Find Nearby Plumbers In Tampa, Florida

AND Services receives an extremely low WW Score driven by an overwhelming volume of negative reviews across all four dimensions. While a cluster of recent 5-star reviews (primarily from June 2025) praise individual technicians for professionalism and communication, these are vastly outnumbered by detailed, credible 1-star reviews spanning 2020–2024 that describe systematic overcharging, misdiagnosis, abandoned or incomplete work, no-show appointments, rude customer service, and predatory upselling tactics targeting elderly customers. Pricing is the most severely penalized dimension, with dozens of reviewers reporting quotes 3–10x higher than competitors for identical repairs, bait-and-switch advertising, and non-itemized invoices. Project completion scores are critically low due to recurring reports of unfinished jobs, failed inspections, broken equipment shortly after installation, and technicians leaving without resolving the original issue. Experience scores reflect numerous accounts of technicians misdiagnosing problems, lacking proper tools, and recommending unnecessary full-system replacements for minor fixable faults.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW CLUSTER: A high concentration of 5-star reviews dated 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-08 share suspiciously similar structure — brief, generic praise for named technicians with little specific detail. Several of these reviews are blank (no text, only a 5-star rating). This pattern is consistent with coordinated review padding and should be treated with significant skepticism.
• 7 reviews contain zero text and only a 5-star rating — these provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Across more than 30 independent reviews, customers report being quoted prices 3x to 10x higher than what competitors charged for identical repairs. Multiple reviewers fixed their own issues for under $300 after AND Services quoted $3,000–$14,000.
• ELDERLY TARGETING: Multiple reviews explicitly describe technicians pressuring elderly customers (80s, 84 years old, 92 years old) into purchasing unnecessary full system replacements worth $10,000–$14,000.
• SCAM DIAGNOSIS PATTERN: Numerous reviewers report technicians diagnosing non-existent problems (e.g., claiming a unit had no control board when it did not exist, claiming freon was severely low when it was not, claiming pipes were cast iron when they were PVC). This suggests a systemic pattern of fraudulent diagnostics.
• RECENCY NOTE: The bulk of negative reviews span 2020–2024 and are highly detailed and specific. The positive reviews are heavily concentrated in a narrow window of May–June 2025, which may reflect a reputation management campaign rather than genuine service improvement.
• LEGAL AND REGULATORY FLAGS: Multiple reviewers mention filing complaints with the BBB, contacting the Florida State Attorney, disputing charges with lenders (Ally Bank), and threatening lawsuits. One review alleges the company operates under multiple DBAs and that 'AND Services' is a non-existent legal entity per their own attorney.
• BUSINESS INTEGRITY FLAG: One review alleges the company forged customer signatures on finance documents. Another alleges failure to pull permits after installation. These are serious legal and safety concerns beyond typical service complaints.
• CONFIDENCE REDUCTION APPLIED: Due to the suspected fake review cluster inflating the 5-star count, positive dimension scores were conservatively weighted. The high volume of detailed, specific negative reviews is treated as more reliable evidence than the sparse, generic positive reviews.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews (125 total) with strong data across all four dimensions, and the score of 28.4 should be considered highly reliable as a reflection of this contractor's overall service quality — the low score is supported by consistent, detailed, and independently corroborated negative experiences, while the positive reviews show patterns consistent with fake or incentivized submissions.

Kintex demonstrates severe and consistent deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by no-shows, communication failures, dishonesty, and unprofessional behavior documented in 9 reviews. Project completion is severely hampered by incomplete work, abandoned jobs, false diagnostic reports, and failure to return for callbacks across 8 reviews. Pricing concerns emerge in 5 reviews, with customers reporting inflated quotes, unnecessary upsells, and charges for incomplete or fraudulent service calls. Experience and technical competency are questioned in 6 reviews, with technicians lacking basic equipment, misdiagnosing problems, and providing false evaluations. Only 2 positive reviews (both from 2017 and earlier) mention genuine professionalism and quality work, but these are vastly outweighed by 8 one-star reviews documenting systematic failures.

• CRITICAL: 8 out of 11 reviews are 1-star ratings with detailed, specific complaints of dishonesty, incompetence, and unethical practices. This is not a pattern of isolated incidents but systemic failure.
• Multiple reviews document false diagnostic reports submitted to insurance companies (American Home Shield), suggesting deliberate fraud to deny claims while collecting service fees.
• Communication barriers noted (language barrier with Russian-speaking technicians) combined with no-shows and failure to answer phones indicate operational dysfunction.
• Two positive 5-star reviews exist but are from 2016-2017 (6+ years old). Recent reviews (2018-2023) are uniformly negative, suggesting significant deterioration or consistent poor performance.
• One review marked 'unknown' with 5-star rating (2016) and another marked 'unknown' with 3-star rating (2016) lack sufficient detail to verify legitimacy.
• Pattern of technicians rushing to leave, prioritizing payment collection over problem-solving, and submitting false reports to insurance companies suggests incentive misalignment and potential fraud.

This WW Score of 28.4 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 11 reviews with consistent, detailed, and specific complaints across all dimensions, with 73% one-star ratings documenting systematic failures in professionalism, completion, pricing, and experience. The company should be considered high-risk.

This contractor demonstrates severe and consistent deficiencies across multiple critical dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by repeated no-shows, missed appointments, poor communication, and documented instances of abusive behavior toward customers. Project completion is the most damaging dimension, with multiple reviews detailing abandoned callbacks, incomplete follow-up work, and failure to honor commitments. While one early review (2020) praised the work quality, five subsequent reviews spanning 2014–2018 paint a pattern of unreliability and poor customer service. The single positive review is substantially outweighed by overwhelming negative evidence of systemic operational failures.

• CRITICAL: Five of six reviews are 1-star ratings with detailed, specific complaints. This is not a pattern of isolated incidents but systemic failure.
• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews (2016, 2014, 2018) describe identical failure modes—no-shows on scheduled callbacks and broken promises to return. This suggests chronic operational dysfunction, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 4–10 years old (2014–2018). The single recent positive review (2020) is contradicted by the weight of historical evidence. No recent reviews available to assess if company has improved.
• SERIOUS CONDUCT ISSUE: Review from 2017 explicitly documents abusive behavior (shouting obscenities, laughing, hanging up) and causing property damage. This is a red flag for professionalism and customer care.
• FINANCIAL HARM: Review from 2018 documents a $5,250 city fine resulting from contractor's failure to obtain final inspection on 2010 work. This indicates negligence with legal and financial consequences for the customer.
• CALLBACK FAILURES: Three separate reviews (2016, 2014, 2018) document repeated failures to honor callback commitments after initial work, suggesting systemic follow-through problems.

This WW Score of 28.3 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on six reviews with consistent, specific, and detailed complaints across multiple dimensions, spanning an 8-year period. The pattern of failure is clear, documented, and corroborated across independent reviews. This contractor should be considered high-risk.

The review pool is extremely small (3 reviews) and spans a wide date range (2015–2020), making reliable conclusions difficult. Two of the three reviews describe serious failures: unfinished work, repeated leaks, ignored callbacks, and outright fraud — including a charge for work that was never performed. The single positive review praises a fast water heater installation but provides no detail on pricing, workmanship quality, or follow-through. Professionalism and project completion scores are severely dragged down by explicit accounts of abandoned repairs, unresponsiveness, and deceptive billing. The experience dimension reflects a mix of one apparent success and two cases of clear technical failure.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as highly unreliable and directional only.
• Reviews span 5 years (2015–2020); all reviews are older than 3 years with no recent data available. Current performance is unknown.
• One review explicitly alleges fraudulent billing — charging for work not performed and then going completely unresponsive for weeks. This is a serious red flag.
• The single 5-star review is brief, generic, and contains no specifics about pricing, workmanship, or technician behavior — it cannot meaningfully offset the two detailed negative reviews.
• No reviews from the past 12 months; recency weighting cannot be applied favorably.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all older than 3 years, and should be considered highly unreliable — prospective customers are strongly advised to seek additional recent references before hiring.

All four reviews are 1-star and describe serious, consistent failures across every dimension. Professionalism is critically low, with multiple no-shows, poor communication, and failure to follow through on commitments documented across all four reviews. Pricing concerns are severe, including allegations of a $6,000 charge for no work performed, a $700 charge for a 25-minute job, and a customer feeling outright scammed. Project completion is nearly nonexistent — work was left unfinished, pumps failed, drains were left dirty, and one customer's job was never started at all. Experience and workmanship quality are also poor, with a pressure relief valve still leaking after replacement and a pump failure that nearly flooded a home. The only marginally positive note across all reviews is one mention that the owner himself was respectful in demeanor, which is reflected in the professionalism score not reaching absolute zero.

• All 4 reviews are 1-star with no positive reviews present — this may reflect a selection bias in the sample provided, but no fake review patterns are detected; complaints are specific, detailed, and credible.
• Allegations of potential fraud or scam behavior appear in at least one review (Review 2), where a customer paid $6,000 and received no service and no refund.
• Multiple reviews cite no-show incidents (Reviews 2 and 3), suggesting a systemic reliability problem.
• One review (Review 4) alleges the contractor withheld an advertised senior discount until the customer explicitly asked, suggesting deceptive pricing practices.
• Sample size is only 4 reviews — WW Score should be treated as directionally indicative only, not statistically robust.
• All reviews are from within the past 14 months (July 2024 – September 2024), making them highly current and relevant.

With only 4 reviews — all 1-star and all recent — the WW Score of 14.2 is directionally credible but statistically limited; the consistent pattern of serious failures across all dimensions increases confidence that these scores reflect genuine performance issues, but more reviews would be needed to assign full statistical weight.

All three reviews are strongly negative, painting a consistent picture of a deeply unprofessional operation. Professionalism is nearly nonexistent across the board: employees arrived late or not at all without notice, had attitude problems, argued on the job site, and management was unresponsive or dismissive when contacted. Project completion is critically poor — work was left unfinished (unsealed sink), stopped by the Building Department due to a missing permit, and the company failed to show up without explanation. Pricing concerns are severe, including disputed contract terms, unexpected charges for travel, and billing for time that appeared inflated or fraudulent. Experience was questioned directly by one reviewer who doubted the crew's plumbing knowledge, and the permit failure suggests systemic negligence in professional standards.

• All three reviews are dated between 2010 and 2011 — all reviews are over 13 years old. This score should not be considered representative of current performance without more recent data.
• Only 3 reviews are available, which is the minimum threshold for a WW Score calculation. Treat this score with significant caution.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews are detailed, specific, and independently describe distinct incidents, lending credibility to their authenticity.
• One review references an active Better Business Bureau dispute and potential litigation, indicating a serious unresolved complaint at the time of writing.
• The permit violation described in Review 1 (work stopped by the Building Department) represents a potential legal and safety compliance failure, not merely a service quality issue.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all more than 13 years old, and should be treated as historically indicative only — it cannot reliably reflect the contractor's current quality or practices without recent review data.