Find Nearby Plumbers In West Palm Beach, Florida

The review corpus for Premier Comfort Services is heavily dominated by negative experiences spanning multiple years, with serious and recurring complaints across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism suffers from repeated accounts of no-shows, rude technicians, unanswered calls, and management refusing to take responsibility for damage or errors. Pricing is a major concern, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out price gouging, inflated repair quotes, and deceptive upselling tactics. Project completion is severely undermined by accounts of abandoned work, improperly installed units, failed follow-through on warranties, and a permit violation that resulted in a legal hearing. Experience scores are dragged down by documented cases of wrong units being removed, improper installations discovered by third-party technicians, misdiagnosed problems, and compressor failures linked to faulty original work. The handful of positive reviews — mostly from 2016–2019 — describe genuinely good individual technicians, but these are far outweighed by the volume and severity of negative experiences, particularly in more recent years.

• Two reviews dated 2019-07-22 within minutes of each other describe the same technician (Adrian Young) in nearly identical detail and phrasing — these appear to be duplicate or coordinated reviews and were treated with reduced individual weight.
• Positive reviews are concentrated in the 2016–2019 period; the majority of reviews from 2020 onward are 1-star, suggesting a significant decline in service quality over time.
• Multiple reviewers independently allege deceptive upselling, fabricated diagnoses, and inflated pricing — this pattern across unrelated customers is a strong signal of systemic misconduct rather than isolated incidents.
• One review (2024-03-11) documents a voided permit and an active code violation hearing, representing a serious legal and safety flag.
• A reviewer with construction management experience (2020-09-22) provided detailed technical observations confirming improper installation, lending high credibility to that negative account.

This WW Score is based on 21 reviews spanning approximately 8 years with strong data across all four dimensions, and the LOW score of 34.2 should be considered highly reliable given the consistent, specific, and corroborated nature of the negative feedback — prospective customers should exercise significant caution.

Dee Maria Plumbing receives a critically low WW Score of 32.8, driven by severe deficiencies in professionalism and pricing practices. Six of seven reviews explicitly cite rude, aggressive, or dismissive customer service behavior, with staff members described as argumentative and hostile. Five reviews document pricing violations including bait-and-switch tactics, undisclosed charges, verbal quotes that differ from final bills, and refusal to honor quoted estimates. Project completion shows mixed results with callbacks required and warranty service denied. Only the most recent review (October 2024) provides positive feedback on technical execution, but this single mention cannot offset the overwhelming pattern of customer dissatisfaction spanning multiple years.

• CRITICAL: Six of seven reviews (86%) are 1-star ratings with explicit complaints about rude/aggressive customer service and pricing deception. This is not a fake review pattern but rather a genuine crisis of customer satisfaction.
• PRICING FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews (2019-2024) document identical complaint pattern: verbal quotes that differ from final bills, undisclosed charges, and refusal to provide written estimates before work. This suggests systemic business practice issues, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Five of six negative reviews are from 2019-2022 (3-5 years old). However, the single recent review (October 2024) is extremely positive and generic ('exemplary service,' 'BAM terrific plumber'), which contrasts sharply with the historical pattern and warrants skepticism about authenticity.
• STAFF CONDUCT: Multiple reviews name specific staff members (Carey, Bud) and describe unprofessional behavior including failure to follow up on promised callbacks, argumentative responses to legitimate complaints, and dismissive attitudes toward customers.
• WARRANTY/FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Two reviews document refusal to honor warranty work or provide callbacks at reasonable rates, suggesting poor commitment to project completion and customer relationships.

This WW Score of 32.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong warning indicator. The score is based on consistent, detailed, and specific complaints across multiple independent reviews spanning five years, with clear documentation of pricing deception and unprofessional conduct. The single recent positive review appears inconsistent with the historical pattern and should not be weighted heavily without additional corroborating evidence.

The overwhelming majority of reviews describe a deeply problematic contractor. Professionalism is the most-cited dimension and is catastrophically low, with dozens of reviewers documenting verbal abuse, harassment via text and phone, condescension, misogyny, no-shows, and threatening behavior toward customers including elderly and disabled individuals. Project completion is nearly as damning, with repeated accounts of abandoned jobs, flooded homes, unfinished bathrooms left for months, and work that had to be redone by other contractors. Experience scores are similarly poor, with multiple reviewers describing unlicensed work, code violations, incorrect installations, and botched repairs that worsened the original problem. Pricing receives a marginally higher score only because a small number of positive reviewers noted reasonable rates, but this is heavily offset by numerous accounts of overbilling, hidden charges, demands for more money mid-job, and charging for hours not worked. The handful of positive reviews (roughly 18 out of 72) are insufficient to meaningfully offset the volume and severity of negative experiences documented across more than a decade.

• UNLICENSED CONTRACTOR: Multiple independent reviewers across different years explicitly state that Stan Selig is not licensed to perform plumbing work in Vermont. The Better Business Bureau is also cited as having an alert on file for this business regarding lack of licensure. This is a critical safety and legal concern.
• PATTERN OF HARASSMENT: Numerous reviewers across multiple years describe being harassed via repeated phone calls and text messages after declining services or raising complaints. This pattern is consistent and spans from 2012 to 2025.
• SUSPECTED FAKE POSITIVE REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews are extremely brief, generic, and lack any specific detail (e.g., 'Outstanding!!', 'Very helpful and friendly', 'Stan is fast and efficient. Also a funny guy!'). Some positive reviews reference different named workers (Robert, Peter, Clayton, Nick, Brian) rather than Stan, raising questions about whether they pertain to the same business or operator. These reviews appear inconsistent with the dominant pattern and may not reflect the primary operator's work.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review beginning 'Had a kitchen sink plumbing issue, that called for a quick response' appears twice with identical text — once dated 2023-06-10 (rated 5 stars) and once dated 2022-10-02 (rated 1 star). The 1-star version is treated as the authentic sentiment given its narrative conclusion. This duplication is suspicious.
• ABANDONED WORK AND CODE VIOLATIONS: Multiple reviewers describe work left incomplete, installations not up to code, sewer vents left open into living spaces, and gas installations done incorrectly — some discovered years later during home inspections.
• ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR TOWARD VULNERABLE CUSTOMERS: At least two reviews describe Stan targeting or mistreating elderly or disabled customers, including a 93-year-old woman and a senior amputee. One review also describes sexually harassing text messages.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews span from 2012 through May 2025, indicating this is not an isolated historical pattern. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) continue to document the same behaviors, suggesting no improvement over time.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Five reviews contained no text and only a star rating (all 1-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH confidence — the score of 18.9 is a reliable reflection of a contractor with severe, consistent, and well-documented deficiencies across all four dimensions, compounded by credible reports of unlicensed operation and predatory behavior.

Farmer & Irwin demonstrates severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by poor communication, lack of transparency in pricing, intimidation tactics (collections threats), and failure to honor warranty commitments. Pricing practices are consistently problematic, with customers reporting excessive charges for minor work, lack of upfront estimates, and unexplained billing. Project completion is unreliable, with multiple visits required to diagnose simple problems, work that fails shortly after completion, and no warranty coverage. Technical expertise is questionable, evidenced by repeated misdiagnosis, throwing parts at problems rather than systematic troubleshooting, and inability to identify root causes on first visit.

• CRITICAL: All 6 reviews are 1-star ratings with uniformly negative experiences. No positive reviews present.
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews explicitly mention billing disputes, lack of transparency, and collection threats — indicating systemic business practice issues.
• CRITICAL: Pattern of repeated service calls for same problem suggests poor diagnostic capability or intentional parts replacement strategy.
• CRITICAL: Reviews span 2013–2021, indicating long-standing pattern of poor service, not isolated incidents.
• WARRANTY VIOLATION: Multiple customers report company refusing to honor stated warranty terms.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: Intimidation via collections threats and unilateral billing without owner authorization (rental property case).

This WW Score of 18.5 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 6 detailed reviews spanning 8 years with consistent patterns of failure across all dimensions, providing substantial evidence of systemic business practice problems.

Every single review analyzed is a 1-star rating, painting a deeply consistent and damning picture of this company across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most heavily cited failure: the office representative Ann Marie is described repeatedly across multiple independent reviews as rude, condescending, unhelpful, and unprofessional, while the plumber himself is described as storming off jobs and scolding customers. Project completion is severely compromised, with multiple reviewers reporting abandoned work, no-shows, cancelled appointments, unreturned calls, and jobs left incomplete — including a customer left without hot water for a week. Pricing concerns are significant, with allegations of overcharging, lack of invoice transparency, demanding full payment upfront, and at least one instance of substituting a cheaper product than what was paid for. Workmanship quality is also poor, with reports of shoddy installations, water gushing from improperly connected pipes, and a misdiagnosed non-existent leak quoted at $1,500–$3,000.

• ALL 11 reviews are 1-star ratings — this is an extreme negative signal with no positive outliers to balance the picture.
• Multiple reviews independently name the same office representative (Ann Marie / Anne Marie) with nearly identical complaints about rudeness and condescension — this cross-review consistency strongly validates authenticity of negative feedback.
• No fake review concern detected for negative reviews — complaints are specific, detailed, and reference unique incidents, names, and circumstances.
• All reviews date from 2015–2017, meaning this data is more than 7 years old. Current business practices may differ, but no recent reviews are available to confirm improvement.
• Multiple reviewers reference being referred through AHS (American Home Shield) or Old Republic Home Protection warranty companies, suggesting the company may have relied on captive warranty referrals rather than earning organic customers — a structural red flag.
• At least two reviewers mention the company may not hold a valid business license or BBB accreditation — this is a serious legal and credibility concern.
• One reviewer explicitly describes a bait-and-switch on product brand (garbage disposal), which may constitute consumer fraud.
• RECENCY WARNING: All reviews are older than 6 years. This score reflects historical performance only and cannot be used to assess current operations with confidence.

This WW Score is based on 11 reviews that are entirely consistent in their negative assessments and rich in specific detail, giving HIGH confidence in the score's direction, but the data is entirely from 2015–2017 and should not be treated as reflective of current business performance without corroborating recent reviews.

Only 2 of 10 reviews contain substantive text; 8 reviews are marked 'unknown' and provide no evaluable data. The two usable reviews are from 2014 and 2012 (9-12 years old), making recency a significant concern. One review explicitly praises professionalism, punctuality, and technical competence (gas line work to code, passed inspection). The other mentions fast repair work and attention to detail. However, with only 2 mentions per dimension and no recent data, confidence in any scoring is severely limited. No pricing information was mentioned in any review.

• 8 of 10 reviews contain no text ('unknown') — this is highly unusual and suggests data quality issues or incomplete review capture
• All reviews are older than 9 years (2012–2015); no recent performance data available
• Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score — only 2 usable reviews with substantive content
• The high star ratings (mostly 5.0) combined with missing text raises questions about data integrity

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient usable data (only 2 substantive reviews out of 10) and extreme age of all reviews (9–12 years old). Any scoring would be speculative and should not be trusted for decision-making.