Find Nearby Plumbers In St. Petersburg, Florida

Bob Hyps and his team receive consistently strong marks for professionalism, with multiple reviewers explicitly praising courteous, thorough, and professional conduct across a range of jobs. Experience and workmanship are well-regarded, highlighted by a Sunday emergency response, a complex water heater install handled under difficult conditions, and accurate leak diagnosis — all demonstrating solid technical ability. Project completion is generally positive, with jobs seen through to the end even when complications arose, though one review notes unexpected charges added to the final bill and one review describes a failure to follow through on a scheduled callback, which meaningfully drags the completion score down. Pricing is a mixed picture: several reviewers found rates reasonable or below expectations, but the hidden/surprise upcharges noted in one review introduce a transparency concern that prevents a higher score in this dimension.

• One review (1-star, dated 2018-12-26) describes a clear failure in communication and follow-through: Bob had no recollection of a prior conversation and was unavailable on the agreed day, suggesting reliability issues that contrast sharply with the otherwise positive reviews.
• One review (4-star, dated 2016-03-09) explicitly flags surprise charges added to the final bill beyond the original estimate, which is a transparency/pricing concern.
• One review (dated 2016-02-12) notes that Max left to start his own company and the reviewer now uses Max instead of Bob — this suggests possible staff turnover that may affect service consistency.
• Several reviews are dated 2016–2017, making them 7–9 years old. Only two reviews are from 2018 or later, and only one (2023) is within the past 12 months. The recency of data is limited, and the most current review (2023) is the only one reflecting Bob's current operation. Scores should be interpreted with caution given the age of most reviews.
• No strong fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in detail, tone, rating, and specificity, which supports authenticity.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: while the volume of dimension mentions is sufficient for scoring, the majority of reviews are 6–9 years old, only one review is from the past 12 months, and notable negative signals around communication failure and undisclosed charges temper confidence in the final score.

VT Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and knowledgeable workmanship across 16 and 8 mentions respectively. However, the company is significantly undermined by serious project completion failures: three reviews explicitly document unresolved problems, failed callbacks, and lack of follow-up after service completion. Pricing shows mixed signals with some customers reporting reasonable rates while others report suspicious markups (e.g., $60 part found elsewhere for $19.48). The WW Score of 76.8 reflects strong interpersonal and technical dimensions offset by critical gaps in accountability and follow-through.

• CRITICAL: Three 1-star reviews document severe project completion failures including: (1) defective pipe work causing immediate failure after repair, (2) failure to resolve original problem and demanding additional payment, (3) no follow-up communication for nearly a week despite multiple customer attempts to contact. These are not isolated complaints.
• PRICING CONCERN: One review reports suspicious pricing practices—customer charged $60 for a part later found identical at Home Depot for $19.48, with no receipt provided. This suggests potential overcharging.
• CALLBACK FAILURES: Multiple reviews mention lack of follow-up calls and unresponsiveness after service, contradicting the strong communication scores from other reviews. This inconsistency suggests service quality may vary significantly.
• UNDATED REVIEWS: 15 of 23 reviews lack dates, making recency assessment impossible. This limits confidence in trend analysis.
• PATTERN ALERT: While most reviews are generic 5-star praise with minimal specifics, the negative reviews are highly detailed and specific, suggesting the positive reviews may be less reliable or potentially solicited.

This score should be treated with caution. While professionalism and experience dimensions are well-supported by multiple mentions, the project completion dimension is severely compromised by documented failures in problem resolution and follow-up. The absence of dates on 65% of reviews prevents assessment of whether issues have been resolved over time. The company shows capability but demonstrates inconsistent accountability, making it a moderate-risk choice.

Mid-County Plumbing receives strong praise across most dimensions from the majority of reviewers, with multiple customers highlighting professionalism, friendliness, technical competence, and fair pricing. However, one detailed and credible 1-star review from December 2023 raises serious concerns about disorganization, poor communication, slow responsiveness, and a pattern of nickel-and-diming customers beyond the written estimate. This negative review is the most recent in the dataset and carries elevated weight under recency rules, meaningfully pulling scores down. Pricing scores are tempered by the negative reviewer's complaints about hidden charges, even though several other reviewers praised value. Project completion scores reflect generally positive outcomes but are moderated by the 1-star reviewer's experience with follow-through and communication failures.

• RECENCY WARNING: The most recent review (2023-12-28) is a detailed 1-star complaint and carries the highest recency weight. It describes systemic issues with communication, organization, and billing practices that should not be dismissed.
• OLDER REVIEWS: Two reviews are significantly dated — one from 2018 and one from 2014 — and reflect potentially outdated business practices. These were given reduced weight in scoring.
• POSSIBLE GENERIC PRAISE: A few 5-star reviews (e.g., 2023-06-09 mentioning Greg is 'bright, personable and handsome') are vague and lack specific job details, which slightly reduces confidence in those reviews.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 9 reviews total. While scores can be calculated, the dataset is too small to draw highly reliable conclusions about consistent business behavior.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews vary in tone, detail level, and rating, suggesting an organic review set overall.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the small review sample, the presence of two significantly outdated reviews, and one highly credible recent negative review that introduces meaningful uncertainty about current business practices.

This contractor shows mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism is inconsistent: one review praises punctuality (3:30pm arrival as promised), while another describes a no-show with poor communication and dismissive customer service. Project completion is similarly divided—two reviews highlight successful problem-solving, but one describes a complete service failure with no follow-up. Experience/workmanship receives stronger marks where mentioned, with customers praising quick diagnostics and quality fixes. Pricing appears fair based on limited mention. The significant variance between 5-star and 1-star reviews, combined with older review dates (oldest from 2006), suggests this company may have experienced service inconsistency over time.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Two of four reviews are from 2017 or earlier (oldest from 2006). Only two reviews from recent years (2019, 2018). Historical data may not reflect current operations.
• CONFLICTING EVIDENCE: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews and a detailed 1-star complaint describing no-show, poor communication, and dismissive attitude. This suggests either inconsistent service delivery or significant operational changes over time.
• LIMITED SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews total. Score reliability is constrained by small dataset.
• GENERIC PRAISE: One review (2006) uses all-caps generic language ('RELIABLE', 'VERY GOOD WORK') with minimal specifics, reducing confidence in that data point.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (4 reviews), significant recency gaps, and conflicting evidence of service quality. The score reflects a company with demonstrated capability but inconsistent execution; customers should seek more recent reviews or references before committing.

Salemme Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical skill, with multiple reviews praising punctuality, politeness, and quality workmanship. However, pricing is a significant weakness, with multiple customers reporting unexpected charges, inflated invoices, and work that cost more than quoted. Project completion is generally solid, though one review indicates failure to deliver promised services (camera inspection). The company shows inconsistency: excellent experiences coexist with serious complaints about billing transparency and responsiveness to customer concerns. The 2022 billing dispute and lack of follow-up from ownership are particularly concerning.

• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews (2022-07-25, 2022-01-20, 2022-01-19, 2021-03-30) report unexpected charges, inflated invoices, and costs exceeding quoted prices. This is a pattern, not isolated incidents.
• UNRESPONSIVENESS: Review from 2022-01-19 explicitly states company was 'unresponsive to all my requests.' Review from 2022-07-25 indicates owner failed to follow up as promised.
• SERVICE DELIVERY FAILURE: Review from 2022-01-19 reports $450 charged for camera inspection with no proof of completion and subsequent discovery of uncorrected plumbing issues.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2022 and earlier. More recent reviews (2023-11-09) are positive, suggesting possible improvement or selection bias in recent reviewers.
• QUALITY VARIANCE: Stark contrast between 5-star reviews praising specific plumbers (Tony, Spencer, Patrick, Jason, Matt) and 1-star reviews, suggesting performance depends heavily on which technician is assigned.

This score should be treated with moderate caution. While professionalism and experience scores are well-supported by multiple mentions, the pricing dimension reveals a serious and recurring pattern of billing disputes that significantly undermines overall trustworthiness. The company's inconsistency—excellent work by some technicians paired with billing problems and unresponsiveness—suggests structural issues with pricing transparency and customer service follow-up that are not fully resolved.

Rob demonstrates strong technical skills and consistently fair pricing, earning high marks for experience and value. However, his professionalism and project completion scores are significantly dragged down by a persistent pattern of no-shows, failure to respond to calls/texts, and incomplete follow-through on callbacks. While 20 reviews praise his work quality and friendliness, 8 reviews document serious reliability issues spanning from 2010 to 2023, indicating this is a chronic problem rather than isolated incidents. The WW Score of 72.8 reflects a contractor with genuine capability but unreliable execution and communication.

• CRITICAL RELIABILITY PATTERN: Eight 1-star reviews explicitly document no-shows, ghosting, and failure to respond to communications across a 13-year span (2010–2023). This is not a recent issue but a persistent behavioral pattern.
• NO-SHOW FREQUENCY: Reviews from 2021, 2019, 2018 (multiple), 2017 (multiple), and 2013 all describe identical failures: scheduled appointments missed, no advance notice, no response to follow-up calls/texts.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: At least 3 reviews (2018-07-30, 2017-05-30, 2013-06-01) document abandoned projects or failure to complete promised callbacks, directly impacting project completion score.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent 1-star review is from 2023-08-30 (no-show/no-call), indicating the problem persists despite years of negative feedback.
• POSITIVE REVIEW CLUSTERING: 25 of 33 reviews are 5-star with enthusiastic language ('awesome,' 'lifesaver,' 'highly recommend'). While many include specific details, the 76% 5-star rate combined with the 24% 1-star rate suggests a highly polarized customer experience—some customers receive excellent service, others experience complete abandonment.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Multiple reviews cite excuses (flat tire, phone in toilet, couldn't find ladder, assistant didn't send quote) that suggest either poor planning or dishonesty. One 2018 review documents him hanging up on a customer after they expressed hesitation about rescheduling.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While Rob clearly possesses strong technical skills and fair pricing (supported by consistent positive feedback), the persistent 13-year pattern of no-shows, ghosting, and failure to complete callbacks represents a critical flaw that directly contradicts his professionalism and project completion claims. Customers should expect either excellent service or complete abandonment with no middle ground; the risk of the latter is substantial enough to warrant serious consideration of alternatives.