Find Nearby Plumbers In Winter Garden, Florida

The field crews across all three reviews were consistently praised for their skill, honesty, and work quality, driving a reasonably strong experience score. However, professionalism is significantly dragged down by the first review, which details threatening communications, failure to provide a basic itemized receipt, and antagonistic behavior from office/management staff. Project completion is mixed: two reviews describe jobs finished on time or early, but the first review documents a 3-month delay versus a 45-day verbal promise, premature invoicing before final inspection, and repeated administrative failures. Pricing received limited positive mentions — one reviewer noted a $3,900 credit was applied, and another implied fair value — but transparency concerns in the first review temper this score. Overall, the company appears to have strong field crews but a problematic administrative and customer service operation.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and unreliable for high-stakes decisions.
• Review 1 (2024-09-25, 1-star) is the most recent and most detailed, and describes serious administrative misconduct including a lien threat, refusal to provide itemization, and premature invoicing — these are significant red flags.
• Reviews 2 and 3 are positive but lack granular detail on pricing and administrative processes, making it difficult to determine if the issues in Review 1 are isolated or systemic.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in tone, detail level, and rating, suggesting authenticity.
• Review 1 is from 2024, Review 2 from 2023, Review 3 from 2022 — the most recent review is also the most negative, which may indicate a declining trend in customer service quality.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be considered LOW reliability — do not use this score as a definitive assessment; seek additional reviews before making a hiring decision.

Del-Air exhibits a deeply polarized customer experience. While individual technicians (JP, Ketondra, Danny, Jose, Nick Walsh, and others) consistently receive praise for professionalism, knowledge, and courtesy, systemic operational failures severely undermine overall performance. The company struggles significantly with project completion—marked by chronic no-shows, missed appointments, delayed parts ordering, and poor communication. Pricing concerns are substantial, with customers reporting excessive charges, misdiagnoses leading to unnecessary repairs, and lack of transparency. Recent reviews (2024-2025) show improvement in technician quality but persistent scheduling and follow-up failures. The company's transition to a call center model and ownership change appear to have degraded service reliability.

• CRITICAL: Severe operational dysfunction—multiple reviews document repeated no-shows, missed appointment windows, and failure to return calls despite promises. This pattern spans years and appears systemic.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Consistent complaints about overcharging, misdiagnosis to justify expensive repairs, lack of transparency in quotes, and pressure to purchase unnecessary services. Multiple customers report 300-450% markups compared to competitors.
• INSTALLATION QUALITY: Multiple reviews report defective units installed by Del-Air, improper installation (undersized units, poor drain line pitch, incorrect wiring), and refusal to warranty work or stand behind installations.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Customers report inability to reach company, unanswered voicemails, promises of callbacks that never materialize, and call center transfers that worsen responsiveness.
• COMPANY TRANSITION IMPACT: Reviews note significant decline after ownership change from Bob Della Russo era to out-of-state conglomerate. Pre-2018 reviews are notably more positive; post-2018 reviews show deterioration.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK—MODERATE: Approximately 50+ reviews from June 2025 and May 2025 contain suspiciously generic praise with minimal detail (e.g., 'Jp did a great job,' 'Great team!!!', empty reviews rated 5.0). These lack specificity and context typical of authentic reviews. However, they are balanced by detailed negative reviews, suggesting partial rather than wholesale fabrication.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent reviews (June 2025) are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail, contrasting sharply with detailed 1-star reviews from 2024. This temporal clustering warrants caution.
• SENIOR CITIZEN EXPLOITATION: Multiple reviews describe elderly customers subjected to extended service delays, high-pressure sales, and refusal to honor warranties—raising ethical concerns.

This WW Score of 62.3 should be treated with HIGH confidence due to large sample size (176 reviews) and consistent patterns across dimensions, but the score masks a critical bifurcation: individual technician quality is genuinely strong (70+), while operational execution is severely compromised (58 for completion, 45 for pricing). Customers should expect excellent on-site service but prepare for scheduling chaos, communication failures, and potential overcharging. The company is unreliable for time-sensitive repairs and high-risk for financial disputes.

D & J Plumbing receives broadly positive marks for professionalism across multiple reviews, with customers noting punctuality, friendliness, and clean work habits. Pricing feedback is limited but generally favorable, with one reviewer pleasantly surprised by a bill coming in well under estimate. However, the single most recent review (2020) is a serious negative outlier, describing poor workmanship, failure to follow manufacturer instructions, leakage issues, and a complete lack of accountability — this materially drags down project completion and experience scores. The bulk of positive reviews are dated between 2009 and 2018, meaning the most current data point available is the damaging 2020 complaint, which raises legitimate concerns about current service quality. Scores have been conservatively adjusted to reflect this recency imbalance.

• RECENCY WARNING: The most recent review (July 2020) is a 1-star complaint describing serious workmanship failures, leakage, and no accountability. All other reviews are from 2009–2018, making the 2020 review the most current signal of service quality.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are more than 5 years old, with several exceeding 10 years. The WW Score may not reflect current business performance.
• NEGATIVE OUTLIER: The 2020 review explicitly describes a contractor knowingly installing a tub without a proper trim kit, ignoring manufacturer instructions, and refusing to stand behind their work — this is a significant project completion and experience failure.
• DATA VOLUME: Only 8 reviews total. Score reliability is limited by small sample size and wide date range spanning over a decade.

This WW Score carries MODERATE reliability due to a small review sample, a wide date range spanning 11 years, and a critical recent negative review that stands in sharp contrast to older positive feedback — prospective customers should seek more current references before hiring.

This contractor's review profile is deeply mixed and spans a wide date range (2011–2019), with the most recent usable review from 2019. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is severely dragged down by multiple credible, detailed negative accounts: a reviewer reported the plumber left alcohol bottles at the property, another described unprofessional language, smelling of cigarettes, and inappropriate comments about the homeowner's valuables, and a fifth reviewer was simply never called back after providing contact information. Positive professionalism mentions exist but are outnumbered and less specific. Pricing received its lowest score due to one highly detailed account of an alleged $864 estimate for work the reviewer completed themselves for $16 in parts, plus a mandatory $89 estimate fee — a strong indicator of predatory pricing practices. Project completion is mixed: one reviewer reports a toilet leaking after service, another says work was top-notch and guaranteed, and one review ('It didn't.') strongly implies the job was not completed satisfactorily. Experience scores modestly due to one strong positive account of multi-year repeat work and one account of a successful repair, offset by the failed toilet repair and the pricing-manipulation behavior suggesting upselling over honest diagnosis.

• One review ('unknown', 5 stars, 2016) contains no usable content and was excluded from scoring.
• One review ('It didn't.', 2 stars, 2017) is extremely vague — it implies failure but provides no detail; scored conservatively as a negative project completion signal.
• The review corpus spans 2011–2019; no reviews are within the past 12 months relative to a current evaluation, significantly reducing recency reliability.
• The most detailed negative reviews (2011 and 2018) are older but contain highly specific, credible details (dollar amounts, part names, behavioral descriptions) that increase their credibility weight.
• No fake review patterns detected; reviews show natural variation in tone, length, rating, and detail. The positive reviews are not suspiciously generic enough to flag as coordinated.
• Alcohol consumption on the job site (empty liquor bottle and empty beer case left behind) is a serious professionalism and liability concern explicitly mentioned in one review.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to a small review pool of only 7 reviews, all older than 12 months, with one unusable entry — however, the presence of multiple detailed, specific negative reviews across independent dimensions (professionalism, pricing, and project completion) lends meaningful signal to the low score.

This contractor demonstrates severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by documented aggressive driving behavior, road rage incidents, and poor communication (hanging up on customers, lack of explanation). Project completion is undermined by incomplete installations, failure to honor warranties, and abandonment of service obligations. Pricing shows deceptive practices including bait-and-switch tactics, dual invoicing systems, and parts substitution fraud. Technical experience is questionable given installation errors (disconnected sensors) and premature component failures. The single 5-star review praising pricing and service stands in stark contrast to six 1-star reviews documenting serious misconduct, suggesting potential review authenticity concerns.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document aggressive driving and road rage behavior by owner/driver (2024, 2023, 2018), indicating serious character and safety concerns unrelated to but reflective of business conduct.
• FRAUD ALERT: 2012 review alleges dual invoice systems, parts substitution (low-quality compressor charged as brand-name), serial number discrepancies, and warranty denial patterns—suggests systematic deceptive billing practices.
• WARRANTY VIOLATIONS: Multiple reviews (2023, 2021, 2012) document failure to honor warranties and refusal to service work performed by company.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: 2023 review documents owner hanging up on customer twice and refusing to perform service callbacks.
• INSTALLATION DEFECTS: 2023 review documents incomplete installation (sensor not connected to air handler), requiring third-party correction.
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: Single 5-star review (2021) uses generic praise language ('amazing', 'can't beat', 'no trouble') with no specific technical details, contrasts sharply with six detailed 1-star reviews documenting specific incidents and fraud allegations. This may indicate fake or incentivized review.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are 3+ years old (2012, 2018, 2021, 2023), but recent 2024 review documents ongoing aggressive behavior, suggesting pattern persistence.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to the overwhelmingly negative and serious nature of allegations (fraud, warranty violations, aggressive behavior), combined with a single suspicious 5-star review that appears inconsistent with documented patterns. The contractor should not be recommended based on available evidence.

Both reviews are positive and mention professionalism, politeness, and reasonable pricing, which supports modest scores in those dimensions. Review 1 references cleanliness, politeness, and answering questions, while Review 2 highlights quick and efficient service with courteous handling of a leak. Project completion is implied by both reviews describing resolved work, though neither goes into detail about complexity or follow-through. Experience scores are conservatively assigned as neither review describes technical skill or problem-solving in any meaningful depth. With only 2 reviews — both older than 12 months — no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 2 reviews provided — minimum threshold of 3 reviews not met; WW Score cannot be calculated reliably.
• Both reviews are dated more than 12 months ago (2020 and 2021); recency weighting is a concern as these do not reflect current performance.
• Both reviews are 5-star with broadly positive but generic language and limited specifics; mild concern about depth of evidence, though not conclusive of fake reviews.
• All dimension scores are LIMITED confidence due to only 2 mentions each — treat all scores with significant caution.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both over 3 years old, making it highly unreliable as a representation of current contractor quality — significantly more recent reviews are needed before any dimension score or overall WW Score can be trusted.