Find Nearby Plumbers In St. Petersburg, Florida

Rooter-Man of Tampa Bay has a deeply polarized review profile, with a dominant pattern of severe complaints about office staff and management rudeness spanning from 2008 through 2024. Professionalism scores extremely low because the overwhelming majority of negative reviews — across many years and many different reviewers — cite the same core issue: rude, dismissive, and hostile phone staff and management, including the owner herself. Project completion is also significantly dragged down by a high volume of no-call no-show complaints, abandoned work, and at least one major case of shoddy workmanship requiring extensive remediation. Pricing receives a moderate score because while some reviewers praised fair and competitive rates, others reported bait-and-switch pricing, dishonest upselling, and fabricated justifications for higher charges. Experience scores moderately because individual field technicians — Joe, Pete, Dominik, Gene, Devine, and others — are frequently praised for skill and knowledge, but this is undermined by at least two documented cases of poor workmanship and one case of a technician attempting to oversell unnecessary work.

• PERSISTENT PATTERN — Rude office staff and management complaints appear in reviews spanning 2012 through 2024, suggesting a systemic and unresolved organizational culture problem, not isolated incidents.
• OWNER CONDUCT — Multiple reviews independently describe the owner (identified as Kaitlyn/Caitlin) as personally rude, dismissive, and hostile to customers, including one review describing her telling a customer 'the fact that you came here without an appointment tells me I don't even want to talk to you.'
• NO-CALL NO-SHOW PATTERN — At least 7 separate reviews across multiple years describe technicians failing to show up within promised windows with no communication, indicating a systemic scheduling and accountability failure.
• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN — At least two reviews describe bait-and-switch pricing (advertised $99 drain clear, quoted $229 on arrival; water heater price inflation with fabricated EPA fee justification), and one review describes a technician quoting full replacement cost as a repair estimate.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURE — One detailed 2023 review documents extensive post-job damage including reversed hot/cold connections, leaking water heater, crushed HVAC ductwork, torn vapor barrier, and multiple incomplete items requiring a second crew to remediate over two days.
• FRAUD ALLEGATION — One 2024 review from a competing plumbing company alleges Rooter-Man fraudulently claimed to pump 2,000 gallons from a 1,090-gallon septic tank, constituting potential billing fraud.
• RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ALLEGATION — One 2022 review alleges the company refused further service to a customer family in a manner the reviewer characterized as racial profiling.
• OLDER REVIEW WEIGHTING — A meaningful portion of positive reviews date from 2008–2016 and may not reflect current service quality. The most recent reviews (2022–2024) are predominantly negative.
• SPLIT PROFILE — Positive reviews almost exclusively praise individual field technicians by name, while negative reviews almost exclusively target office staff, management, and the owner. This suggests the business's core operational and customer service infrastructure is the primary failure point.
• NO SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS — Positive reviews contain specific technician names, job details, and varied writing styles. No significant fake review pattern detected, though the stark positive/negative split warrants attention.

This WW Score is based on 57 reviews spanning 16 years with strong data across all four dimensions, and the score of 38.2 should be considered highly reliable as a reflection of a business with competent individual technicians but severely dysfunctional customer service, management conduct, scheduling reliability, and pricing transparency.

This contractor demonstrates significant and consistent performance issues across multiple dimensions. Professionalism is severely compromised by documented no-shows, lack of callbacks, and reported rude/abusive behavior toward clients. Project completion is undermined by incomplete problem diagnosis (failed to use camera equipment when requested), temporary fixes that failed within months, and refusal to honor warranty work. Pricing concerns include overcharging, unauthorized fixture orders, and poor value relative to work quality. The single positive review from 2021 is substantially outweighed by three negative reviews spanning 2012–2018, with the most recent substantive complaint being 6+ years old. The contractor's technical approach appears inadequate for complex diagnostics.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 6+ years old (2012–2018). Only one recent review (2021) exists, which is positive but lacks detail. Limited recent data makes current reliability assessment difficult.
• PATTERN OF SERIOUS ISSUES: Multiple independent reviews document no-shows, non-responsiveness, overcharging, and poor workmanship. This is not isolated complaint but systemic pattern.
• INCOMPLETE PROBLEM-SOLVING: Review explicitly states contractor lacked diagnostic equipment (camera) that customer requested, leading to inadequate repair and repeat failure within months.
• UNRESOLVED DISPUTES: Evidence of customer disputes over charges and forced acceptance of unwanted/overpriced items suggests poor communication and potential billing practices issues.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence due to limited recent data (only 1 review in past 3 years), but the consistency of serious complaints across multiple independent reviews from different time periods suggests genuine, systemic performance problems rather than isolated incidents.

Don Charles Plumbing demonstrates severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Project completion is critically weak, with multiple reviews documenting incomplete work, abandoned jobs, unresolved callbacks, and failure to stand behind completed work. Professionalism is severely compromised by poor communication, unresponsiveness, lack of follow-up, and unprofessional conduct (e.g., leaving a 71-year-old customer to repair structural damage). Pricing concerns are substantial, with evidence of hidden charges, quote discrepancies, overcharging for minimal work, and installation of used equipment instead of new. Technical competence is questionable, with documented misdiagnosis (snake placed in wrong direction), inadequate problem-solving, and work requiring correction by other plumbers. The two positive reviews (2022 and 2020) are significantly outweighed by six 1-star reviews spanning 2019–2023, indicating persistent systemic problems.

• CRITICAL: Six of eight reviews are 1-star ratings with detailed, specific complaints. This is not a pattern of isolated incidents but systemic failure.
• RECENCY CONCERN: While older reviews exist (2019–2020), the most recent 1-star review is from March 2023, indicating problems persist.
• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews describe incomplete work, failed callbacks, and refusal to honor service commitments. This suggests structural business practice issues, not isolated mistakes.
• CREDIBILITY: The two positive reviews (5-star) lack the specificity and detail of negative reviews. One mentions 'Ray and Team' (same technician named in the worst review), raising questions about consistency.
• FINANCIAL HARM: Multiple customers report significant financial losses ($6,000+ in one case, plus costs for corrective work by other plumbers). This is not minor dissatisfaction.
• STRUCTURAL DAMAGE: One review documents the company leaving a customer's mobile home with removed support bricks and an unfilled hole—a serious safety and liability issue.

This WW Score of 32.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on eight reviews with consistent, detailed, and specific complaints across all dimensions, spanning multiple years with recent corroboration. The score reflects genuine, documented service failures and should serve as a strong warning to potential customers.

This contractor's review set is small (7 reviews) and spans several years, with the most recent reviews dating to 2021 and the majority being older than 3 years. Professionalism is the most-discussed dimension and is deeply mixed: positive reviews praise specific technicians like Josh and Miguel for being polite, clean, and professional, while negative reviews describe no-shows, broken appointments, an unprofessional plumber who left messes and complained throughout the job, and persistent communication failures. Pricing is similarly polarized — one reviewer found hourly rates cheaper than flat-rate competitors, another praised fair pricing, but two reviews describe serious billing disputes including charges 2.5x the quoted amount, undisclosed diagnostic fees, and hidden charges. Project completion is a significant concern, with multiple reviews citing incomplete work, a forgotten appointment, a missed Wednesday visit, and a drain that was not cleared and then re-clogged within months. Experience scores slightly higher due to a few positive mentions of skilled, knowledgeable technicians, but is undermined by at least two instances of substandard workmanship.

• Very small review set (7 reviews) — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and low-reliability.
• Most reviews are older than 3 years (2017–2021); no reviews from the past 12 months. Business conditions, ownership, and quality may have changed significantly.
• At least two reviews explicitly mention an ownership/management change, suggesting the business may have operated under inconsistent standards across the review period.
• One review describes a serious billing ethics concern: charging 2.5x the quoted amount, rounding up hours, and adding undisclosed fees — this is a significant red flag for pricing integrity.
• No fake review patterns detected; reviews vary in tone, detail, and rating, suggesting authentic customer experiences.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to the very small review pool, the age of most reviews, and documented ownership changes that make it unclear whether current operations reflect the experiences described.

This contractor's review profile is overwhelmingly negative across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is severely damaged by repeated accounts of rudeness, late arrivals, ignored callbacks, a supervisor described as unresponsive and dishonest, and even an alleged theft incident that was poorly investigated. Pricing is a consistent flashpoint, with multiple reviewers describing quotes as grossly inflated, aggressive upselling tactics, billing errors that were never corrected, and charges for work that was not completed. Project completion is critically low, with multiple reviews describing unfinished jobs, failed inspections, permit mismanagement, and work that created new problems rather than solving existing ones. Experience scores marginally higher than the other dimensions only because a small number of positive reviews describe knowledgeable and skilled technicians, but these are heavily outweighed by accounts of incompetent diagnosis, improper pipe mounting that caused water damage, and repairs that failed the next day.

• Two of the three positive reviews (2018-01-30 and 2018-12-12) are notably brief and generic with minimal specifics, which may indicate low authenticity; however, there are too few positive reviews to establish a clear fake-review pattern.
• The single 5-star review from 2016-01-31 is the most detailed positive review and appears genuine; the other two positive reviews lack specificity and should be weighted with caution.
• A significant portion of reviews (approximately 10 of 17) are dated 2018 or earlier, meaning most data is more than 5 years old. Only one review (2024-05-28) is within the past 12 months, and it is negative. Recency weighting strongly favors the negative signal.
• Multiple reviews reference the business operating under different names (Ray Duncan Plumbing, Ray Duncan Plumbing Today, Plumbing Today), suggesting ownership or branding changes that may affect continuity of service quality — but the negative pattern persists across all name variants.
• An alleged theft of $900 by a technician was reported (2018-08-03) and the company's internal investigation was described as inadequate. This is a serious flag for trustworthiness.
• Billing fraud indicators present: one reviewer reported being billed for work already paid in 2016 (2018-10-15); another reported being billed for two valves after being promised the price of one (2017-09-21). These suggest systemic billing integrity issues.

This WW Score of 28.4 is based on HIGH confidence across all four dimensions with 17 reviews analyzed, and should be considered a reliable and trustworthy reflection of this contractor's service quality — the data strongly and consistently indicates poor performance across professionalism, pricing, project completion, and workmanship.

This contractor's review profile is overwhelmingly negative across all four scored dimensions, with 46 of 52 reviews rated 1 or 2 stars. Professionalism is severely damaged by repeated accounts of no-shows, broken appointment promises, rude and belligerent technicians, unresponsive management, and staff hanging up on customers — with only a small handful of positive interactions noted. Pricing is the single most consistently cited complaint across the entire review set, with dozens of reviewers documenting charges two to five times above market rate, hidden fees, non-itemized flat-rate billing, and what multiple reviewers describe as predatory or deceptive pricing tactics targeting elderly and disabled customers. Project completion is critically low, with numerous accounts of abandoned jobs, failed inspections, repeat service calls for the same unresolved issues, unauthorized charges, and units left non-functional after installation. Experience scores marginally higher than other dimensions only because a few reviewers acknowledged individual technicians had some competence, but this is heavily offset by accounts of misdiagnoses, incorrect installations creating fire hazards, unlicensed plumbers being dispatched, and work failing city inspections.

• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years and service types (plumbing, HVAC, water heaters) consistently report charges 2x–5x above market rate. This is a systemic business model concern, not isolated incidents.
• ELDERLY AND VULNERABLE CUSTOMER EXPLOITATION: At least 4 reviews explicitly describe targeting of elderly or disabled customers with inflated pricing, high-pressure sales tactics, and refusal to itemize invoices.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE REVIEWS: The 5 positive reviews (all 5-star) are extremely brief, generic, and lack the specificity present in negative reviews. Phrases like 'great company,' 'very kind and personable,' and 'highly recommend' with no detail contrast sharply with the volume and specificity of negative reviews. These may be inflated or incentivized.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024) show no improvement in service quality. Negative patterns are consistent from 2019 through August 2024, indicating no meaningful operational improvement over 5+ years.
• SAFETY CONCERNS: At least two reviews describe dangerous outcomes — incorrect wiring creating a fire hazard and a unit left non-functional in extreme heat for vulnerable individuals. These are not merely service failures but potential safety liabilities.
• UNLICENSED WORKER ALLEGATION: One reviewer explicitly states an unlicensed plumber was dispatched, and the resulting work failed city inspection.
• MANAGEMENT UNRESPONSIVENESS: Multiple reviewers across different years report being promised manager callbacks that never occurred, suggesting a systemic policy of avoiding accountability rather than isolated failures.

This WW Score of 18.7 is based on HIGH confidence across all four dimensions with 52 reviews spanning 2019–2024, and should be considered a highly reliable and damning assessment of this contractor's overall service quality.