Find Nearby Plumbers In West Palm Beach, Florida

Du-All Plumbing shows a deeply polarized review pattern with 40 five-star reviews concentrated in 2025 and 27 one-star reviews spanning 2012–2023. Recent reviews (past 12 months) are overwhelmingly positive and praise professionalism, responsiveness, and technician quality (Mike, Steven, George, Jamie, Kevin, etc.). However, older reviews consistently cite severe pricing concerns—customers report being charged $300–$600 for work that competitors completed for $15–$250, with allegations of price gouging and unnecessary upsells. Project completion issues appear in older reviews (no-shows, incomplete work, warranty failures), though recent reviews report reliable service. Experience scores are supported by positive mentions of technician knowledge and problem-solving, but older reviews document inexperienced technicians and diagnostic failures. The company's pricing practices remain the primary weakness across the dataset.

• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: 40 of 67 reviews (60%) are 5-star ratings posted on 2025-04-10, 2025-05-10, 2025-05-19, and 2025-06-06. These clusters show minimal variation in language and lack specific detail typical of organic reviews. Multiple reviews contain generic praise ('Great service', 'Very good', 'They job so good') with no substantive information.
• TEMPORAL BIAS: Recent reviews (2025, late 2024) are almost exclusively 5-star; older reviews (2012–2023) are predominantly 1-star. This suggests either a dramatic operational turnaround or potential review manipulation/filtering.
• PRICING ALLEGATIONS: 26 reviews explicitly mention pricing concerns. Older reviews (2012–2023) contain detailed allegations of price gouging, unnecessary upsells, and charges 3–10x higher than competitors. Recent reviews mention 'fair pricing' and 'good price' but lack specifics.
• MANAGEMENT CONDUCT: Multiple reviews (2015–2023) cite unprofessional behavior by manager 'Abe,' including rudeness, interrupting customers, and dismissiveness. No recent reviews mention management interactions.
• INCOMPLETE/FAILED WORK: Older reviews document no-shows, incomplete jobs, warranty failures, and damage caused by technicians. Recent reviews do not mention these issues.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews contain identical or near-identical phrasing ('Great service', 'Excellent work', 'Very professional') and lack specificity. Two reviews are blank (no text, 5-star rating). This pattern is inconsistent with organic review behavior.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While the recent 2025 reviews suggest improved professionalism and responsiveness, the cluster of generic 5-star reviews and the stark temporal divide between recent praise and older detailed complaints suggest potential review manipulation or selective filtering. The pricing dimension is well-documented across 26 reviews spanning 13 years, with consistent allegations of overcharging; this concern is credible and should weigh heavily in decision-making. The company may have improved operationally, but the historical pattern of pricing abuse and the suspicious nature of recent reviews reduce overall confidence in the score.

Michael's business shows a stark and troubling divide in performance. Positive reviews (5 of 12) consistently praise electrical work, punctuality, friendliness, and reasonable pricing on smaller fixture installations. However, negative reviews (4 of 12) reveal severe systemic failures: unlicensed crews, poor workmanship on painting projects, incomplete work, unresponsiveness to callbacks, and abandoned jobs. The most damaging reviews involve large multi-day projects where crews left massive messes, used incorrect materials, failed to complete promised work, and Michael was unavailable or unresponsive. The pattern suggests Michael performs well on simple electrical tasks but fails catastrophically on complex, multi-crew projects. Professionalism scores are dragged down by documented unresponsiveness, no-shows, and broken promises despite some positive interpersonal interactions.

• CRITICAL: Severe inconsistency in service quality — excellent on small electrical jobs, catastrophic on larger painting/renovation projects. This suggests Michael may lack project management capability or proper crew vetting.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: The 5-star reviews are notably generic and lack specific detail (e.g., 'great job,' 'very professional,' 'highly recommend') compared to the extremely detailed and specific negative reviews. However, the positive reviews do contain some specifics (fixture types, arrival times, dog interaction) so this is not conclusive.
• UNRESPONSIVENESS PATTERN: Three separate reviews explicitly mention Michael not answering calls, not returning calls, or being unavailable despite being paid. This is a recurring professional failure.
• UNLICENSED CREW ISSUE: Multiple reviews mention unlicensed, inexperienced workers hired by Michael, particularly for painting. This raises legal and quality concerns.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Reviews document promised work not completed (7 fans promised, 4 installed; popcorn ceiling removal incomplete; scheduled tasks not finished).
• RECENCY NOTE: Most reviews are from 2020-2021 (2+ years old). Limited recent data to assess if issues have been corrected.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While based on 12 reviews with substantial detail, the extreme polarization (4 one-star vs. 5 five-star) and apparent service-type dependency (electrical success vs. painting/renovation failure) suggest Michael's reliability is highly context-dependent. Customers should only hire for simple electrical fixture work and avoid complex multi-day projects or painting services. The lack of recent reviews (all 2+ years old) further limits confidence in current performance.

CSI Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is undermined by two credible negative reviews citing slow response times (3+ days to return calls) and failure to honor a callback guarantee on a running toilet, despite several positive reviews praising responsiveness and attitude. Pricing is a significant concern — two detailed negative reviews describe charges well above original quotes and a shocking $550 bill for under an hour of simple sink hookup work, which directly contradicts the 'fair pricing' claims in the positive reviews. Project completion is similarly split: one reviewer reports abandoned warranty work on a running toilet, and another describes incorrect installation of a drain trap that the customer had to fix themselves after the crew left. The positive reviews, while numerous, are heavily clustered on a single date (2019-08-01) with generic, non-specific praise, which substantially reduces their credibility and weight.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW CLUSTER: Five 5-star reviews were posted on the exact same date (2019-08-01), within hours of each other. This is a strong indicator of coordinated or solicited fake reviews. These reviews use generic praise with little specific detail and no verifiable job descriptions.
• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: Two independent reviewers (2021 and 2019) explicitly describe being charged significantly more than originally quoted. One describes a $550 charge for less than one hour of simple sink connections with no prior written or verbal agreement. This is a pattern, not an isolated incident.
• WARRANTY/CALLBACK FAILURE: One reviewer explicitly states the contractor refused to return to repair a running toilet despite claiming to guarantee his work. This is a direct project completion failure.
• WORKMANSHIP ERROR: One reviewer documented that the contractor installed the wrong drain trap and told the customer it would not work — the customer then installed the correct trap themselves in 10 minutes with no issues, indicating a technical error or deliberate avoidance.
• RECENCY NOTE: The only review from the past 12 months relative to the most recent review date (2021-09-16) is the 2-star negative review. All positive reviews are from 2019 or earlier, meaning recent customer experience data skews negative.
• CONFIDENCE REDUCTION APPLIED: Scores for professionalism, pricing, and experience were conservatively reduced due to the suspected fake review cluster inflating the positive signal.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — while the mention counts are sufficient for scoring, the credibility of the positive reviews is significantly compromised by a suspected same-day fake review cluster, and the two most detailed and specific reviews are both strongly negative, describing pricing deception and incomplete work.

The review set is small and spans a wide date range, with the most recent review (2023) being a strongly negative 1-star account describing overbilling by one hour, aggressive and profane behavior toward the customer, and a technically incorrect repair (cartridge installed backwards) that required a second plumber to fix. The four positive reviews are older (2017–2018), with one from 2018 describing skilled, communicative work and another from 2017 praising on-time arrival, fair pricing, and quality workmanship. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by the 2023 incident, which is the most recent and therefore weighted more heavily. Project completion and experience scores reflect a mixed picture: mostly positive older reviews offset by a clear technical failure in the most recent job.

• Only 5 reviews total — WW Score reliability is very low. Results should be treated as indicative only.
• The most recent review (2023) is the only review within the past 12 months and is a severe 1-star complaint describing overbilling, abusive language, and a technically incorrect repair. This recency is significant and pulls scores down.
• The four positive reviews are all from 2017–2018 (6–7 years old) and may not reflect current service quality.
• Some positive reviews use generic praise language ('Above and Beyond', 'Level of Excellence') with limited specific detail, which slightly reduces confidence in those reviews.
• The 2023 negative review describes a specific, verifiable technical failure (cartridge installed backwards, confirmed by a second plumber), lending it high credibility.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning 6 years, with the sole recent review being a serious complaint — the score should be treated with very low confidence and is not sufficient to make a reliable assessment of current service quality.

Ed Hebert's reviews show mixed performance with significant reliability concerns. Professionalism is supported by three mentions describing prompt service, politeness, and professional demeanor, scoring 75. However, project completion is severely undermined by one critical review documenting four cancellations on a water heater job, balanced against one positive completion, resulting in a conservative 50 score. Experience is rated 75 based on two mentions of efficient work and good job quality. The WW Score of 68.2 reflects substantial project completion risk that outweighs positive professionalism feedback. No pricing data was mentioned across any review.

• CRITICAL: One review (2019-11-16) reports four job cancellations, indicating serious reliability and project completion issues. This is a major red flag for dependability.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are significantly outdated (2013, 2016, 2019, 2021). Only one review is from 2022. Historical data may not reflect current operations.
• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 4 usable reviews with very limited mentions per dimension. Score reliability is constrained by small sample size.
• GENERIC REVIEW: One review marked 'unknown' with no substantive content (2016-06-29) — excluded from analysis but indicates potential data quality issues.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to limited review volume (4 usable reviews), outdated data (most reviews 2-11 years old), and critical project completion failures documented in one review that heavily influence the overall score downward.

Proficient Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture. Several positive reviews praise professionalism, politeness, and reasonable pricing, but two detailed 1-star reviews — one of which appears to be a near-duplicate submission — describe serious failures: a botched water heater installation with unresolved follow-up, the owner hanging up on a customer seeking warranty repairs, and a subcontractor situation that left another customer with unexpected out-of-pocket repair costs. These negative reviews directly and explicitly describe failures in professionalism, project completion, and workmanship, which significantly drag down the scores in those dimensions. The positive reviews, while numerous, are largely older (2016–2021) and several lack specific detail, reducing their evidentiary weight. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) include both a brief positive and the serious negative complaints, making the current reliability of this contractor uncertain.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2023-04-03 are nearly word-for-word identical, submitted by what appears to be the same reviewer. One has been counted once for scoring purposes to avoid double-weighting.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: Several positive reviews (2018, 2021) are extremely brief and generic ('Best plumber,' 'Fantastic service! Great price! Very professional!!!') with no specific details about the work performed, technician, or job scope. These may be inflated or solicited reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are from 2016–2021. The most substantive and recent negative reviews are from 2022–2023, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.
• OWNER CONDUCT FLAG: Multiple reviews explicitly name the owner (Jerry Dezard) as personally hanging up on a customer seeking warranty repair and failing to address a subcontractor's defective work. This is a serious professionalism and project completion red flag.
• SUBCONTRACTOR RISK: One review explicitly states work was subcontracted without customer knowledge, resulting in rude behavior, incomplete work, and unreimbursed repair costs — indicating a systemic quality control issue.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a small review pool, the presence of a duplicate negative review, several suspiciously generic positive reviews, and a meaningful gap between older glowing feedback and more recent detailed complaints about owner conduct and job follow-through.