Find Nearby Plumbers In St. Petersburg, Florida

The majority of reviews praise individual technicians — particularly Joey, Brandon, Andrew, and Patrick — for being courteous, punctual, and professional, driving a solid but not exceptional professionalism score. However, several detailed 1-star reviews describe serious workmanship failures including a faulty AC installation with exposed live wiring, improperly sealed ductwork, a misdiagnosed compressor issue that led to an $8,800 upsell attempt (resolved by a competitor for $135), and a sump pump job where the technician left tools behind and gave incorrect advice — these significantly drag down both the experience and project completion scores. Pricing received a notably low score due to multiple credible complaints about overcharging, misleading quotes, and a broken promise about discounting labor when a customer had already supplied materials and done prep work. Project completion is moderately scored because while many jobs were finished satisfactorily, several reviews document incomplete work, return visits required to fix errors, and at least one case where promised ductwork was only one-third completed. The WW Score of 72.1 reflects a company with genuinely strong front-line staff in many cases but a meaningful and documented pattern of serious failures that cannot be ignored.

• 10 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• A large cluster of reviews share the identical date of 2025-05-10, which is suspicious and may indicate a review solicitation campaign or batch import. Confidence in those reviews is reduced.
• One review references 'Universal plumbing' and 'Kevin' — this appears to be a review intended for a different company and was treated with caution and not weighted heavily.
• One review references 'Southern Efficiency' as the company name, suggesting this contractor may operate or have operated under multiple business names, which could affect review authenticity or aggregation accuracy.
• Multiple 1-star reviews are highly detailed, specific, and credible — including documented third-party inspection findings, named employees, dates, and dollar amounts. These are treated as high-weight negative signals.
• The 1-star review about a maintenance plan cancellation being ignored for 6 months with 25+ unreturned messages is a significant customer service and responsiveness red flag.
• Positive reviews are heavily technician-specific (Joey, Brandon, Andrew, Patrick) while negative reviews tend to describe systemic issues with installation quality and management response — suggesting a split between field service quality and installation/management quality.

This WW Score of 72.1 is based on a substantial volume of reviews with usable data and carries HIGH overall confidence, but prospective customers should weigh the multiple detailed and credible 1-star reviews describing serious installation failures, pricing deception, and unresponsive management against the genuine praise many individual technicians have earned.

Pasadena Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, long-term customers who consistently praise Mike's technical expertise, responsiveness, and honest pricing — with multiple reviewers citing specific examples of him refusing to upsell, returning money owed, and even resolving issues remotely at no charge. However, professionalism is the most heavily penalized dimension due to a recurring and serious pattern: multiple independent reviewers across different years describe Mike abruptly abandoning jobs, hanging up on customers, becoming verbally aggressive, and in one alarming case, walking away from a household with a CO alarm emergency involving young children. Project completion scores moderately well overall, but is tempered by at least two reviews describing incomplete or shoddy work and a refusal to honor callbacks. Pricing is generally viewed as fair to reasonable, though two reviewers felt overcharged, and one noted parts prices seemed inflated. The WW Score of 72.1 reflects a contractor with genuine skill and many satisfied customers, but with a documented and repeated pattern of unprofessional conduct that poses a real risk to prospective clients.

• SERIOUS CONDUCT FLAG: Multiple independent reviews across different years (2013, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2023, 2024) describe Mike becoming suddenly hostile, hanging up on customers, abandoning jobs mid-service, or refusing to return for warranty work. This is not an isolated incident — it is a recurring behavioral pattern.
• SAFETY CONCERN: One 2024 review (1-star) alleges Mike canceled an appointment and refused further contact while the customer had a CO monitor alarm going off with a 2-year-old present. If accurate, this represents a serious ethical and safety failure.
• ALLEGED HARASSMENT: One 2017 reviewer alleges Mike called back after a negative review was posted and made threatening statements about contacting city officials, which the reviewer characterized as blackmail/extortion to remove the review. This is a significant red flag.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: At least two reviews (2019 1-star, 2014 3-star) describe work that was left incomplete, done incorrectly, or where Mike refused to address certain materials or tasks without adequate explanation.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2022–2024) include both strong positive reviews and the most serious negative incidents (CO alarm abandonment, no-show with hang-up). The negative behavioral pattern has not resolved over time and appears in recent data.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Positive reviews are generally specific, varied in detail, and span many years with different scenarios. The positive reviews appear organic. However, the volume of detailed negative reviews also appears credible and should not be discounted.
• OLDER REVIEWS NOTE: Approximately 20 reviews predate 2018 and are given reduced weight in scoring. The behavioral issues described in older reviews are consistent with those in more recent reviews, suggesting a persistent pattern rather than an isolated period.

This WW Score is based on 50 reviews spanning over a decade with HIGH data confidence across all four dimensions; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given the well-documented and recurring pattern of unprofessional conduct that appears consistently across independent reviewers and multiple years, which meaningfully limits the reliability of the professionalism dimension despite the high mention count.

Ricco's Reliable Plumbing earns strong praise from the majority of reviewers for responsiveness, fair pricing, and a personable husband-and-wife team dynamic. Pricing is consistently described as reasonable or fair across multiple reviews, and most jobs were completed efficiently and on time. However, two significant negative reviews substantially drag down the scores: one describes a plumber who abandoned a job mid-task, left an active leak in the wall, took $200 without completing the work, and sent an unprofessional follow-up message — a serious professionalism and project completion failure. A second reviewer reports receiving no response to a service request at all. These incidents prevent the scores from reaching the high 80s or 90s that the positive reviews alone might suggest.

• One review (1-star, 2024-02-04) describes a serious incident: the plumber walked off the job mid-repair, left an active leak in the wall, accepted $200 without completing the work, and never returned or followed up adequately. This is a significant project completion and professionalism failure that materially impacts scoring.
• One review (1-star, 2023-12-29) reports no response to a service request, indicating a responsiveness failure.
• The majority of positive reviews are genuine and specific with job details, names, and situational context — no strong fake review pattern detected among the 5-star reviews.
• Several positive reviews are older than 12 months (2021–2022), and the two most recent negative reviews (early 2024) may reflect a decline in service quality or consistency. Recency weighting slightly penalizes the overall score.
• The abandoned-job review is the most detailed and credible negative review in the dataset and was given full weight in scoring.

This WW Score is based on 11 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions and carries HIGH overall confidence, but consumers should weigh the serious 1-star incident from February 2024 heavily, as it represents a documented case of incomplete work, unprofessional conduct, and financial dispute.

High Performance demonstrates strong professionalism with explicit mentions of promptness, courtesy, cleanliness, and same-day service completion. Work quality is consistently praised across multiple reviews, with one customer noting union credentials and another highlighting educational value provided by the technician. Pricing feedback is minimal but suggests reasonable rates relative to market. The primary limitation is the age of most reviews (2008–2017) and small sample size, which reduces confidence in the overall assessment.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 4 of 5 reviews are older than 10 years (2008–2010, 2014). Only 1 review from 2017. No recent data available to assess current service quality.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews analyzed. Scoring confidence is inherently limited with this volume.
• PRICING DATA SPARSE: Only 1 review mentions pricing. Cannot reliably assess price-friendliness dimension.
• GENERIC PRAISE: Review 2 ('They did a good job') lacks specificity and detail, limiting analytical value.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to very limited and outdated review data. The score reflects historical performance but may not represent current service standards. Additional recent reviews are needed to establish reliable confidence in this contractor's present-day quality.

Florida Gas & Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism, technical expertise, and generally reliable project completion across most reviews. Positive mentions highlight responsive communication (Tanya and Rick), punctuality, quality workmanship, and willingness to solve difficult problems. However, pricing feedback is mixed and concerning: while several reviews praise reasonable rates, one detailed 2020 review alleges a bait-and-switch pricing scheme ($650 quoted, then $1600–$1800 demanded mid-job) and hostile follow-up communication. Additionally, a 2015 review documents a significant service failure (missed gas leak diagnosis, charged despite error, rude response to complaint). The company's age of most reviews (many 5+ years old) and the severity of the two 1-star incidents create meaningful confidence limitations despite predominantly positive feedback.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 8 of 13 reviews are older than 5 years (pre-2018). Only 2 reviews from past 12 months. Historical performance may not reflect current operations.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: One detailed 2020 review alleges bait-and-switch pricing ($650 quote escalated to $1600–$1800 mid-job) and hostile customer service response (screaming, threats of lien, threat to contact employer). This contradicts positive pricing feedback in other reviews and suggests potential pricing volatility or selective application of rates.
• SERVICE FAILURE DOCUMENTED: 2015 review documents failure to diagnose gas leak across two visits, charged customer despite admitted mistake, and rude/yelling response when customer questioned charges. Indicates possible quality control and customer service issues in past.
• COMMUNICATION INCONSISTENCY: While Tanya and Rick receive consistent praise for responsiveness in 2016–2017 reviews, the 2020 review describes Claudia (front desk) as 'belligerent and screamed' during dispute resolution, suggesting inconsistent customer service standards.
• MINIMAL RECENT DATA: Only 2 reviews from 2023 and 2019 provide current performance indicators. Bulk of positive feedback is 5–8 years old, limiting ability to assess current reliability.

This WW Score of 82.1 should be treated with caution. While technical skill and professionalism are well-documented across multiple reviews, the presence of two severe 1-star incidents (pricing deception and service failure with hostile response), combined with heavy weighting toward reviews older than 5 years and minimal recent data, significantly limits confidence in predicting current performance. The company may have improved since 2020, but insufficient recent reviews prevent validation. Prospective customers should request detailed written quotes and clarify pricing terms before authorizing work.

Merit Plumbing receives broadly positive feedback across all four scored dimensions, with multiple reviewers praising punctuality, responsiveness, and pleasant demeanor — particularly for JJ Donaldson. Pricing is mentioned favorably in several reviews, with one reviewer specifically noting a job came in under $200 and another calling costs 'reasonable,' supporting a solid but not exceptional pricing score. Project completion is well-documented, with reviewers describing multi-task jobs finished on time and one notable instance of post-job follow-up by Robert. However, scores are tempered by one vague but pointed 1-star warning review alleging the contractor operates under different company names, which raises a credibility concern that cannot be ignored. The significant age spread of reviews — ranging from 2008 to 2024 — also reduces confidence, as the business and its personnel appear to have changed over time.

• WARNING — Operating under multiple business names: One reviewer explicitly states 'Different Company Name same Plumber — JJ Donaldson' and warns others to 'DYOR' (Do Your Own Research). Reviews also reference at least two distinct company names: 'Merit Plumbing' and 'Expert Plumbing Solutions.' This pattern of operating under multiple names is a known risk indicator and warrants caution.
• RECENCY CONCERN — Only 5 of 15 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024). Six reviews are from 2022–2023, and four reviews date back to 2008–2020. Older reviews may not reflect current service quality, staffing, or business practices.
• PERSONNEL INCONSISTENCY — Reviews mention at least two different technicians by name (JJ and Robert), suggesting either multiple employees or business transitions over time. It is unclear whether current service quality is consistent across personnel.
• DETAIL VARIABILITY — Several reviews (e.g., 'They did a great job and were very nice,' 'They're very good') are extremely generic with no specifics, which slightly reduces their evidentiary value. However, the volume of detailed reviews prevents a fake review flag at this time.
• 1-STAR REVIEW UNRESOLVED — The sole negative review provides no specific detail about what went wrong, making it impossible to assess severity. Its warning about name-switching is the most actionable concern and should be investigated independently.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: the volume of reviews is sufficient and dimension coverage is strong, but the multi-name business flag, wide date range spanning 16 years, and one unresolved warning review introduce meaningful uncertainty that prospective customers should independently verify before hiring.