Find Nearby Plumbers In Tampa, Florida

Adelphi Plumbing receives mixed signals across a very small review set. Professionalism is generally positive — two reviewers describe John as personable, professional, and trustworthy — but one reviewer had a frustrating experience where no work was performed yet a significant charge was applied, which meaningfully drags down both professionalism and pricing scores. Pricing is similarly split: two reviewers call his rates reasonable, while one felt the charge was unjustified for the minimal service rendered. Project completion is a concern: one review explicitly describes a job completed successfully, one describes no fix being performed, and one review involves no completed work at all (off-hours emergency handled by another company), leaving completion confidence low. Experience signals are modestly positive but rest on only two data points, warranting conservative scoring.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is statistically unreliable and should be treated with significant caution.
• Two of the three reviews are older than 12 months (2020 and 2017); only one review is from the past 12 months (2022). Recency weighting is poor.
• The 2017 review is over 6 years old and may not reflect current service quality.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details, varied language, and include both positive and negative feedback, suggesting authenticity.
• The negative review raises a specific concern about charging nearly $100 for flushing a toilet without resolving the issue — this is a notable service quality and pricing red flag.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 5+ years, making it a LOW-reliability indicator of current contractor performance — prospective customers should seek additional references before hiring.

This contractor shows mixed performance across a small sample of reviews spanning nearly a decade. Professionalism is supported by multiple mentions of pleasant demeanor and quick responsiveness, though one critical failure to follow up on a quote significantly impacts this dimension. Pricing feedback is positive but limited to two mentions. Project completion is severely hampered by one explicit abandonment (no callback after initial consultation), offsetting positive completion reports. Technical skill appears solid where work was completed. The age of most reviews (2014–2017) and small sample size limit confidence in this assessment.

• CRITICAL: One review (2017-04-11) explicitly documents failure to follow up on a quote after initial consultation and site visit—this is a significant project completion failure.
• Three reviews are extremely generic ('Excellent work', 'excellent...', 'unknown') with no specific details, limiting their evidentiary value.
• All reviews are older than 7 years (2014–2017); no recent data available to assess current performance.
• Very small sample size (5 reviews total) limits statistical reliability.
• One 5-star review with only 'unknown' as text provides no actionable information.

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size, age of reviews, and presence of one documented service failure that contradicts positive feedback. The WW Score reflects mixed performance, but confidence is limited and does not reflect current business practices.

This contractor has a sharply divided review profile — three strong positive reviews praising responsiveness, weekend availability, and problem-solving, set against two detailed and credible negative reviews describing failed leak detection, misleading pricing, and wasted money. The pricing dimension is notably problematic: one reviewer explicitly documented a bait-and-switch from the advertised $89 to $138, and another paid $275 with no usable result, dragging that score down significantly. Project completion is the most contested dimension, with two reviewers explicitly stating the leak was never found or was located incorrectly by approximately 50 feet, which is a serious workmanship failure. Positive reviews are older on average, while the most detailed negative reviews cluster in 2021, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time. Overall confidence is limited given the small review pool and the meaningful proportion of strongly negative, specific complaints.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The two most negative and detailed reviews are from 2021, while most positive reviews are from 2019–2020. This may indicate a decline in service quality over time. More recent data is needed.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: One reviewer explicitly documented that the advertised $89 price on the van does not reflect actual charges ($89 + $49 service call = $138), and a separate reviewer paid $275 with no result. This is a material concern for the pricing dimension.
• CREDIBILITY FLAG — NEGATIVE REVIEWER ALLEGES REVIEW SUPPRESSION: One 1-star reviewer explicitly states their review was removed from the company's own website, suggesting the contractor may be curating their on-site reputation. This warrants caution when interpreting any reviews sourced directly from the company's platform.
• FAILED DELIVERABLE PATTERN: Two independent reviewers report that the core service — leak detection — was not successfully completed. One reviewer states the diagnosis was off by approximately 50 feet. This is a significant pattern given the small sample size.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 6 reviews total. Scores should be treated as directional indicators only, not definitive assessments.

This WW Score carries limited reliability due to a small review pool of only 6 reviews, a significant split between detailed positive and detailed negative experiences, credible allegations of pricing misrepresentation, and at least two documented cases of the primary service failing to deliver a usable result.

Bahr Plumbing has a mixed record across the reviews analyzed. Positive reviews highlight responsive communication, polite and friendly technicians, same-day service, and quality workmanship on jobs like re-piping and water heater installation. However, two significant negative reviews drag scores down considerably: one reviewer reported being stood up entirely with no call or follow-up, directly undermining professionalism and project completion confidence, and another reported contradictory information given to different callers about services offered, raising honesty concerns. Pricing received both praise (described as fair and competitive) and a complaint about unclear or inconsistent quoting practices. The overall picture is a contractor with genuine capability but notable reliability and communication inconsistencies.

• RECENCY WARNING: Three of the six reviews are from 2016–2019, making them 5–8 years old. Only two reviews are from the past 12 months (2024). The older reviews carry reduced weight in assessing current performance.
• HONESTY/CONSISTENCY CONCERN: The 2024 1-star review explicitly alleges that different information was given to different callers about available services, which is a direct integrity flag and not merely a service complaint.
• NO-SHOW INCIDENT: The 2018 1-star review describes a complete failure to appear for a scheduled estimate with no communication, which is a serious professionalism and reliability concern.
• SMALL SAMPLE WARNING: Only 6 reviews total. Scores and the WW Score should be treated as directional only and not statistically reliable. Confidence is inherently limited at this sample size.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in tone, detail level, rating, and date. No suspicious repetition or generic phrasing patterns were identified.

This WW Score is based on only 6 reviews spanning 7+ years, with meaningful negative data points that temper otherwise positive feedback — treat this score as a preliminary signal only, and seek additional recent references before hiring.

Pricing is the most consistently mentioned dimension across all 5 reviews and is also the most polarizing — two reviews explicitly describe quotes as grossly overpriced (a $650 quote for a toilet replacement others priced at $200, and garden faucet quotes double what a competitor charged), while two positive reviews describe pricing as fair or good. This splits the pricing score significantly downward. Professionalism and project completion scores are moderate and driven by three positive reviews praising punctuality, communication, and follow-through, but these are offset by the negative reviews which say nothing positive about the service experience. Experience received limited mentions, with positive references to skilled pipe replacement work and clog resolution on old pipes, but only two reviews touched on this dimension. Overall, the score is dragged down substantially by credible, specific pricing complaints from recent reviews.

• Two of the five reviews are negative and specifically cite pricing as a major concern with concrete dollar comparisons — these are credible and specific complaints that carry significant weight.
• The three positive reviews are generally favorable but two of them (2023 dates) are over 12 months old relative to the most recent reviews; the two negative reviews are from 2024 and are the most recent data points.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in tone, detail level, and rating, which suggests authenticity.
• Small sample size of only 5 reviews makes all scores low-reliability; confidence factors are reduced accordingly in the WW Score calculation.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews and should be treated as a preliminary signal only — a minimum of 10–15 reviews would be needed to produce a score with meaningful reliability.

The review set is deeply mixed, with two strong positive reviews praising punctuality, communication, and thorough workmanship, offset by two serious negative reviews. The 1-star review from 2020 explicitly describes an employee as unprofessional, rude, and incomplete in his work, and raises a concerning allegation about license misuse. The 2019 1-star review describes a pricing dispute where the customer felt overcharged and misled about the scope of work performed. Project completion is a notable concern, as one review explicitly states work was left unfinished for five months due to the company lacking funds for parts. The two positive reviews do reflect genuine punctuality, honest quoting, and completed work, but these are outweighed in severity by the documented failures.

• One review (2020) alleges that an employee named Jose Gamboa uses the company's license number for unauthorized side work — this is a serious legal and professional concern if accurate.
• One review (2019) describes a pricing dispute involving repeated charges for incomplete work, suggesting possible deceptive billing practices.
• One review (2020) explicitly states work was abandoned for 5 months due to the company lacking funds to purchase required parts — a significant project completion failure.
• Three of the five reviews are older than 12 months from a typical current date; only the 2024 and 2023 reviews are recent. The two most negative reviews are from 2019 and 2020, which may reflect past rather than current performance, but cannot be dismissed.
• The two 5-star reviews (2024 and 2023) contain specific details and are likely genuine. The 2017 5-star review also contains specific operational details and appears credible.
• Small sample size of only 5 reviews severely limits reliability of all dimension scores.

This WW Score should be treated with significant caution — the sample size of 5 reviews is too small for high confidence, the review set spans 7 years with inconsistent quality signals, and two reviews contain serious allegations about billing practices, incomplete work, and employee conduct that meaningfully drag down trustworthiness.