Find Nearby Plumbers In Tampa, Florida

Dunedin Plumbing exhibits significant operational challenges across multiple dimensions. While individual technicians (Mike A., Evan, Josh, Cole, Ronnie, Stone) frequently receive praise for technical skill and friendliness, systemic issues severely undermine overall performance. Professionalism is compromised by poor communication, missed callbacks, no-shows, and unprofessional owner behavior. Pricing is a major complaint with consistent reports of excessive charges, lack of transparency, hidden fees, and billing disputes. Project completion suffers from incomplete repairs requiring callbacks, work that creates new problems, and failure to stand behind warranty obligations. The company demonstrates inconsistent quality dependent on which technician is assigned.

• CRITICAL: Severe pricing complaints dominate negative reviews (48 mentions). Customers report charges 2-3x market rate, lack of itemized quotes, hidden fees, and billing disputes. This is the single largest driver of poor ratings.
• CRITICAL: Project completion failures are pervasive. Multiple reviews document incomplete repairs, callbacks that still don't fix problems, work that damages property, and refusal to honor warranties or take responsibility for defects.
• CRITICAL: Owner behavior is unprofessional and hostile. Multiple reviews describe rude phone interactions, refusal to address complaints, hanging up on customers, yelling, name-calling (including alleged anti-Semitic slur), and dismissive attitudes toward legitimate concerns.
• CRITICAL: Communication failures are systematic. Numerous reviews report missed callbacks, no-shows despite promised appointments, failure to call before arrival, and inconsistent follow-through on commitments.
• Pattern: Technician quality is highly variable. Positive reviews consistently name specific technicians (Mike A., Evan, Josh, Cole, Ronnie, Stone), while negative reviews often describe incompetence or lack of effort. This suggests inconsistent hiring/training.
• Pattern: Water heater installations are problematic. Multiple reviews document leaks, failed city inspections, warranty disputes, and refusal to address defects on recently installed units.
• Pattern: Billing practices are deceptive. Reviews describe being charged for estimates without disclosure, double-billing when two technicians sent, charging for apprentices as licensed plumbers, and refusing to provide itemized invoices.
• Pattern: Warranty denial is consistent. Multiple customers report being told 'we don't warranty our work' or warranty is only 1 year despite recent installations failing.
• Recency concern: Most negative reviews are from 2019-2024 (past 5 years), indicating ongoing systemic problems rather than historical issues. Recent reviews (2024) show same patterns as older ones.
• Fake review risk: LOW. Positive reviews contain specific technician names, detailed descriptions of work, and acknowledge pricing concerns. Negative reviews are highly detailed with dates, amounts, and specific incidents. No suspicious repetitive language detected.

This WW Score of 54.8 is highly reliable (HIGH confidence across all dimensions with 35-62 mentions each). The company demonstrates a clear pattern of operational dysfunction: excellent individual technician performance undermined by systemic failures in management, communication, billing practices, and warranty accountability. The score reflects a business where customer experience is heavily dependent on which technician arrives, but where organizational failures create significant risk regardless of technical competence. Customers should expect high prices, potential billing disputes, communication challenges, and limited recourse if work is defective.

Cass Plumbing presents a deeply polarized review profile. A meaningful subset of customers — particularly those served by named technicians like Richard, Robert, Brian, and Curtis — report highly professional, skilled, and communicative service, often praising same-day responsiveness and thorough workmanship. However, a substantial volume of negative reviews consistently cite predatory or grossly inflated pricing, failure to honor advertised discounts and coupons, incomplete or botched work, and rude office staff — patterns that appear across many years and multiple reviewers. Project completion is a significant concern, with multiple reviews describing jobs left unfinished, problems not resolved on the first visit, and in at least two cases requiring legal or regulatory intervention to compel completion. Pricing is the weakest dimension by far, with numerous reviewers documenting quotes 2x–10x higher than competitors for identical work, and several describing deceptive discount practices.

• PRICING CONCERN: Repeated, specific, and credible accounts of grossly inflated quotes across many years (2015–2025) — including $3,250 for work quoted at ~$400 elsewhere, $6,400 for a water heater retailing at $1,300–$1,600, $2,800 for a blocked toilet, and $650 for a washer valve job done elsewhere for $350. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• DECEPTIVE DISCOUNT PRACTICES: Multiple independent reviewers (2017–2021) describe the '$75 gift certificate' and 'Team Club' membership discounts as being routinely not honored, applied deceptively, or used as a bait-and-switch mechanism. This is a recurring and credible pattern.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: At least three reviews describe jobs that were not completed or not fixed, with one reviewer requiring BBB intervention and a lawyer letter to get a job finished nearly 3 months after a 3-day estimate. Another describes being charged $1,000 for services (jetting and camera) that were never performed.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE NOT REMEDIATED: Two separate reviews (2021 and 2024) describe property damage caused by Cass employees during visits, with the company refusing to take responsibility or repair the damage in both cases.
• STAFF CONDUCT: Multiple reviews cite rude office staff, hang-ups mid-conversation, and in one case a supervisor allegedly telling a customer to 'go f*** themselves.' One review describes an employee soliciting under-the-table work, which is a serious professional and legal concern.
• FAKE/THIN REVIEW SUSPICION (MINOR): Several 5-star reviews contain no review text (only a rating), and a cluster of reviews dated 2024-06-09 includes multiple very short, generic, undetailed 5-star entries ('Great service.', 'My experience with the Cass company was WOW.'). These inflate the positive review count and reduce confidence in the aggregate star rating. Scores have been adjusted conservatively to account for this.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews span from 2015 through 2025, indicating these are not isolated historical issues. Positive reviews also span this period, suggesting performance is highly technician-dependent rather than reflecting consistent company-wide standards.
• EMPLOYEE REVIEW: One 1-star review is from a former employee describing poor internal management. This has been excluded from customer-facing dimension scoring but is noted as a flag regarding organizational culture.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (90 reviews) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence of systemic pricing deception, inconsistent service quality that is heavily technician-dependent, and a pattern of fake or content-free 5-star reviews that artificially inflate the raw star average.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews, with a stark divide between older 5-star reviews (2019-2020) and recent negative experiences (2021-2024). Professionalism scores are dragged down by documented rudeness, defensive management, and unprofessional technician behavior. Pricing is a major concern, with multiple reviews citing excessive diagnostic fees ($200), inflated labor charges, and aggressive upselling tactics. Project completion is compromised by unresolved issues, callbacks not honored, and work that created new problems. While some technicians demonstrated good communication and skill, the overall pattern suggests systemic issues with pricing transparency and customer service management.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews from 2019-02-19 and 2019-02-14 show identical or near-identical phrasing repeated multiple times (e.g., 'They were very punctual and professional' appears twice; 'We were great and responsive, came out within an hour and repaired the problem' appears twice; 'They were fast, fairly priced and showed up when they promised' appears twice). This suggests artificially inflated positive reviews.
• RECENCY BIAS: All recent reviews (2021-2024) are 1-2 stars with serious complaints. All positive reviews are from 2019-2020 (5+ years old). This dramatic shift suggests deterioration in service quality or management changes.
• PRICING FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple independent reviews (2024, 2021) allege excessive diagnostic fees ($200-$381 for simple repairs), inflated labor charges, and attempted upselling. One customer obtained the same repair elsewhere for $115 vs. quoted $600.
• MANAGEMENT ISSUES: Manager 'Latisha' described as extremely rude, defensive, and unresponsive. Calls not returned. Complaints not addressed.
• TECHNICIAN MISCONDUCT: One technician allegedly grabbed customer's credit card without permission. Another allegedly attempted to scam customer. Company claims 'not their problem' after firing technician.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Free estimate resulted in new problems (leaking faucet, puddle under sink). No callback until 4 days later despite emergency situation.

This score should be treated with caution due to detected fake review patterns in the positive reviews and a dramatic quality deterioration over time; the recent negative reviews (2021-2024) appear credible and consistent in their complaints about pricing, professionalism, and follow-through, suggesting the company's current performance is significantly worse than its historical reputation.

Drain Flo shows significant inconsistency across reviews. Two recent positive reviews (2024, 2022) praise professionalism, fair pricing, and quality work, while two older negative reviews (2022) document serious failures: incomplete work, unresponsiveness, rude behavior, and lack of documentation. The company appears to have had critical service breakdowns in 2022 that remain unresolved, with one customer's restroom still unrepaired months later. Professionalism scores are heavily dragged down by documented rudeness and poor communication from both technicians and ownership. Pricing feedback is mixed but leans fair when work is completed properly.

• CRITICAL: Two 1-star reviews from 2022 document severe unresolved issues—incomplete work, abandoned projects, and customer disputes still pending. One customer reports restroom damage from February 2022 never repaired as of October 2022.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2022; only one positive review is recent (May 2024). Cannot determine if company has genuinely improved or if negative patterns persist.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: Multiple reports of rude, patronizing behavior from technicians and owner Dwayne Taylor, including hanging up on customers and dismissive responses to legitimate complaints.
• DOCUMENTATION FAILURE: One review explicitly states no written report or pictures provided for $588 camera scope work, suggesting systemic documentation issues.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE: One customer reports company ignored calls and failed to return for promised follow-up work for 8+ months.

This score should be treated with caution due to conflicting evidence and recency gaps; the two positive reviews are encouraging but cannot fully offset documented 2022 failures that appear unresolved, and insufficient recent data prevents confident assessment of whether service quality has genuinely improved.

Hauck Master Plumbers exhibits a deeply polarized performance profile with severe consistency issues. While positive reviews praise technical skill, fair pricing, and customer care, negative reviews document serious failures in professionalism (chronic lateness, no-shows, poor communication), project completion (abandoned work, incomplete repairs, callbacks ignored), and pricing transparency (undisclosed permit costs, overcharges). The most damaging allegations involve taking advantage of elderly/vulnerable customers and failing to honor refund agreements. The company demonstrates competent workmanship when present but unreliable scheduling, follow-through, and ethical conduct undermine trust.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews allege financial misconduct including broken refund promises, overcharging elderly customers, and undisclosed cost escalations. These are serious red flags for business integrity.
• PATTERN: At least 5 reviews document chronic lateness (2-4 hours), no-shows, and poor scheduling—suggesting systemic operational failure rather than isolated incidents.
• PATTERN: Multiple reviews report incomplete work, abandoned jobs, and callbacks required to finish projects—indicating poor project management and follow-through.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2018-2023 (recent), while most glowing reviews are from 2015-2019 (older). This suggests potential decline in service quality over time.
• POLARIZATION: 8 five-star reviews vs. 7 one-star reviews with almost no middle ground. While some polarization is normal, the severity and consistency of complaints (financial, scheduling, completion) across multiple independent reviewers suggests systemic issues rather than isolated bad experiences.
• CREDIBILITY: Positive reviews are often vague ('amazing,' 'second to none') while negative reviews are highly specific with dates, names, dollar amounts, and detailed incident descriptions. Specificity typically correlates with authenticity.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence due to extreme polarization, but the pattern of specific, detailed complaints about professionalism, completion, and ethics across multiple recent reviews is concerning and suggests real operational and integrity issues that warrant serious consideration before hiring.

Red Cap Plumbing, Air, and Electric presents a deeply polarized review profile. Individual technicians — such as Chandler Timmons, Jordan Vasquez, Horace, Aaron, Daniel, and others — are frequently praised for professionalism, knowledge, and courteous communication, which elevates the professionalism and experience scores. However, these positives are severely undermined by a large volume of detailed, credible negative reviews describing systematic price gouging, aggressive upselling, misdiagnosis, failed inspections, unresolved warranty disputes, no-shows, and poor follow-through on completed jobs. Pricing is the most damaged dimension, with numerous reviewers citing quotes 3–10x higher than competitors for identical work, hidden fees, and subscription traps. Project completion also scores poorly due to recurring reports of abandoned jobs, failed county inspections, and unresolved callbacks that stretched for months. The overall WW Score of approximately 52 reflects a company with capable field technicians but serious, systemic operational and ethical concerns at the business level.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact word-for-word duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., the Chandler Timmons review, the Antonio review, the 'polite and knowledgeable' technician review, the Erick/Rudy/Daniel review, and the 'excellent service and timeliness' review each appear twice within days of each other in June 2025). This is a strong indicator of review manipulation or artificial inflation of positive reviews.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — JUNE 2025 CLUSTER: The June 2025 reviews are overwhelmingly 5-star and many are near-identical duplicates. Several blank reviews with 5-star ratings also appear in this cluster, which is consistent with review padding tactics. Confidence in the June 2025 positive reviews is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS WITH 5-STAR RATINGS: At least 10 reviews contain no text but carry a 5.0 rating. These provide no usable data and are excluded from dimension scoring but may be inflating the overall star average artificially.
• SYSTEMIC PRICING COMPLAINTS: A significant number of independent, detailed negative reviews describe price quotes that were 3x to 10x higher than competitors for identical work. This pattern is consistent across multiple years (2020–2024) and multiple service types (plumbing, HVAC, electrical), suggesting a company-wide pricing strategy rather than isolated incidents.
• FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Two separate reviewers allege financial fraud involving unauthorized ACH withdrawals using routing numbers from checks. One reviewer claims to have reported this to the FDIC and Federal Trade Commission. These are serious allegations that, if substantiated, go beyond service quality concerns.
• FAILED INSPECTIONS AND ABANDONED WORK: Multiple reviewers report that Red Cap's installation work failed county/city inspections (AC units, plumbing), and that the company was unresponsive or slow to remedy these failures. One reviewer reported waiting months for a final inspection to be completed.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: Several detailed reviews describe Red Cap technicians diagnosing expensive problems (e.g., all circuit boards fried, full duct replacement needed, biological growth requiring $11,000 remediation) that second-opinion technicians from other companies found to be either nonexistent or resolvable for a fraction of the cost.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (June 2025) are almost entirely positive but are heavily affected by the duplicate review flag above. The most credible negative reviews span 2020–2024 and are highly detailed and specific. Older reviews (pre-2022) are given slightly less weight but remain relevant as they establish a long-standing pattern.
• UPSELLING AND BAIT-AND-SWITCH COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviewers across different years describe technicians using $49 or $99 promotional offers as entry points, then presenting thousands of dollars in additional recommended services, sometimes with pressure tactics. This pattern is noted across HVAC, plumbing, and electrical services.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate positive reviews, credible fraud allegations, and a stark split between glowing individual technician praise and serious systemic complaints about pricing, project completion, and business ethics — consumers should seek multiple quotes and independent second opinions before engaging this company.