Find Nearby Plumbers In Tallahassee, Florida

Dowdy Plumbing shows strong professionalism and technical skill based on multiple reviews praising punctuality, politeness, and workmanship quality. However, the WW Score is significantly depressed by serious project completion failures: two detailed 1-star reviews document incomplete work (electrical system compromise, wall damage) with inadequate follow-up and dismissive customer service responses. Pricing is generally described as fair and reasonable, but the company's willingness to charge additional fees for fixing their own mistakes raises concerns. The dataset is heavily skewed toward older reviews (2015–2018), with limited recent data to assess current performance.

• CRITICAL: Two severe project completion failures documented (2018 and 2017) involving unlicensed electrical work, structural damage, and dismissive office response. One review explicitly mentions reporting to Department of Business and Professional Regulation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: 90% of reviews are from 2015–2018. Only one review from 2023. Unable to assess whether issues have been resolved or if company practices have improved.
• SUSPICIOUS PATTERN: Multiple 5-star reviews with generic praise and minimal specifics (e.g., 'Excellent service.' and single period '.' as review text). One review uses identical phrasing structure to another ('quick to respond, punctual, fair price'). Suggests possible fake or template reviews.
• DATA QUALITY: One review consists only of a period (.), providing no usable information.
• INCONSISTENCY: Positive reviews emphasize 'reasonable pricing' and 'fair rates,' but negative reviews document $600 jobs with $400 additional charges for damage repair, suggesting pricing transparency issues.

This WW Score should be treated with caution. While professionalism and experience dimensions show strength, the documented project completion failures are severe and recent enough (2017–2018) to warrant serious concern. The lack of recent reviews and suspected fake positive reviews further reduce confidence. Potential customers should independently verify current licensing status and request references from recent projects before engaging this company.

The review set is small, heavily dated, and contains significant quality concerns that drag scores down across all dimensions. The single detailed negative review from 2017 is highly damaging — it describes poor communication, no upfront quote, no credit card disclosure, incomplete work (knobs not installed), and unprofessional payment demands, all of which directly impact professionalism, pricing, and project completion scores. The positive reviews that do contain substance (notably the 30-year customer and the refrigerator valve repair) provide some counterbalance, describing fair pricing, punctuality, and competent workmanship. However, the majority of positive reviews are either blank, one-line, or contain no actionable detail, severely limiting their evidentiary value. Given the recency weighting rules, the 2017 negative review is the most recent substantive review and carries the most weight in this analysis.

• Two reviews contain only the word 'unknown' with 5-star ratings — these are non-reviews and have been excluded from scoring as they provide zero usable data.
• One review contains only a period ('.') with a 5-star rating — excluded as it contains no usable information.
• One review contains only 'Jarin is the best!!!' with no supporting detail — excluded from dimension scoring due to lack of specificity.
• Multiple 5-star reviews with no detail or generic one-liners raise mild fake review concerns, though the pattern is not conclusive given the business's apparent age.
• All substantive reviews are from 2017 or earlier — the most recent is over 7 years old. This data is significantly stale and may not reflect current business practices.
• The 2017 negative review describes a worker who may not have been the actual business owner (arrived with a friend, no truck, check written to a personal name rather than Brill Plumbing), introducing uncertainty about whether this reflects the business itself or an unauthorized representative.
• Only 10 total reviews exist, with only 7 containing any usable data. This is a very thin evidence base and the WW Score should be treated with caution.

This WW Score carries LOW reliability due to a very small review pool, heavily outdated data (all reviews 7+ years old), multiple non-reviews inflating the raw count, and a single highly detailed negative review that disproportionately — but legitimately — impacts the overall score.

Jim Crosby Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews. While one 2019 review praised professionalism and customer advocacy, two earlier reviews (2017–2019) describe unprofessional conduct, incomplete work, and poor communication. The 2019 negative review explicitly documents failure to follow up on a second service item and an owner's hostile response to complaints. The 2017 review reports incomplete diagnosis of a mainline clog, resulting in a $400 charge for work that failed within 4 days. Professionalism scores are dragged down by documented screaming matches, poor follow-through, and lack of technical diligence. Project completion is compromised by incomplete diagnostics and callbacks that were not honored.

• Two of three reviews are from 2017–2019 (5+ years old); recency is limited
• Serious red flag: Owner engaged in screaming match and hung up on customer per 2019-03-19 review
• Work quality concern: 2017 review documents incomplete diagnosis; customer paid $400 for failed repair that required second plumber to identify root cause
• Communication failure: 2019-03-19 review documents explicit failure to call warranty company about second service item despite customer agreement
• Conflicting narratives: One positive 2019 review vs. two strongly negative reviews suggest either inconsistent service delivery or selective customer experience

This score should be treated with caution due to limited review volume (n=3) and age of most data; however, the consistency of negative findings across two independent 2017–2019 reviews regarding professionalism and project completion, combined with documented owner misconduct, suggests genuine service quality concerns that warrant serious consideration.

Jim Bennett Plumbing demonstrates severe and consistent deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by chronic tardiness, no-shows, poor communication, unresponsive staff, and documented instances of disrespectful behavior toward customers. Project completion is the most damaging dimension, with extensive evidence of incomplete work, repeated callbacks for the same issues, abandoned jobs, and failure to honor commitments. Pricing concerns emerge from multiple reports of unexpected charges, inflated estimates, and lack of transparency. While some technicians demonstrate competent workmanship, this is overshadowed by systemic failures in execution, follow-through, and accountability. The company's pattern of making problems worse rather than better, combined with defensive responses to legitimate complaints, indicates fundamental operational dysfunction.

• CRITICAL: Overwhelming pattern of project completion failures—multiple customers report 4-8+ service visits for identical unresolved issues, indicating systemic inability to diagnose and fix problems correctly on first attempt.
• CRITICAL: Severe professionalism deficits—documented no-shows, missed appointments without notice, failure to return calls, and one incident of verbally abusive behavior toward a female customer.
• CRITICAL: Multiple instances of work left incomplete or abandoned—holes left in ceilings, temporary water supplies exposed, only partial bathroom installations despite full contracts, damaged property (stove, driveway) with no accountability.
• CRITICAL: Pricing transparency issues—customers report quotes that doubled at billing, unexpected charges mid-project, inflated estimates, and refusal to provide estimates in writing or honor verbal quotes.
• CRITICAL: Quality control failure—defective/used equipment installed (water heater with blown element), plumbing errors that damaged property (hole punched in pipe during snaking), cross-contamination of water lines (hot/cold reversed).
• CRITICAL: Lack of accountability—owner's response to complaints ranges from defensive to absent; one documented instance of owner showing up uninvited at customer's home after negative interaction; no pattern of genuine remediation except one isolated case.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most damaging reviews are from 2018-2023 (past 5 years), indicating ongoing problems rather than historical issues. Only 3 positive reviews in dataset, all from 2015 or earlier, suggesting company performance has deteriorated or positive customers no longer review.
• PATTERN ALERT: Positive reviews (5 total) are generic and lack specificity, while negative reviews (19 total) are detailed, specific, and consistent in describing systemic failures. This asymmetry is typical of genuine negative experiences.
• RED FLAG: Multiple customers report being referred by Home Depot despite overwhelming negative feedback, suggesting possible referral arrangement rather than merit-based recommendation.

This WW Score of 32.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 25 detailed reviews with 18+ mentions per dimension, consistent patterns of failure across all metrics, and corroborating evidence from independent customers describing identical problems. The score conservatively reflects documented systemic failures in project completion, professionalism, and pricing transparency that have persisted across multiple years and numerous customer interactions.

AND Services receives an extremely low WW Score driven by an overwhelming volume of negative reviews across all four dimensions. While a cluster of recent 5-star reviews (primarily from June 2025) praise individual technicians for professionalism and communication, these are vastly outnumbered by detailed, credible 1-star reviews spanning 2020–2024 that describe systematic overcharging, misdiagnosis, abandoned or incomplete work, no-show appointments, rude customer service, and predatory upselling tactics targeting elderly customers. Pricing is the most severely penalized dimension, with dozens of reviewers reporting quotes 3–10x higher than competitors for identical repairs, bait-and-switch advertising, and non-itemized invoices. Project completion scores are critically low due to recurring reports of unfinished jobs, failed inspections, broken equipment shortly after installation, and technicians leaving without resolving the original issue. Experience scores reflect numerous accounts of technicians misdiagnosing problems, lacking proper tools, and recommending unnecessary full-system replacements for minor fixable faults.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW CLUSTER: A high concentration of 5-star reviews dated 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-08 share suspiciously similar structure — brief, generic praise for named technicians with little specific detail. Several of these reviews are blank (no text, only a 5-star rating). This pattern is consistent with coordinated review padding and should be treated with significant skepticism.
• 7 reviews contain zero text and only a 5-star rating — these provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Across more than 30 independent reviews, customers report being quoted prices 3x to 10x higher than what competitors charged for identical repairs. Multiple reviewers fixed their own issues for under $300 after AND Services quoted $3,000–$14,000.
• ELDERLY TARGETING: Multiple reviews explicitly describe technicians pressuring elderly customers (80s, 84 years old, 92 years old) into purchasing unnecessary full system replacements worth $10,000–$14,000.
• SCAM DIAGNOSIS PATTERN: Numerous reviewers report technicians diagnosing non-existent problems (e.g., claiming a unit had no control board when it did not exist, claiming freon was severely low when it was not, claiming pipes were cast iron when they were PVC). This suggests a systemic pattern of fraudulent diagnostics.
• RECENCY NOTE: The bulk of negative reviews span 2020–2024 and are highly detailed and specific. The positive reviews are heavily concentrated in a narrow window of May–June 2025, which may reflect a reputation management campaign rather than genuine service improvement.
• LEGAL AND REGULATORY FLAGS: Multiple reviewers mention filing complaints with the BBB, contacting the Florida State Attorney, disputing charges with lenders (Ally Bank), and threatening lawsuits. One review alleges the company operates under multiple DBAs and that 'AND Services' is a non-existent legal entity per their own attorney.
• BUSINESS INTEGRITY FLAG: One review alleges the company forged customer signatures on finance documents. Another alleges failure to pull permits after installation. These are serious legal and safety concerns beyond typical service complaints.
• CONFIDENCE REDUCTION APPLIED: Due to the suspected fake review cluster inflating the 5-star count, positive dimension scores were conservatively weighted. The high volume of detailed, specific negative reviews is treated as more reliable evidence than the sparse, generic positive reviews.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews (125 total) with strong data across all four dimensions, and the score of 28.4 should be considered highly reliable as a reflection of this contractor's overall service quality — the low score is supported by consistent, detailed, and independently corroborated negative experiences, while the positive reviews show patterns consistent with fake or incentivized submissions.

Cooper's Plumbing and Air receives overwhelmingly negative reviews across all four scored dimensions, with pricing being the single most damaging area. Reviewers repeatedly describe deceptive billing practices, hidden service fees, extreme markups on inexpensive parts (e.g., capacitors costing $10–$30 billed at $500–$700+), and bait-and-switch quoting tactics. Project completion is severely undermined by chronic no-shows, repeated rescheduling without notice, work left incomplete or done incorrectly, and in at least two cases equipment failing again within days of a repair. Professionalism scores marginally above the floor only because a small number of reviews (3 out of 25) praised individual technicians like Jason, Jonathan, and Robert by name, though these positive experiences appear isolated. Technical competence is broadly questioned, with multiple reviewers reporting misdiagnoses, improperly installed equipment, refrigerant leaks after installation, and oversized units — with other companies subsequently correcting Cooper's work at a fraction of the cost.

• EXTREME NEGATIVE SKEW: 21 of 25 reviews are 1-star; only 3 are 4-5 star. The three positive reviews are highly specific (named technicians, detailed job descriptions) and appear genuine, but they are vastly outnumbered.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW CONCERN (MINOR): The two reviews posted on the same date (2023-04-27) by what appears to be the same or closely related reviewer describing the same incident with nearly identical details may represent a duplicate submission rather than two independent reviews. Treated as one unique incident for scoring purposes.
• PRICING FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2019–2024) describe the same pattern of extreme part markups, undisclosed service fees added after verbal quotes, and bait-and-switch pricing. This consistency across time strongly suggests a systemic business practice rather than isolated incidents.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURE PATTERN: At least four reviews describe equipment failing again within days of a repair or installation, and multiple reviewers report that other companies had to correct Cooper's work. This is a significant red flag for technical quality.
• RELIABILITY FAILURE PATTERN: At least five reviews describe missed appointments, no-shows, or last-minute cancellations with no proactive communication, spanning 2021–2024.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews (15 of 25) are from within the past 12 months (2024), and the negative patterns are consistent and current — this is not an outdated reputation issue.
• UPSELLING MISCONDUCT: Multiple reviews describe technicians aggressively pushing membership plans and unnecessary additional work, with at least one reviewer noting the technician earned a commission on plan sales.

This WW Score is based on 25 reviews with strong data across all four dimensions and HIGH confidence throughout; the score of 18.7 should be considered a reliable and conservative reflection of this contractor's current service quality, and prospective customers are strongly cautioned against engagement based on the volume, recency, and consistency of serious complaints.