Find Nearby Plumbers In West Palm Beach, Florida

Dattile Plumbing shows strong professionalism and technical expertise based on multiple positive reviews praising responsiveness, courtesy, and workmanship quality. However, two serious negative reviews from 2014 and 2018 document incomplete project work, unresponsiveness to callbacks, and questionable billing practices that significantly impact the overall score. The stark contrast between five 5-star reviews and two 1-star reviews suggests either inconsistent service delivery or a potential shift in business practices over time. Pricing concerns are limited but present, with one review citing unexplained charges.

• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Five consecutive 5-star reviews (2021-2024) use nearly identical phrasing ('professional,' 'reliable,' 'courteous,' 'knowledgeable,' 'top notch/quality') with minimal specific detail about actual work performed. This repetitive language across multiple reviews is suspicious.
• SEVERE SERVICE FAILURES: Two 1-star reviews document critical failures—abandoned project with 8+ unanswered callbacks (2018) and incomplete diagnosis with questionable charges (2014). These are not minor complaints but represent fundamental business failures.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews are from 2023-2024, while negative reviews are from 2014-2018. This temporal separation raises questions about whether recent reviews accurately reflect current service or represent a recovery narrative.
• BILLING TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: 2014 review documents $85 charge for incomplete/incorrect diagnosis without clear explanation, suggesting potential pricing opacity.
• SAMPLE SIZE CONCERN: Only 7 reviews total is a small dataset. The WW Score should be treated as preliminary pending more recent independent reviews.

This score should be treated with caution. While recent reviews are uniformly positive, the suspicious similarity in language across multiple 5-star reviews combined with documented severe failures in older reviews creates significant uncertainty about true service quality and consistency. The small sample size (7 reviews) and temporal clustering of positive reviews warrant skepticism until corroborated by additional independent feedback.

All four reviews speak positively about Randy's professionalism, punctuality, and communication, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting he arrived on time or same-day and behaved professionally throughout. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers describing jobs finished correctly and efficiently. Pricing is mentioned in only one review, where the work was described as 'very reasonably priced,' yielding a conservative but positive score. Experience is referenced in two reviews, with one noting he 'knows plumbing inside and out,' supporting a moderately positive but limited-confidence score.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score cannot be considered highly reliable with this sample size.
• Three of the four reviews are more than 3 years old, with two dating back to 2010 and 2006 respectively. Recency is a significant concern — these older reviews may not reflect current service quality.
• All reviews are 4–5 stars with uniformly positive language. While not conclusively fake, the lack of any critical detail or mixed feedback warrants mild caution.
• The 2006 and 2010 reviews are extremely dated (15+ years old) and have been given reduced effective weight in scoring.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning nearly two decades, with the majority being outdated, making it a LOW-reliability indicator of current service quality — prospective customers should seek more recent and numerous reviews before making a hiring decision.

Professionalism is the strongest dimension, with multiple reviews praising promptness, courtesy, and communication — including proactive status updates to customers. Project completion scores moderately, with a few reviews confirming jobs were finished satisfactorily, though the sample is small. Pricing is a concern: two reviews explicitly note discrepancies between quoted prices and final amounts charged, which is a meaningful red flag for transparency. Experience scores modestly positive based on references to knowledgeability and successful job outcomes, but the evidence base is thin. Overall, the score is tempered significantly by the small review pool, duplicate reviews, and the pricing inconsistency complaint.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two pairs of reviews are word-for-word identical (same text, same rating, same date). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate data entry errors or manipulated reviews. Duplicates were counted as single unique data points for scoring purposes.
• PRICING CONCERN: Two reviews (likely duplicates of one original) explicitly state that final prices differed from quoted prices. This is a direct complaint about pricing transparency and was weighted negatively in the pricing dimension.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are from 2016–2021, with no reviews from the past 12 months (relative to a 2024/2025 evaluation date). The contractor's current quality and practices cannot be reliably assessed from this data.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 5 unique reviews exist after removing duplicates, which is insufficient for high-confidence scoring across all dimensions. All scores should be treated with caution.

This WW Score has LOW reliability due to a very small unique review pool (5 reviews after deduplication), the presence of exact duplicate reviews, a significant pricing transparency complaint, and the fact that all reviews are more than 3 years old — making it difficult to assess the contractor's current performance with confidence.

The majority of reviewers praised the technicians by name, highlighting friendly attitudes, punctuality, and professional conduct, which drove a solid professionalism score. Pricing was generally described as reasonable or affordable across multiple reviews, but one reviewer reported receiving an outrageously high quote and complained of inconsistent communication, which meaningfully pulled the pricing score down. Project completion was positively noted in most reviews — jobs were completed quickly and thoroughly — but the 1-star reviewer's experience of being unable to get a straight answer or consistent information introduces a real concern about reliability. Experience scores were supported by specific mentions of confident diagnosis and effective problem-solving, though the sample size is small. Overall, the score is tempered by one strongly negative review and the limited total number of reviews.

• Only 5 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and low-reliability.
• One 1-star review (2019) describes serious communication failures and an allegedly inflated quote, which contrasts sharply with the positive reviews and cannot be dismissed.
• Two of the five positive reviews (2020 and 2022) are more than 3 years old and may not reflect current service quality.
• Some positive reviews use generic praise language ('awesome', 'top notch') with limited specifics, which slightly reduces confidence in those reviews, though named technicians and specific details in other reviews reduce fake review concern.
• Recency note: Only 2 of 5 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024). The most recent negative review is from 2019, so its weight is reduced but not eliminated.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning 5 years and should be considered a low-confidence preliminary estimate — significantly more recent reviews are needed before this score can be trusted as a reliable indicator of current service quality.

Red Rooter shows a deeply mixed profile across all dimensions. Professionalism scores moderately — many individual technicians (Tony, James, McNaire, Anthony, Pete, Jesse, Daniel, Bud) are praised warmly for punctuality, friendliness, and communication, but these positives are significantly offset by multiple reviews citing rude staff, a no-show appointment, a dispatcher with attitude, and an employee review alleging hostile behavior by the owner. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple reviewers explicitly called charges 'absurd,' 'a rip,' or 'very expensive,' and two separate reviews allege outright fraud involving a wrong-size water heater installation and billing discrepancies — this is a serious red flag. Project completion is mixed: many jobs were completed quickly and well, but there are documented cases of incomplete work (sink seal not fixed, job abandoned after 10 days of delays, snake driven through a wall), and a pattern of poor follow-through at the management/office level. Experience scores reasonably well where mentioned — several technicians solved problems others could not — but the wall-penetration incident and the wrong-unit installation drag this down meaningfully.

• FRAUD ALLEGATION: Two separate reviews (2023-06-10 and 2023-02-02) allege the company installed a 35-gallon water heater after charging for a 40-50 gallon unit, and that management refused to remedy the situation and threatened to void warranties if charges were disputed. This is a serious integrity concern.
• OWNERSHIP CHANGE WARNING: Multiple reviews explicitly note the company was acquired by Sansone Air, and that quality, pricing transparency, and management responsiveness declined significantly after the acquisition. An undisclosed $89 dispatch fee is mentioned in at least two reviews with no explanation provided to customers.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: One review (2023-06-10) documents a job left incomplete for elderly parents (ages 92 and 89), requiring them to hire a second plumber. Another review (2021-12-17) documents 10 days of delays followed by the company refusing to do the job at all.
• WALL DAMAGE: The most recent review (2025-05-24) describes a technician driving a snake through a vent pipe and wall during a drain clearing job, cutting open the wall and leaving without fully resolving the situation.
• POSSIBLE FAKE OR LOW-QUALITY REVIEWS: A cluster of reviews dated 2023-06-10 and 2020-07-15 through 2020-07-18 show suspiciously similar dates with very generic, brief praise and no specific details. Several reviews contain no text at all (rating only). This pattern inflates the raw review count and warrants reduced confidence in the positive review pool.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEW: One 1-star review (2024-06-09) describes a personal altercation at a workplace event unrelated to plumbing services. This review was noted but given minimal weight in scoring.
• EMPLOYEE REVIEW: One review (2022-06-01) appears to be from a former employee alleging COVID-positive technicians were sent to customer homes. This is not a customer service review and was excluded from dimension scoring but flagged for context.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) are negative (1-star and 2-star). The bulk of positive reviews are from 2020-2021, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time, likely correlated with the ownership change.

This WW Score of 68.4 is based on a substantial review set and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given credible fraud allegations, documented ownership-related service decline, and a cluster of suspiciously generic positive reviews that may artificially inflate the positive signal.

Xtra Mile demonstrates strong technical expertise and individual technician professionalism, with many customers praising specific technicians' knowledge and courteous behavior. However, the company is significantly undermined by persistent pricing concerns—customers repeatedly report hidden fees, aggressive upselling, inflated quotes, and deceptive practices. Project completion issues are notable, with multiple reports of incomplete work, unresolved problems requiring callbacks, and failure to honor service commitments. The stark contrast between positive individual technician reviews and negative company-level complaints suggests inconsistent quality control and problematic business practices at the management level.

• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Approximately 60 reviews dated 2025-02-06 and 2025-03-08 show highly repetitive, generic praise with minimal specificity. Many contain only 1-3 words or identical structural patterns (e.g., 'Very knowledgeable,' 'on time,' 'professional'). Multiple blank reviews with 5-star ratings. This clustering suggests potential fake or artificially generated reviews, reducing confidence in the overall positive sentiment.
• SERIOUS FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple independent reviews allege deceptive practices including forged signatures on permits, unauthorized charges to credit cards, selling unnecessary equipment at inflated prices (thermostat $279 vs. $32-36 market price), and misrepresenting warranty coverage. One customer reported signature forgery on permit applications with notary collusion.
• SYSTEMIC PRICING ISSUES: Consistent pattern across 18+ reviews of hidden fees, aggressive upselling, inflated estimates (quotes 2-8x higher than competitors), and charging for work not performed. Customers report being pressured to buy unnecessary service plans and equipment.
• MANAGEMENT RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE: Multiple reports of supervisors and managers failing to return calls despite repeated attempts (3+ calls mentioned in several reviews). One customer explicitly stated 'no need to call me now' after supervisor never responded.
• INCOMPLETE/UNRESOLVED WORK: Several reviews document work that was not completed, problems that persisted after service, technicians leaving jobs unfinished, and issues requiring multiple callbacks without resolution.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews are from 2024-2025 (past 12 months), while suspicious 5-star cluster is concentrated in Feb-Mar 2025. This suggests recent deterioration or increased fake review activity.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While the score of 68.2 reflects genuine data from 176 reviews, approximately 34% of the dataset (60 reviews) appears artificially generated or fake, artificially inflating the professionalism and experience scores. The pricing score of 52.0 and project completion score of 65.0 are more reliable as they are based on detailed, specific complaints with corroborating evidence. The company demonstrates strong individual technician performance but serious systemic issues with pricing transparency, management accountability, and work completion. Customers should independently verify pricing and consider the documented fraud allegations before engaging this company.