Find Nearby Plumbers In Tampa, Florida

Professionalism scores reasonably well across a large volume of reviews, with many customers praising punctuality, courtesy, communication, and technician demeanor — however, this is meaningfully offset by multiple serious complaints including a technician with a gas leak oversight, a rude technician who refused to allow customers to speak, repeated no-shows, and a pattern of poor follow-through from office staff. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while some customers praised fair or competitive pricing, a substantial number of reviews explicitly called out price gouging, unexpectedly high quotes, hidden charges, bait-and-switch tactics, and pressure sales — this is a recurring and credible pattern across multiple years and locations. Project completion is mixed: many jobs were completed same-day and efficiently, but there are multiple credible accounts of abandoned work, unresolved callbacks, permit fraud, incomplete jobs, and technicians failing to return — including one customer strung along for over a year. Experience scores moderately well, with many reviewers praising technical knowledge and problem-solving, though several reviews document misdiagnosis, wrong parts ordered, and sending HVAC techs to do plumbing work.

• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A large cluster of reviews dated 2025-04-10, 2025-05-26, 2025-06-02, and 2025-06-05 share identical dates with no timestamps, many are blank (rating only, no text), and the non-blank ones in these clusters are short and generic. This pattern is consistent with bulk review padding. Blank reviews (rating only, no text) account for approximately 33 of the 218 total reviews and have been excluded from dimension scoring.
• PERMIT FRAUD ALLEGATION: At least two reviews from the same apparent customer (dated 2024-05-23 and 2024-06-14) allege the company promised permits, failed to deliver, and then went silent — targeting a widow of a veteran. A third related review (2024-06-14) corroborates this. These are serious, specific, and credible allegations that significantly impact the project completion and professionalism scores.
• GAS SAFETY INCIDENT: One review (2022-01-11) describes a natural gas leak left unsealed for approximately 20 hours after a water heater installation, resulting in health impacts to the reviewer and their pet. This is a critical safety flag.
• REPEATED NO-SHOWS AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: Multiple independent reviews across different years (2015, 2020, 2021, 2024) describe appointments being cancelled last-minute, technicians failing to arrive within quoted windows, and no callbacks — indicating a systemic scheduling and accountability problem.
• BAIT-AND-SWITCH PRICING: One detailed review (2025-06-04) describes a phone rep promising transparent pricing, followed by a technician demanding $280 upfront — contradicting the company's own 'no surprise costs' website claim. The technician then selectively played a call recording to dispute the customer's account.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2011 to 2025. Reviews from 2015 and earlier are given reduced weight. The majority of substantive reviews (both positive and negative) are from 2020 onward and are well-represented in scoring.
• MULTI-LOCATION AGGREGATION RISK: Reviews appear to reference multiple franchise locations (Pearland TX, Monterey CA, South Florida, San Antonio TX, Yukon OK, Fallbrook CA, etc.). Scores reflect the aggregate brand experience and may not accurately represent any single location.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (218 total, ~185 with usable data) spanning over a decade and multiple franchise locations, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in volume — however, the presence of suspected bulk-padded blank reviews, serious unresolved allegations of permit fraud and a gas safety incident, and a clear recurring pattern of pricing complaints and scheduling failures means the score should be treated as a moderate-confidence indicator of brand-level performance, not a guarantee of quality at any individual franchise location.

This aggregated review set spans a very large number of contractors and plumbers operating under similar business names (Affordable Plumbing, Abel/Able Plumbing, Joseph's Affordable Plumbing, and others), making it a mixed-entity dataset rather than a single contractor profile. The majority of reviews are strongly positive, praising responsiveness, punctuality, friendliness, and fair pricing across many individual technicians such as Avi, Noe, Angelo, Bob, Chris, Rigo, and others. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — roughly 15 to 20 percent of substantive reviews — describe serious issues including incomplete work, no-shows, dishonest pricing, rude owner behavior, property damage left unaddressed, and failure to honor callbacks or warranties. Pricing feedback is mixed: many reviewers praise affordability and transparency, while a notable number describe hidden charges, inflated quotes, or prices that far exceeded estimates. Project completion is similarly split, with many jobs praised as thorough and timely, but a recurring pattern of abandoned work, repeat visits for the same unresolved issue, and jobs left incomplete dragging the score down significantly.

• MULTI-ENTITY DATASET WARNING: Reviews appear to originate from multiple distinct businesses operating under similar names (e.g., Affordable Plumbing in Tucson AZ, West Hollywood CA, Chicago IL, Georgia, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and others). Scores reflect an aggregate and should not be applied to any single contractor without filtering by location and technician name.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A subset of reviews, particularly those dated 2017-06-08 through 2017-06-13 and 2018-06-08, share identical or near-identical dates with no review text detail (e.g., 'Excellent workmanship', 'Great job', 'Excellent', 'Very well'). These appear potentially bulk-submitted and have been weighted conservatively.
• NO-TEXT REVIEWS EXCLUDED: Approximately 15 to 20 reviews contained no review text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from approximately 2000 to June 2025. A significant portion of reviews predate 2020 and some predate 2015. Recency weighting was applied, giving greater influence to reviews from 2023 to 2025, which remain largely positive but include several serious complaints.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — OWNER CONDUCT: Multiple independent negative reviews across different apparent business locations describe the owner or manager as rude, argumentative, or retaliatory toward customers who complained. This is a recurring behavioral flag that reduces confidence in professionalism scores.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — INCOMPLETE WORK AND NO-SHOWS: Multiple reviews across different time periods describe technicians failing to show up for scheduled appointments without notice, jobs left unfinished, and management refusing to return to correct their own errors. This materially reduces the project completion score.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — PRICING DISPUTES: Several reviews describe quotes that escalated significantly after work began, charges for work not performed, and refusal to itemize costs. One review describes a quote growing from $75 to $7,000. These are serious red flags for pricing transparency.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE COMPLAINTS: At least three reviews describe property damage caused by technicians (scratched toilet, flooded house, broken shower door) with the company refusing to accept responsibility or make repairs.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but LOW entity reliability because the dataset aggregates reviews for multiple distinct businesses operating under similar names across different US cities and states; consumers should treat this score as a general industry benchmark rather than a rating for any single contractor, and must independently verify the specific business and technician before hiring.

All Pro Plumbing has a large and highly polarized review base. The majority of reviews praise individual technicians — particularly Ifran, Eddie/Lalo, Brandon, Jerry, and others — for punctuality, friendliness, clear communication, and technical skill. However, a significant and recurring minority of negative reviews describe serious failures: no-shows without notification, ghosting after payment, incomplete work, overcharging (especially of elderly and vulnerable customers), and confrontational or dishonest office staff (particularly referencing 'Michelle' and 'Ifran' in separate negative contexts). Pricing is a mixed picture — many reviewers cite fair or below-market rates, while others describe feeling gouged or misled on costs. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with multiple credible accounts of abandoned jobs, failed callbacks, and warranty promises that were never honored. The experience dimension scores highest, as technical competence is frequently praised when work is actually completed, but is undermined by instances of misdiagnosis and substandard workmanship.

• SUSPECTED FAKE OR LOW-QUALITY REVIEWS: A cluster of reviews dated 2025-05-09, 2025-05-18, and 2025-05-25 use nearly identical templated language ('arrived on time,' 'fixed the issue quickly,' 'very polite,' 'highly recommend') with no specific technician names, job details, or unique context. These appear to be generic, possibly fabricated 5-star reviews and have been discounted in scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review from 'Ifran came and did a thorough inspection...' (grey water leak, toilet) appears verbatim twice with dates 2024-09-19 and 2024-09-20. Similarly, the emergency kitchen sink leak review appears twice on 2024-09-10. These duplicates were counted once each.
• MULTIPLE CREDIBLE ACCOUNTS OF NO-SHOWS AND GHOSTING: At least 15 distinct reviews across multiple years describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and the company did not call to reschedule or apologize. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• FINANCIAL MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews allege technicians kept cash payments without crediting the company, that promised refunds were never issued, that a warranty water heater check was cashed by the technician personally, and that discounts (first responder, veteran, senior) were promised but not applied. These are serious credibility and trust concerns.
• INCOMPLETE WORK AND WARRANTY FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe jobs left unfinished, work that failed inspection, and warranty promises that were explicitly not honored when customers called back. This pattern significantly depresses the project completion score.
• OFFICE STAFF COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews specifically name 'Michelle' (described as an owner or manager) as dishonest, confrontational, or unresponsive. This suggests a systemic customer service issue at the administrative level, separate from individual technician quality.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2019 to present, with a strong concentration in 2024-2025. Older reviews (pre-2018) are sparse and have been given reduced weight. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show continued mixed patterns — both strong positive individual technician reviews and continued no-show and communication complaints.
• ENTITY AMBIGUITY: Reviews reference multiple different owners, managers, and operating locations (Bay Area CA, Camarillo CA, McHenry IL, Fresno CA, Reno NV, Texas, Florida, Indiana, and others). It is likely that 'All Pro Plumbing' is a name used by multiple unrelated businesses. Scores reflect the aggregate of all reviews as submitted but users should be aware that this may not represent a single unified company.
• ROAD RAGE INCIDENTS: Two separate reviews (2024 and 2019) describe dangerous or aggressive driving by employees in marked company vehicles. While not directly related to plumbing quality, these reflect on company culture and employee conduct.

This WW Score of 72.1 is based on a very large review set and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its direction, but should be interpreted cautiously due to strong evidence of fake or templated reviews inflating the positive signal, serious and credible recurring complaints about no-shows, financial misconduct, and incomplete work, and likely entity ambiguity across multiple unrelated businesses operating under the same name.

Apex Plumbing has a large volume of positive reviews praising responsiveness, punctuality, and knowledgeable technicians, which drives reasonably strong scores across all four dimensions. However, a meaningful cluster of 1-2 star reviews describes serious issues including substandard workmanship, abandoned or incomplete jobs, warranty refusals, property damage left unaddressed, and overcharging — particularly in connection with the City of Denver lead pipe replacement program. Pricing scores are pulled down by multiple explicit complaints of price gouging, bait-and-switch estimates, and unexpected upcharges. Project completion scores are significantly impacted by reviews describing unfinished work, ghosting after payment, and failure to restore yards, sprinkler systems, and interiors after excavation work. The overall picture is a company capable of excellent service but with a documented pattern of inconsistency that prevents higher scores.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS — CLUSTER 1: A group of 9 reviews all dated 2025-05-10 reference 'Roberts Family Plumbing' technicians named Douglas, Gregory, and Mason in Escondido. These reviews appear on an Apex Plumbing profile, reference a different company by name, mention 'new management' and 'new ownership' repeatedly, use suspiciously similar phrasing, and are all 5-star with no critical detail. These are almost certainly fabricated reviews planted on the wrong profile and have been excluded from scoring.
• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS — CLUSTER 2: A large batch of reviews dated exactly 2024-06-09 and 2023-06-10 with identical timestamps and many containing no review text (rating only) are suspicious. While some contain legitimate detail, the identical date clustering across dozens of reviews suggests possible bulk submission or review gating. Scores have been conservatively adjusted to account for this uncertainty.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two nearly identical reviews from 2024-09-30 and 2024-10-01 describing the same West Tampa job with Joe, Mike, Elliot, John, and Matt appear to be the same reviewer submitting twice. Only counted once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two nearly identical reviews from 2022-09-10 praising Kyle and Edwin for the same garbage disposal and water filtration job appear to be the same reviewer submitting twice. Only counted once.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE PATTERN — PROJECT COMPLETION: Multiple reviews describe Apex completing excavation or pipe work and then failing to restore yards, sprinkler systems, driveways, or interiors. Several reviewers report being ghosted after raising these concerns. This is a recurring and credible pattern spanning multiple years.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE PATTERN — WARRANTY REFUSAL: Multiple reviews explicitly describe Apex refusing to honor stated warranties on completed work, including a 5-year warranty dispute and a 1-year warranty cutoff on a leaking tub installation.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE PATTERN — OVERCHARGING: Multiple reviews describe price increases after initial quotes, upcharges for standard components, and at least one explicit bait-and-switch allegation ($500 estimate escalating to $3,500 demand).
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE PATTERN — COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe failure to call back, missed appointments without notice, rude receptionists, and failure to deliver promised estimates over weeks.
• EMPLOYEE REVIEW DETECTED: One 1-star review dated 2024-10-17 appears to be written by a former employee describing internal company culture and a workplace death. This review does not reflect customer service experience and was excluded from dimension scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2010 to 2025. The majority of reviews with substantive content are from 2023-2025 and have been weighted more heavily. Older negative reviews (2012-2016) show some of the same patterns as recent negatives, suggesting persistent systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.
• 30 reviews contained no text (rating only) and could not be scored on any dimension. These were counted in total_reviews_analyzed but excluded from reviews_with_usable_data.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (277 total) with HIGH confidence across all dimensions, but should be interpreted cautiously due to a credible pattern of serious service failures, suspected fake review clusters, and significant score variance between individual technicians — suggesting the customer experience at Apex Plumbing is highly inconsistent depending on which technician and which type of job is involved.

RJ Kielty receives strong praise for individual technicians across professionalism, knowledge, and friendliness, with many reviewers specifically naming techs like August, Frank, Manny, Bill Anderson, and others by name for excellent service. However, the company is significantly dragged down by a recurring pattern of serious operational failures: multiple reviews describe no-shows or late arrivals without notification, broken scheduling promises, parts not being ordered, warranty disputes, and management being unresponsive or outright rude. Project completion is the weakest dimension, with numerous credible accounts of jobs left incomplete, inspections failing repeatedly, and follow-through being poor especially on warranty and callback work. Pricing is generally viewed as fair to reasonable by most reviewers who mention it, though a few flag unexpected charges or price changes after the fact. The gap between excellent field technicians and poor back-office and management performance is the defining characteristic of this company's review profile.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW ALERT: Multiple reviews appear to be exact word-for-word duplicates posted on different dates within days of each other (e.g., 'Josh and his assistant were great...' appears on 2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06; 'Frank Hanson was amazing...' appears on 2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06; 'professional and polite and a pleasure able person' appears on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-05; 'My technician Deven was friendly...' appears on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-05; 'August is the best!' appears on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04; 'Stephen was punctual...' appears on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04; 'Great warranty service...' appears on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04; 'Professional, knowledgeable and trustworthy.' appears on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04). This is a strong indicator of review manipulation or system duplication and significantly reduces confidence in the recent review cluster.
• HIGH VOLUME OF EMPTY REVIEWS: Approximately 35-40 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a 5-star rating. These provide no usable data and inflate the perceived review count without substantive evidence.
• RECENCY CLUSTER ANOMALY: The June 2025 reviews are almost entirely 5-star with short or empty text, and several are confirmed duplicates. This cluster appears artificially inflated and has been weighted conservatively.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW PATTERN — SCHEDULING AND MANAGEMENT: At least 10 substantive negative reviews (1-2 stars) from 2017–2025 describe a consistent pattern of no-shows, missed appointment windows without notification, management not returning calls, and warranty disputes being ignored. This is a systemic operational issue, not isolated incidents.
• WARRANTY AND FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURES: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe the company failing to honor warranties, not completing inspections, abandoning jobs mid-project, and failing to order parts. One reviewer describes a furnace/AC installation that failed inspection multiple times over more than a year with no resolution.
• ONE REVIEWER explicitly questioned whether the company pays for 5-star ratings, which combined with the duplicate review pattern warrants serious scrutiny of the authenticity of the positive review volume.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability for the negative signals identified — the operational and management failures are corroborated across many independent reviewers spanning multiple years — but the positive score components should be treated with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews, a large number of empty 5-star reviews, and a suspicious clustering of identical reviews in June 2025.

Perez Plumbing has a large and predominantly positive review base, with many customers praising responsiveness, fair pricing, and skilled workmanship across a wide range of jobs including water heater replacements, leak repairs, and pipe work. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — roughly 20-25% of substantive reviews — raise serious concerns including incomplete work left undiscovered for extended periods, alleged overcharging, rude office staff, no-show appointments, and at least one claim of $45,000 in uninsured damage. Professionalism scores are pulled down significantly by recurring complaints about the front-office/scheduling staff being rude or dismissive, and by multiple no-show or late-arrival incidents. Pricing scores are mixed: while many customers praise fair and competitive rates, several credible negative reviews describe charges that appear excessive or inconsistent with the work performed. Project completion is generally strong but is meaningfully penalized by the disconnected kitchen drain incident, the incomplete pipe replacement allegation, and the irrigation meter job that left the lawn torn up for weeks.

• Approximately 25 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These blank reviews (mostly 5-star) cannot be scored and inflate the apparent rating without providing usable evidence.
• Several reviews appear to reference entirely different companies or locations (e.g., HVAC furnace work, A/C capacitor repair, tire change assistance, construction across the street) suggesting this review pool may aggregate reviews for multiple businesses sharing the 'Perez Plumbing' name or that some reviews were misdirected. These were excluded from scoring where clearly irrelevant.
• A pattern of very short, generic 5-star reviews with no specifics (e.g., 'Love their service!', 'Very good', 'Good', 'All went well', 'unknown') raises moderate fake review concern. These were treated as low-weight evidence.
• One 1-star review references a 'Marcos' and 'Damon' as owner — names not mentioned in other reviews — suggesting possible review bleed from a different Perez Plumbing entity.
• One review references dangerous driving behavior and another references road conduct — these are not plumbing service reviews and were excluded from scoring.
• A review dated 2005 describes workers with poor English proficiency and a 3-hour delay returning with an invoice — this and other pre-2015 reviews were given minimal weight due to age.
• The 1-star review alleging a disconnected kitchen drain left draining into a crawl space for an extended period is a serious workmanship and integrity flag that was weighted heavily in project completion scoring.
• At least two credible reviews allege billing for work not performed or for excessive amounts relative to time on site, which is a significant pricing integrity concern.
• Recency note: The majority of detailed, substantive reviews are from 2024-2025, which is positive for recency weighting. However, negative reviews are also well-represented in this recent window.

This WW Score is based on a large review volume with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but should be interpreted cautiously given the serious nature of several negative reviews, the presence of numerous blank reviews inflating star averages, and evidence suggesting this pool may include reviews for more than one business operating under the Perez Plumbing name.