Find Nearby Plumbers In Tampa, Florida

Calhoun Plumbing presents a deeply polarized review profile. A substantial cluster of positive reviews praises individual technicians by name — particularly Austin, Clayton, Johnny, and others — for punctuality, courtesy, and effective repairs, suggesting that when the right technician is dispatched, the experience can be genuinely excellent. However, an equally substantial and detailed body of negative reviews documents serious recurring failures: rude and dismissive office/receptionist staff, repeated no-shows and broken appointment commitments, jobs left incomplete or incorrectly done, failure to follow up or return calls, and in several cases outright damage to customer property with no remediation. Pricing feedback is mixed — many customers found rates reasonable, but multiple reviews cite hidden charges, excessive parts markups, and billing for work that was never completed or was done incorrectly. Project completion is a significant liability, with numerous documented cases of technicians abandoning jobs, failing to diagnose correctly, and refusing to honor warranty or callback obligations. The overall score reflects a company with genuine capability at the technician level but systemic failures in communication, accountability, and quality control.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with nearly identical text ('They don't even think twice about parking their work van in a handicap parking spot.. just disgusting!') were submitted 3 days apart (2025-05-23 and 2025-05-26) with the same 1-star rating. These appear to be the same reviewer posting twice and were counted as one unique incident.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 12 reviews contained no text — only a star rating (mix of 5-star and 1-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable qualitative data.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2010 to 2025. Negative patterns (no-shows, rude receptionist, incomplete work, ghosting) appear consistently across all time periods, suggesting these are structural issues rather than isolated incidents. Positive reviews are also distributed across the full date range.
• PATTERN FLAG — RECEPTIONIST/OFFICE STAFF: At least 12 separate reviews independently cite rude, dismissive, or unhelpful behavior from the office receptionist or phone staff. This is a highly consistent and specific complaint that significantly depresses the professionalism score.
• PATTERN FLAG — NO-SHOW / GHOSTING: At least 14 reviews describe technicians or the company failing to show up for scheduled appointments without notice, or going silent after promising follow-up. This is the single most common complaint and heavily impacts the project completion score.
• PATTERN FLAG — INCOMPLETE OR INCORRECT WORK: At least 10 reviews describe jobs that were left unfinished, done incorrectly, or caused additional damage. Several describe being charged for work that did not resolve the problem.
• POTENTIAL FAKE OR INCENTIVIZED REVIEWS: A cluster of approximately 15-20 five-star reviews share a very similar structure — naming a specific technician, listing 2-3 positive adjectives, and offering brief praise with no specific detail about the problem solved. While naming technicians adds some specificity, the formulaic structure and the fact that many share the same date (2024-06-06) raises a moderate concern about review authenticity or a coordinated review solicitation campaign. Confidence in the positive side of the score is slightly reduced as a result.
• DATE CLUSTERING: A large number of reviews (both positive and negative) share the exact date of 2024-06-06, which is atypical and may indicate bulk import from another review platform rather than organic Google review dates. This does not invalidate the content but is noted for transparency.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (125 reviews) with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically robust; however, the score should be interpreted with caution given the strong bimodal distribution — the company appears to deliver excellent service through certain technicians while suffering from systemic failures in office communication, appointment reliability, and job completion accountability, meaning individual customer outcomes may vary significantly from the aggregate score.

This contractor exhibits highly polarized performance with severe inconsistencies across dimensions. Professionalism is compromised by poor responsiveness (24-hour claim unmet), condescending attitudes, and communication failures. Pricing shows significant red flags with non-itemized bills, charges of $300/hour labor, and disputed blockage warranty policies that customers perceive as scams. Project completion is undermined by repeated callback failures (toilet repair required three visits with unresolved issues) and refusal to honor warranty claims. Technical skill is evident in some jobs but undermined by poor diagnostics and inability to solve problems on first visit. The stark divide between 5-star and 1-star reviews suggests inconsistent service quality or potential service model issues.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (3+) describe service as a 'scam' or 'ripoff' — suggests systemic trust issues with pricing transparency or warranty policies
• PATTERN: Repeated callback failures on same job (toilet repair required 3 visits, sewer blockage reblocked within 4 weeks) indicates quality control or workmanship problems
• PRICING CONCERN: Non-itemized billing ($1890 for water heater with $890 labor for 3 hours = $300/hr) and disputed blockage warranty create customer perception of overcharging
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE: 24-hour emergency claim contradicted by review stating no response to emergency calls over 48 hours
• ATTITUDE ISSUE: Multiple reviews cite condescending or dismissive worker behavior ('asking if flushing too hard', 'what did the cable guy do')
• RECENCY BIAS: Positive reviews are from 2018-2021 (3-6 years old); negative reviews are more recent (2020-2024), suggesting service quality decline
• REVIEW AUTHENTICITY: Positive reviews are detailed and specific; negative reviews are emotionally charged but substantive — no obvious fake patterns, but polarization is extreme

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 9 reviews with usable data, the extreme polarization (5 five-star vs 4 one-star), recency bias favoring negative reviews, and multiple substantive complaints about warranty denial and repeated failures suggest this contractor has serious operational or quality control issues. The WW Score of 52.3 reflects genuine inconsistency rather than average performance — customers should expect highly variable service quality and should obtain itemized quotes and clear warranty terms in writing before engaging.

Phillips Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all dimensions. Professionalism is the most heavily flagged area, with multiple reviews describing the owner and staff as rude, dismissive, and dishonest — including an owner calling a customer 'pathetic' and hanging up, refusing to acknowledge verified mistakes, and failing to return calls. Project completion is similarly troubled, with documented cases of abandoned work, damage caused and not remedied, and failure to follow through on commitments over extended periods. On the positive side, a handful of reviews praise punctuality, cooperative behavior, and thorough job completion, but these are outnumbered and outweighed by the negative accounts. Pricing data is limited but suggests some transparency issues, including a disputed service call charge for work not performed. The most recent review (2023) is a serious complaint from a real estate professional who had previously recommended the company, suggesting a deteriorating trend over time.

• Multiple reviews describe the owner as personally rude, dismissive, and unwilling to accept responsibility for verified errors — a consistent behavioral pattern across different customers and years.
• At least two reviews describe damage caused by the company (cut sump pump cord, destroyed sprinkler system) that was never remedied, indicating a pattern of refusing accountability.
• The most recent review (June 2023) is a 1-star complaint from a long-term referral source (real estate agent), suggesting the company's reputation may be worsening over time.
• Several positive reviews (2020) are very brief and generic with no specific details ('Extremely satisfied with complete Repipe of my home', 'It was fine, they cleaned up after themselves') — these may carry less evidentiary weight.
• Recency concern: The majority of reviews are from 2019–2021, with only one review from the past 12 months (2023). The 2023 review is negative, which is given elevated weight per recency rules.
• No fake review pattern detected, but the sparse positive reviews lack specificity and contrast sharply with the detailed negative accounts.

This WW Score is based on 11 reviews spanning 2018–2023 with a moderate volume of usable data; the score of 47.3 should be treated with moderate confidence and reflects a contractor with documented, recurring issues in professionalism and accountability that outweigh the positive experiences reported by a minority of customers.

Third Generation Plumbing receives a critically low WW Score of 38.2, driven by severe deficiencies across all dimensions. Professionalism is particularly weak (32.5), with 89 mentions documenting rude office staff, hang-ups, condescending behavior, and poor communication. Project completion scores only 35.8 despite 78 mentions, reflecting widespread failures to complete work, no-shows, delayed callbacks, and abandoned repairs. Pricing integrity is severely compromised (28.0 across 47 mentions), with customers reporting inflated charges, hidden fees, and apparent collusion with warranty companies to deny claims through false reporting. Experience shows the only relative strength (52.3), though many skilled technicians are undermined by systemic company failures. The company's reliance on warranty contracts (particularly American Home Shield) appears to enable poor service, as customers report technicians deliberately misdiagnose issues to deny coverage.

• CRITICAL: Systematic pattern of fraudulent reporting to warranty companies. Multiple independent reviews (2022-2024) document technicians telling customers one diagnosis verbally, then submitting contradictory reports to AHS to trigger claim denials. This pattern is repeated across 15+ reviews with consistent detail.
• CRITICAL: Pervasive office staff misconduct. Documented instances of hanging up on customers, condescending language, refusal to help, and blocking customers on social media. Named staff members (April, Katie, Raz, Matti, Gloria) appear repeatedly in negative contexts across multiple years.
• CRITICAL: Property damage and refusal of accountability. At least 8 reviews document damage caused during service (broken pipes, damaged property, broken AC units, damaged shower doors) with company refusing to take responsibility or repair damage.
• CRITICAL: Warranty company collusion pattern. Consistent across 30+ reviews: technicians perform minimal work, submit false diagnoses to warranty companies, then pressure customers for out-of-pocket payments when claims are denied. This appears to be deliberate business strategy.
• HIGH CONCERN: No-show and scheduling failures. 20+ reviews document missed appointments, no confirmation calls, vague 8-hour service windows, and failure to follow up. Some customers waited weeks for repairs.
• HIGH CONCERN: Potential fake positive reviews detected. Several 5-star reviews from 2025 (Rafael, Phil, David, Luis) use nearly identical phrasing ('explained everything,' 'very informative,' 'professional') and lack specific details. However, these are vastly outnumbered by detailed negative reviews with specific dates, names, and documented damages.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Most negative reviews cluster in 2020-2024, with particularly high volume in 2021-2022. Recent reviews (2025) show mixed pattern but negative reviews continue to document same issues (warranty fraud, rude staff, incomplete work).
• BBB CORRELATION: Multiple reviews reference F-rating with Better Business Bureau and recommend checking BBB complaints. This external validation corroborates review patterns.
• LEGAL RISK: Multiple reviews mention intent to file BBB complaints, contact Florida Attorney General, and report to Department of Business and Professional Regulations. At least 3 reviews explicitly state they are pursuing formal complaints.

This WW Score of 38.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 152 detailed reviews with 89+ mentions of professionalism failures, 78+ of project completion issues, and 47+ of pricing problems. The consistency of specific, dated allegations across 8+ years, combined with corroborating external sources (BBB, warranty company denials, legal complaints), creates a clear pattern of systemic misconduct. The few positive reviews (approximately 20 five-star reviews) are substantially outweighed by 100+ one-star reviews documenting identical, specific failures. This company presents significant risk to consumers and should be avoided.

Henry Gonzalez Plumbing exhibits a deeply polarized review pattern with severe structural problems in business practices. While older reviews (1999–2008) and a few recent ones praise professionalism and workmanship quality, the majority of substantive recent reviews (2011–2016) document systematic issues: billing for non-work time, incomplete repairs followed by refusal to fix, aggressive legal intimidation tactics, and poor diagnostic competency on specialized equipment. The company's practice of hiring lawyers to pursue payment for disputed work—even when jobs were demonstrably incomplete—is a critical red flag. Project completion scores are particularly low due to repeated failures to fix problems on first or second visits, forcing customers to hire competitors. Pricing transparency is severely compromised by charges for travel time and redundant diagnostics.

• CRITICAL: Multiple independent reviews (2011–2016) document identical pattern of aggressive legal action against customers for disputed invoices, suggesting systemic business practice rather than isolated incidents.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: Reviews from 1999–2000 marked 'unknown' with suspiciously generic 5-star ratings lack any detail and appear artificially inserted. Recent positive reviews (2006–2013) are vague ('Excellent. See above', 'great', 'highly recommend') with no specifics, contrasting sharply with detailed negative reviews.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most substantive negative reviews are 8–12 years old (2011–2016), but pattern consistency across multiple independent reviewers and time periods suggests chronic rather than temporary issues. No recent positive reviews with detail.
• LEGAL INTIMIDATION: At least 3 reviews explicitly describe being threatened with liens, lawsuits, and attorney letters for disputed work—a predatory collection practice that warrants investigation.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Multiple reviews document jobs requiring second plumber to complete, with original company refusing callbacks or demanding full payment for incomplete work.
• BILLING FRAUD INDICATORS: Systematic charging for travel time, lunch breaks, and redundant diagnostics without customer authorization or transparency.

This score should be treated with CAUTION despite MODERATE confidence. The polarized review pattern, prevalence of detailed negative accounts describing systematic predatory practices (legal intimidation, billing fraud, incomplete work), and suspicious clustering of vague positive reviews suggest the company has serious structural integrity issues. The WW Score of 42.3 likely understates risk due to older positive reviews; recent substantive feedback is overwhelmingly negative. Recommend independent verification before engaging this contractor.

This contractor's review set is small (7 reviews) and spans several years, with the most recent reviews dating to 2021 and the majority being older than 3 years. Professionalism is the most-discussed dimension and is deeply mixed: positive reviews praise specific technicians like Josh and Miguel for being polite, clean, and professional, while negative reviews describe no-shows, broken appointments, an unprofessional plumber who left messes and complained throughout the job, and persistent communication failures. Pricing is similarly polarized — one reviewer found hourly rates cheaper than flat-rate competitors, another praised fair pricing, but two reviews describe serious billing disputes including charges 2.5x the quoted amount, undisclosed diagnostic fees, and hidden charges. Project completion is a significant concern, with multiple reviews citing incomplete work, a forgotten appointment, a missed Wednesday visit, and a drain that was not cleared and then re-clogged within months. Experience scores slightly higher due to a few positive mentions of skilled, knowledgeable technicians, but is undermined by at least two instances of substandard workmanship.

• Very small review set (7 reviews) — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and low-reliability.
• Most reviews are older than 3 years (2017–2021); no reviews from the past 12 months. Business conditions, ownership, and quality may have changed significantly.
• At least two reviews explicitly mention an ownership/management change, suggesting the business may have operated under inconsistent standards across the review period.
• One review describes a serious billing ethics concern: charging 2.5x the quoted amount, rounding up hours, and adding undisclosed fees — this is a significant red flag for pricing integrity.
• No fake review patterns detected; reviews vary in tone, detail, and rating, suggesting authentic customer experiences.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to the very small review pool, the age of most reviews, and documented ownership changes that make it unclear whether current operations reflect the experiences described.