Find Nearby Plumbers In Tampa, Florida

Jones & Sons demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with technicians consistently praised for punctuality, courtesy, and knowledge. Project completion is generally reliable with most jobs finished as promised. However, pricing is a significant weakness—multiple reviews explicitly cite overcharging, predatory pricing practices, and lack of transparent quotes. The company shows inconsistency: excellent service from named technicians (James, Justin, Daryle, Darius) contrasts sharply with serious failures in responsiveness, follow-through on callbacks, and one documented case of incomplete work requiring emergency repairs. Recent reviews (past 12 months) are predominantly positive, but older reviews reveal systemic pricing concerns and occasional service failures.

• PRICING CONCERNS: 10+ reviews explicitly mention overcharging, predatory pricing, or lack of transparent estimates. Examples include $213 for a $16 part, $750 for a $25 valve, $500 for a 30-minute faucet install, and $5,400 for incomplete bathroom installation. This is a critical pattern.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Multiple 1-star reviews cite failure to respond to callbacks, incomplete work, and poor follow-up. One review documents no-show for emergency service despite confirmed appointment.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: At least 3 reviews document unfinished jobs (missing molding, holes in walls, shoddy water heater work causing pipe disconnection).
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Several reviews report unanswered phone calls and lack of follow-up after service.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: 3 empty reviews with 5-star ratings (2025-06-07, 2025-06-02, 2025-05-10) suggest potential review manipulation. Additionally, multiple reviews from 2025-05-10 and 2025-02-09 use similar phrasing ('Uncle James', 'very knowledgeable', 'on time', 'professional') which may indicate coordinated posting.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews are from past 12 months; older reviews (2021-2023) contain more serious complaints about pricing and work quality.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with caution. While professionalism and experience scores are solid and based on substantial evidence, the pricing dimension is severely compromised by documented overcharging patterns, and project completion is undermined by multiple reports of incomplete work and failed callbacks. The company appears to deliver good technical work but engages in questionable pricing practices and inconsistent follow-through. Customers should request detailed, itemized quotes in writing before engaging this company.

CDS Plumbing receives overwhelmingly positive feedback across all four dimensions, with professionalism, responsiveness, and same-day service being the most frequently praised attributes. Pricing is generally described as fair, reasonable, or below competitors, though two significant negative reviews allege overcharging and poor value. Project completion is strong in the majority of cases, but two credible 1-star reviews describe failed work, a drain that re-clogged within a week, missed appointment windows of over 24 hours, and a leak that worsened after the technician left. Experience scores are solid, with multiple reviewers citing quick diagnosis, technical knowledge, and problem-solving under difficult conditions, though the negative reviews raise legitimate concerns about workmanship quality in isolated cases. Scores are moderated downward from their raw positive averages to account for these substantive negative experiences and the heavy duplicate review pattern detected.

• CRITICAL — DUPLICATE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: The vast majority of reviews appear in near-identical or exact pairs with the same date, same rating, and same text. Approximately 90+ of the 196 reviews are duplicates. This is a strong indicator of review inflation, whether through platform syncing across sources or artificial submission. Confidence in raw review volume is significantly reduced.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: While many reviews contain specific names (Justin, Jordan, Tyler, Kenneth, Zay, Jason) and job details that lend authenticity, the sheer volume of duplicate submissions and the concentration of 5-star ratings with minimal critical detail raises concern about the integrity of the review pool.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — WORKMANSHIP FAILURE: One 1-star review (2020-12-09) states the drain re-clogged within one week of service and the customer had to redo the job themselves for $50 after paying $200. This is a direct project completion and experience failure.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — OVERCHARGING AND MISSED APPOINTMENTS: One detailed 1-star review (2021-10-10) describes a $2,678 bill for approximately 2 hours of work, a 24+ hour delay in showing up, and a 3% card surcharge. This materially impacts pricing and project completion scores.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — RUDE MANAGEMENT AND FAILED DIAGNOSIS: One 1-star review (2024-01-10) describes an extremely rude owner (Justin Cook) screaming at the customer, workers dirtying the bathroom, a misdiagnosis of a major leak, a $125 charge for no work performed, and a payment sent to a wrong number provided by the company. This is the most recent negative review and carries elevated recency weight.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are dated between 2020 and 2022. Only a small number of reviews are from the past 12 months (2023–2024), and two of those are negative. This suggests a possible decline in service quality or customer satisfaction in more recent periods.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED: Two reviews contained no text (only a rating of 5.0 and 3.5 respectively) and were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.

The WW Score of 76.4 should be treated with moderate-to-high caution due to a pervasive duplicate review pattern that artificially inflates the review count, combined with three substantive negative reviews — including the most recent one from January 2024 — that describe serious failures in workmanship, professionalism, and pricing transparency.

Roman Plumbing scores well on professionalism and experience across a large volume of reviews, with many customers praising named technicians like Zak, Mike, Ralph, Frankie, and others for punctuality, courtesy, and technical skill. However, pricing is a significant drag on the overall score: multiple reviews across different years explicitly cite overcharging, lack of upfront estimates, emergency billing disputes, and prices far above competitors, pulling the pricing dimension well below average. Project completion is mixed — the majority of jobs appear to be finished satisfactorily, but there are credible accounts of abandoned work, no-shows, jobs left incomplete, and one detailed multi-month saga of unfinished and defective work on a large sewer replacement. The score reflects a company with genuine technical capability and often strong service delivery, undermined by recurring and serious pricing transparency issues and a pattern of follow-through failures on a meaningful minority of jobs.

• 18 reviews contained no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several recent 5-star reviews use suspiciously enthusiastic and generic language with no specific job details (e.g., 'Roman Plumbing & Air turned my disaster into a dream... they create miracles'). This review in particular reads as potentially fake or incentivized and was weighted with reduced confidence.
• Multiple reviews appear to reference different geographic locations and different owner names (Armando in Tucson, Ann in Florida/Cocoa Beach, Frankie as owner in Florida). This suggests the review pool may aggregate reviews from multiple distinct Roman Plumbing businesses or franchises, which significantly reduces the reliability of treating this as a single contractor profile.
• Recency note: A substantial portion of reviews date from 2011–2022. Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) are predominantly 5-star with named technicians and are more recent and relevant. Older negative reviews (2014–2022) document serious issues including abandoned jobs, billing fraud, and poor workmanship that may or may not reflect current operations.
• Pricing complaints are explicit, recurring, and span multiple years and locations: $961 for a pinhole leak repair, $700 for a toilet repair, $6,500 water heater quote, $525 for under an hour of work with pipes that later failed, and a detailed billing dispute involving unauthorized emergency charges and technician-signed invoices. This is a consistent pattern, not isolated incidents.
• One detailed 1-star review (2024-01-26) describes a contractor (Ann) walking off a large sewer replacement job after months of delays, defective work, false claims of completed tasks, and damage to property including a hurricane impact door. This is a serious project completion failure and was weighted heavily in the project completion score.
• One 1-star review (2024-08-01) states the company appeared to be out of business due to no response to calls or texts. This may indicate operational instability at one location.
• A no-show and abandonment pattern appears in multiple reviews across different years (2014, 2019, 2021, 2022), where technicians failed to return or the company accepted jobs and never followed up — particularly through home warranty channels.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (125 total, 107 with usable data) spanning over a decade, but its reliability is meaningfully reduced by strong evidence that reviews may represent multiple distinct businesses operating under the Roman Plumbing name, a recurring and well-documented pattern of pricing complaints and project abandonment, and a subset of reviews that appear generic or potentially inauthentic — consumers should treat this score as a moderate-confidence signal and seek recent, verified references before hiring.

All Purpose Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across a very large review base, with the majority of customers praising responsiveness, punctuality, and technical competence. Professionalism scores well but is tempered by a meaningful cluster of negative reviews citing no-shows, rescheduling failures, poor follow-through on quotes, and at least one instance of a hung-up phone call. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers praise fair or reasonable rates, a notable number of negative reviews specifically call out excessive charges, price gouging, and flat-rate structures that felt deceptive — including charges of $262 to cut drywall, $575 for 1.5 hours of pipe work, and quotes of $8,500–$10,000 for jobs completed elsewhere for far less. Project completion is generally strong, with most jobs described as finished correctly and on time, but several serious failures exist including an abandoned job with a $2,100 charge, a misdiagnosed tankless water heater service that caused a leak and was not remedied, and a refusal to return to complete contracted work. Experience scores positively overall, with many reviewers highlighting knowledgeable technicians who solved complex problems, though a few reviews describe misdiagnosis, upselling without investigation, and work not performed to code.

• LARGE CLUSTER OF UNDATED OR SAME-DATE REVIEWS: A significant number of reviews share identical dates (e.g., 2024-06-09, 2023-06-10, 2021-06-10, 2020-06-10, 2019-06-11), which is a strong indicator of review migration, bulk import, or platform aggregation rather than organic posting. These should be treated with reduced confidence for recency purposes.
• POSSIBLE MULTI-ENTITY AGGREGATION: Reviews reference multiple distinct technicians (Erick, Eric, Chris, Will, John, Gene, Brian, Robert, Josh, Jacob, Daniel, Bob, Cleve, Curtis, Justin, Steve, Francisco, Brent, Chaz, Gary) and appear to span multiple geographic markets (Tacoma WA, North County San Diego CA, Tampa FL, Carlsbad CA). This strongly suggests these reviews may be aggregated from multiple business locations or franchises under one profile, which undermines the reliability of any single composite score.
• LICENSING CONCERN FLAGGED: One reviewer (1-star, 2024-06-09) explicitly states the contractor is not licensed, not bonded, and does not carry general liability insurance, and that the business address does not exist. This is a serious allegation that could not be verified from reviews alone but warrants caution.
• SAFETY CONCERN FLAGGED: One reviewer (1-star, 2017-08-28) describes a water heater installation that was not to code — horizontal vent instead of required 45-degree incline — creating a carbon monoxide risk. The technician allegedly acknowledged the installation but refused to stand behind the work.
• ABANDONED WORK / REFUND REFUSAL: Multiple reviews describe jobs left incomplete with no refund issued, including a $2,100 charge for a washer/dryer relocation where half the contracted work was not performed, and a $1,100 deposit kept after a misdiagnosed underground pipe job was abandoned after less than one hour.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC: Negative pricing feedback is not isolated — it appears across multiple years (2012 through 2024) and multiple technicians, suggesting a structural pricing issue rather than individual bad actors.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: Several 5-star reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Eric was great!', 'Great service!', 'Hardest working plumber around!', 'Can't be trusted.' with 1 star and no detail). The clustering of many reviews on identical dates further raises suspicion. Confidence in the aggregate positive score is reduced accordingly.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2012 to June 2025. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) are mixed, including both strong positives and serious negatives. The score is not dominated by older reviews, but the same-date clustering makes precise recency weighting unreliable.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but its real-world reliability is MODERATE at best, given strong evidence of multi-location review aggregation, a licensing allegation, systemic pricing complaints, multiple instances of abandoned or incomplete work, and a significant cluster of same-date reviews that suggest bulk import rather than organic customer feedback — consumers should independently verify licensing, insurance, and local reputation before hiring.

Northside Services earns strong marks for professionalism across a very large review base, with dozens of customers explicitly praising punctuality, courteous technicians, clear communication, and respectful conduct in the home. Project completion scores are solid overall — the majority of jobs are described as finished thoroughly and on time — but are meaningfully dragged down by a recurring pattern of no-shows, rescheduling failures, and at least one multi-visit repair that should have been resolved on the first call. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many customers praise fair and affordable pricing, a notable minority of credible reviewers explicitly describe being quoted prices far above competitors, being charged for work that should have been covered under warranty, and in one case an alleged attempt to install a used unit as new. Technical experience is generally strong, with many reviewers praising skilled diagnostics and problem-solving, but offset by several reviews describing technicians who failed to diagnose correctly, made problems worse, or allegedly tampered with equipment. The score reflects a company with a genuinely strong service culture that has nonetheless accumulated a meaningful and credible body of negative experiences over its long history.

• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A cluster of reviews from 2024-06-09 share very similar structure (long praise, named technician Lorenzo or Will, highly generic superlatives). While not identical in phrasing, the concentration of similarly structured 5-star reviews on a single date warrants caution. Confidence not fully reduced as content is specific enough to be plausible, but noted.
• RECENCY IMBALANCE: A significant portion of reviews date from 2003–2017 and carry less weight. The score is anchored primarily on 2024–2025 reviews, which are more numerous and more detailed. Older negative reviews (2013–2018) describe serious misconduct allegations including attempted fraud, misrepresentation of equipment, and sabotage — these are treated as credible but discounted slightly due to age and possible management changes.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS: Multiple older reviews (2013–2018) allege deliberate deception including: attempting to install an 8-year-old used furnace as new, switching wires on a unit to manufacture a fault, and installing mismatched system components (3.5-ton air handler sold as 5-ton). These are unverified but come from multiple independent reviewers with specific detail and are not dismissed.
• INSTALLATION QUALITY CONCERNS: At least two reviews describe improper installation causing property damage (flooding due to incorrectly installed drain pipe), and one describes copper lines installed out of code. The company's response in at least one case was to deny responsibility.
• WARRANTY AND FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe the company failing to honor warranty terms, not returning calls from customers with complaints, and failing to show up for scheduled appointments without notification — these directly impact the project completion score.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Credible reviews describe quotes significantly above market rate (compressor replacement quoted at $2,500 vs. repaired for $1,500 elsewhere; estimate $1,000 higher than competitors; $200–$250/hr labor rate complaint). This is balanced against an equal number of reviews praising fair and affordable pricing, suggesting inconsistency rather than a uniform policy.
• BLANK AND UNKNOWN REVIEWS: Several reviews contain only 'unknown', '.', or no text at all. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data, though their star ratings were noted.

This WW Score is based on a very large review set spanning over two decades and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but prospective customers should weigh the credible and specific allegations of misconduct and pricing inconsistency from the 2013–2019 period alongside the predominantly positive recent (2024–2025) reviews, as the company's service quality appears to have been uneven over time.

Curtis Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, long-term customers who consistently praise individual technicians — particularly Anthony, Matt, Joe, Jaime, and Chris — for punctuality, professionalism, and technical competence. Professionalism scores well overall but is meaningfully dragged down by a recurring pattern of negative reviews citing missed appointments, no-shows, lack of follow-up communication, and dismissive responses from management when complaints were raised. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many customers report fair or even below-expectation costs, a notable cluster of negative reviews describes significant markups on parts (3-4x retail), undisclosed travel fees, billing for time not worked, and estimates that were promised but never delivered. Project completion is generally solid — most jobs described are finished and customers return repeatedly — but there are credible accounts of unresolved issues (septic problem recurring after payment, dishwasher left non-functional, pipe installed below code) that prevent a higher score. Experience scores highest among the dimensions, with many reviewers specifically noting technical skill, problem-solving ability, and quality workmanship across complex jobs.

• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW CLUSTER: A high concentration of reviews from June 2025 (approximately 14 reviews within a 9-day window) feature near-identical structure — short praise, named technician (predominantly 'Jaime'/'Jamie' and 'Conner/Connor'), and no specific job details. Several are suspiciously brief (e.g., 'Jaime and Connor were fantastic!', 'great work Devon and Scott', 'Jaime and Conner did a great job keep it up'). One review (June 3, 2025) describes meeting a technician at a gas station handing out brochures — this is atypical and may represent a solicited or incentivized review rather than a genuine service experience.
• RECENCY BIAS RISK: The majority of highly positive reviews are concentrated in 2024-2025, while a disproportionate share of negative reviews span 2011-2021. This may reflect genuine improvement over time, but it may also reflect review solicitation practices skewing recent scores upward.
• BILLING AND TRANSPARENCY CONCERNS: Multiple independent negative reviews across different years (2011, 2016, 2018, 2020, 2021, 2023) describe undisclosed fees, parts marked up 3-4x retail, billing for hours not worked, and estimates charged but never delivered. This is a consistent pattern across unrelated reviewers and time periods, indicating a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.
• COMMUNICATION AND FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: At least 5 separate reviews describe the company failing to send promised estimates, failing to return calls or emails, or failing to show up for scheduled appointments without notice. One reviewer documented 4-5 unanswered follow-up contacts. This pattern meaningfully impacts the professionalism score.
• MANAGEMENT RESPONSE CONCERNS: Two reviews describe the owner or office manager responding to complaints in a dismissive or retaliatory manner, including one instance where a refund was reportedly rescinded after a negative review was posted. This is a significant integrity flag.
• 9 reviews contained no text (blank body with only a star rating) and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• GEOGRAPHIC INCONSISTENCY: One negative review references Tucson, AZ and another references Oracle/Rancho Vistoso (also Arizona), while the majority of reviews reference Tampa Bay/Riverview, FL. This may indicate the business has operated in multiple locations or that some reviews are misattributed, which could affect score reliability.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (109 reviews) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in volume terms, but the score should be interpreted cautiously due to a credible fake review cluster in June 2025, a consistent multi-year pattern of billing and communication complaints from independent reviewers, and evidence of management responses that raise integrity concerns — the true score for a new customer's experience may be lower than the calculated 74.2.