicians (Harvey, Joe, Jonathan, Roberto, Richard, Mike) occasionally receive praise for technical competence and friendliness, the company's overall operations are marked by chronic communication breakdowns, missed appointments, incomplete work, and aggressive pricing practices. The most damaging pattern is project completion failures—multiple customers report abandoned jobs, unresolved issues after expensive repairs, and lack of follow-through on promised callbacks. Pricing concerns are pervasive, with customers reporting vastly inflated estimates ($4,500 vs. $635 for identical repairs, $5,000 vs. $200 elsewhere) and hidden charges. Professionalism is undermined by late arrivals (8 hours late in one case), unresponsive management, and dismissive customer service staff. The company's corporate takeover appears to have coincided with deterioration in service quality.

• CRITICAL: Overwhelming pattern of negative reviews (38 of 50 are 1-star ratings). This is not a mixed-quality company—it is systematically failing customers.
• PATTERN: Multiple customers report being quoted excessively high repair costs, then finding competitors can fix the same issue for 10-20% of the quoted price. This suggests either incompetent diagnostics or intentional overcharging.
• PATTERN: Repeated failures to complete jobs. At least 6 reviews explicitly mention abandoned work, incomplete installations, or multi-month delays with no resolution.
• PATTERN: Management non-responsiveness. Customers report leaving multiple messages for managers/owners with zero callbacks. This is documented in at least 8 reviews.
• PATTERN: Billing and refund disputes. Multiple customers report incorrect invoicing, promised refunds that never materialize, and billing department staff contradicting prior agreements.
• SAFETY CONCERN: One review (2024-08-12) describes technicians making false claims about toxic chemicals and leaving customers in potentially hazardous conditions. This is a serious red flag.
• RECENCY: Most damaging reviews are from 2024 and 2023 (recent). Older positive reviews (2016-2017) suggest company quality has deteriorated significantly, possibly due to corporate takeover mentioned in multiple reviews.
• PATTERN: Technician quality is highly inconsistent. Named technicians (Harvey, Joe, Jonathan, Roberto, Richard, Mike, Dan) receive individual praise, but company-level systems fail to support them or follow through on their work.
• PATTERN: Warranty and service contract issues. Multiple customers report being sold service contracts that don't cover what was promised, or coverage being denied after purchase.
• FAKE REVIEW AWARENESS: The 5-star reviews (approximately 12 of 50) are notably generic and lack specific detail compared to negative reviews. However, they appear authentic rather than fabricated—they mention specific technician names and situations. The imbalance suggests selection bias rather than fake reviews.

This WW Score of 42.3 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 50 reviews with substantial mention counts across all dimensions (15-32 mentions per dimension), all from the past 10 years with heavy weighting toward 2024 and 2023. The overwhelming consistency of negative patterns across independent reviews, combined with specific documented failures (billing errors, abandoned jobs, missed appointments, safety concerns), creates a clear and trustworthy picture of a company in serious operational distress. The few positive reviews do not contradict this assessment—they praise individual technicians, not the company's systems. Potential customers should treat this score as a strong warning.

Denham's Plumbing shows severe inconsistency across reviews spanning 2014–2017. While one positive review praises professionalism and knowledge, two negative reviews document critical failures: ghosting after service, unresponsiveness to follow-up requests, and false claims about obtaining customer authorization. Communication and follow-through are the primary weaknesses, with pricing also questioned as overpriced in multiple instances. Technical work quality appears competent when completed, but reliability and accountability are major concerns. The WW Score of 45.8 reflects serious trust and professionalism issues that outweigh technical competence.

• RECENCY ISSUE: Two of three reviews are from 2014–2016; only one is from 2017. Data is aged and may not reflect current operations.
• CRITICAL PATTERN: Two independent reviews document communication failures and broken promises (ghosting, false confirmation of authorization). This is not isolated complaint but repeated behavior pattern.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURE: First review explicitly documents abandonment after initial service—customer left with broken toilet for 16+ days with no callback despite multiple contact attempts.
• AUTHORIZATION BREACH: Second negative review shows contractor misrepresented whether authorization was obtained, damaging landlord relationship and trust.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (n=3) and aged data, but the consistency of communication and follow-through failures across independent reviews suggests genuine operational issues rather than isolated incidents.

This contractor shows mixed performance across a very small sample of reviews. Professionalism is undermined by failure to respond to follow-up calls and unresolved communication issues, though one review praised quick response time. Pricing appears fair in two instances but is overshadowed by a serious issue involving prepaid parts never delivered. Project completion is severely compromised by a recurring blockage problem and complete non-responsiveness to callback requests. Technical workmanship appears competent in the one detailed positive review, but credentials and licensing were questioned. The WW Score of 58.3 reflects significant reliability concerns driven primarily by follow-through failures and unresolved customer issues.

• CRITICAL: Prepaid parts issue (2018) — customer reports paying for parts that were never received or delivered. This is a serious financial red flag.
• CRITICAL: Non-responsiveness to callbacks — customer explicitly states CJ would not respond to repeated calls or texts after initial work, indicating poor follow-through and customer service.
• Licensing/credentials concern — customer questioned whether contractor is licensed, insured, and bonded in Pinellas County. No evidence provided that contractor addressed these concerns.
• Very small sample size (3 reviews) — all reviews are from 2018, over 5 years old. No recent data available to assess current business practices.
• Recency issue — all reviews predate 2019. Unable to assess whether business practices have improved or deteriorated since these incidents.

This score should be treated with significant caution due to the very small sample size (3 reviews), all from 2018, and the presence of serious unresolved issues including prepaid parts non-delivery and customer non-responsiveness. The score reflects real problems but lacks sufficient recent data to determine if they have been corrected.