Find Nearby Plumbers In Kenner, Louisiana

ABC Plumbing has a large and predominantly positive review base, with the majority of recent reviews (2024–2025) describing prompt, professional, and courteous technicians by name, suggesting a strong core team. Pricing is frequently praised as fair and competitive, with multiple reviewers noting ABC came in significantly lower than competitors. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — spanning the full date range — describe serious failures including abandoned jobs, no-shows, poor communication between office and field staff, billing disputes, work that failed shortly after completion, and in a few cases allegations of dishonest or predatory behavior. Project completion is the most consistently flagged concern in negative reviews, with multiple customers reporting work left unfinished or callbacks ignored. The score is moderated downward from what the volume of 5-star reviews might suggest, because the negative reviews contain specific, credible, and recurring patterns of failure that cannot be dismissed.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 3 pairs of near-identical or word-for-word duplicate reviews were found (e.g., the Jovi/quick/reasonable review appearing on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04; the Tammy/Jason/external repairs review appearing on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04; the Dana/Matthew/bathroom sink review appearing twice on 2025-02-06). This pattern is consistent with review manipulation or accidental double-posting and reduces confidence in the authenticity of some 5-star reviews.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 2 reviews appear to be for unrelated businesses or contain no plumbing-related content (e.g., 'LIFT MARKETING Website Design Agency' rated 2 stars on 2025-06-05 and 2025-06-02; a review about a fast food experience on 2018-12-15; a review referencing 'Pipe Wrench Plumbing' on 2006-08-15). These were excluded from scoring.
• REVIEWS WITH NO TEXT: Multiple reviews contained only a star rating and no written content. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per Rule 1.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE PATTERNS: Multiple 1-star reviews across different time periods describe abandoned work, no-shows, billing for incomplete service, poor office-to-field communication, and in one case an allegation of work that caused $15,000–$20,000 in foundation damage. These are specific and credible and were weighted accordingly.
• RECENCY NOTE: The bulk of highly positive reviews are concentrated in 2024–2025, which may reflect genuine improvement in service quality, a more active review solicitation strategy, or both. Older reviews (2013–2021) show a more mixed picture. Recent reviews were weighted more heavily per Rule 6.
• MULTI-ENTITY RISK: The review corpus appears to aggregate reviews from multiple ABC Plumbing locations or franchises across different states (Texas, California, New York, Kentucky, etc.). Scores may reflect the performance of more than one distinct business operating under the same name, which limits the reliability of the composite WW Score for any single location.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate reviews, irrelevant reviews mixed into the dataset, multi-location aggregation risk, and a recurring pattern of credible negative experiences that suggest the 5-star majority does not fully represent all customer outcomes.

All American Plumbing presents a deeply split profile across its review history. The most recent reviews (2024–2025, predominantly from what appears to be a San Diego-area operation) are overwhelmingly positive, with customers consistently praising named technicians like Lance, Mason, Elliott, JoJo, Justin, Ryan, and Nick for punctuality, clear communication, technical skill, and fair pricing. However, a substantial body of older reviews (2012–2021, many referencing a technician named Robert and home warranty company assignments, likely a different geographic location or franchise) describes a pattern of serious failures: no-shows, misdiagnoses, rude office staff, abandoned jobs, overcharging, and dishonest reporting to home warranty companies. Project completion is significantly dragged down by multiple reviews describing work left unfinished, problems made worse, and failure to follow through. Pricing scores are mixed — recent customers praise fair and transparent quotes, while older customers describe significant overcharging and bait-and-switch tactics. The experience dimension similarly splits between highly skilled recent technicians and incompetent or fraudulent older service calls.

• CRITICAL: The review pool appears to contain reviews for at least two distinct business entities or locations operating under the name 'All American Plumbing.' Recent reviews (2024–2025) reference San Diego-area technicians and a clearly different operational culture from older reviews (2012–2021) that repeatedly reference a technician named 'Robert' and home warranty fraud patterns. Scores should be interpreted with this bifurcation in mind.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: Several reviews from late 2021 (dates: 2021-12-01 to 2021-12-02) are clustered within 48 hours, are unusually generic in praise, and reference a Texas/Houston-area business context inconsistent with the San Diego reviews. One reviewer (2022-01-25) explicitly flags these as suspected fake reviews posted by California residents for a Houston business.
• 14 reviews contain no text (only a star rating) and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent 80+ reviews (2024–2025) are almost entirely 5-star and reflect a high-performing San Diego operation. The older reviews (pre-2023) contain a disproportionate number of 1-star reviews describing a pattern of fraud, rudeness, and incompetence. If evaluating only the last 12 months, scores would be substantially higher across all dimensions.
• PATTERN OF NEGATIVE REVIEWS — HOME WARRANTY CONTEXT: A large cluster of 1-star reviews specifically involves customers assigned through home warranty companies (American Home Shield, Old Republic, 2-10, First American). These reviews describe a consistent pattern of misdiagnosis, upselling, no-shows, and dishonest reporting to warranty companies. This pattern is strong enough to suggest systemic rather than isolated failures in that operational context.
• ONE REVIEW (2024-07-06, 1-star) alleges a company truck attempted to run the reviewer off the road. This is an isolated conduct allegation that cannot be scored but is flagged as a serious concern.
• ONE REVIEW (2023-06-23, 1-star) contains an allegation of spying on an elderly customer and reporting personal activities to an HOA. This is an isolated but serious allegation flagged for awareness.
• OFFICE STAFF COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews across different years cite a receptionist named 'Jennifer' as rude, condescending, and argumentative. This is a recurring named pattern suggesting a systemic customer service issue at the office level, not isolated to field technicians.

This WW Score of 72.1 carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously because the review pool almost certainly spans two distinct business entities or operational eras — the recent San Diego operation (2024–2025) would score approximately 88–92 on its own, while the older review corpus (pre-2023, likely a different location) would score approximately 35–45, and consumers should research which entity they are engaging before relying on this blended score.

Pipeworks receives strong praise from a loyal, repeat customer base for responsiveness, professionalism, and generally solid workmanship across a wide range of plumbing jobs. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews raises serious concerns across multiple dimensions: pricing transparency is a recurring problem, with multiple reviewers citing hidden charges, double service fees, and price discrepancies between quotes and final bills. Project completion is also dinged by one reviewer who described a lift station repair taking over a year, and another whose drain cleaning failed within three weeks with no warranty response. One negative review also describes a misdiagnosis that led to a wildly inflated repair quote, which the customer ultimately resolved themselves for a fraction of the cost. These issues prevent the score from reaching the high range despite the volume of positive sentiment.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review 'Very dedicated and hard working crews make Pipeworks a great choice for all of your plumbing needs. They work around your schedule and get your work done in a timely fashion. Thanks Pipeworks!!' appears twice with different dates (2024-01-12 and 2024-04-17) and identical text — this is a likely fake or copy-pasted review and has been discounted.
• 11 reviews have no text content at all (blank body with only a star rating) — these provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from scoring.
• Several older reviews (2008, 2010, 2014, 2016, 2017) appear to reference a different operator or solo plumber rather than the Pipeworks company described in more recent reviews — scoring weight for these was reduced due to recency rules.
• Multiple pricing complaints span different years (2018, 2019, 2022, 2024), suggesting a persistent and systemic issue with pricing transparency rather than isolated incidents.
• The 1-star review from 2023 describing a misdiagnosis and a $3,500 unnecessary quote is a significant quality-of-work red flag and was weighted heavily in the experience dimension.
• One review (2025-05-10) notes Pipeworks no longer does residential service — this may affect the relevance of all residential reviews to current customers and warrants a flag for prospective residential clients.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews spanning multiple years and carries HIGH overall confidence, but prospective customers should weigh the recurring pricing transparency complaints and at least one serious workmanship concern carefully before hiring.

Plumbparts earns its strongest marks for experience and parts availability — reviewers consistently praise the staff's deep technical knowledge, ability to identify obscure vintage parts, and near-perfect success rate in having the right part in stock where big-box stores and other suppliers failed. Project completion scores high because the core promise of the business (finding the right part) is fulfilled reliably across nearly all reviews. Professionalism is mixed: most interactions are described as friendly and helpful, but one detailed 1-star review describes a rude staff member and a disputed return policy, which meaningfully drags this dimension down. Pricing receives a moderate-to-low score because two reviewers explicitly note the store is 'a little pricier' or 'maybe a little pricier,' though one reviewer contextualized this as fair given the convenience and stock depth; the one positive pricing mention (a third of the cost of a plumber) relates to DIY savings rather than the store's own pricing competitiveness.

• One significant negative review (1-star, June 2016) describes a rude staff member and a disputed return policy — this is a credible, specific complaint and has been weighted accordingly in the professionalism score.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months; only 2 reviews fall within the past 12 months (September 2024 and June 2024). The most recent reviews are brief and low in detail, limiting confidence in current service quality.
• Several reviews use the phrase 'Oracle of Plumbing' — two reviews use this exact nickname. This may reflect a genuine local reputation or shared referral language rather than fake reviews, as the reviews are otherwise distinct in detail, date, and context. No fake review flag raised, but noted.
• All reviews except one are 5-star ratings. While this could reflect genuine quality, the near-universal positive rating pattern warrants mild caution, partially offset by the specificity and variety of individual review details.
• This appears to be a retail parts store, not a contractor or plumber performing installations. Dimensions like project completion have been interpreted in context as successful parts identification and fulfillment rather than job site completion.

The WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the experience and parts-availability dimensions are well-supported by multiple specific reviews, but professionalism has a notable credible negative data point, pricing data is thin, and most reviews are more than one year old, limiting confidence in current service conditions.

Glover Plumbing shows strong professionalism and technical skill, with multiple reviews praising punctuality, cleanliness, and workmanship quality. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and competitive. However, project completion is significantly undermined by a detailed 2022 review documenting repeated service failures on a toilet repair, multiple callbacks without resolution, and eventual recommendation for toilet replacement after $400 in unsuccessful repairs. This critical failure pattern, combined with two older reviews alleging dishonesty and unnecessary work, creates substantial concern about follow-through and problem-solving reliability despite many positive historical reviews.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 5+ years old (2011-2017). Recent reviews (2019-2024) include one highly detailed negative experience (2022) and one positive (2024), suggesting potential quality decline or inconsistency.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: The 2022 review documents a severe pattern of incomplete work—multiple service visits without validating fixes, lack of accountability, and failure to diagnose root cause before charging customer $400. This directly contradicts claims of reliability.
• GENERIC REVIEWS: Several reviews contain minimal detail ('Everything went great,' 'unknown,' '.') which limits confidence in their validity, though they do not appear to be coordinated fake reviews.
• CONFLICTING NARRATIVES: Long-term customer (18 years) praises reliability, but recent detailed negative review shows opposite experience. This suggests either inconsistent service quality or that positive reviews may not reflect current performance.
• DISHONESTY ALLEGATIONS: 2019 and 2021 reviews allege dishonest practices and unnecessary work, which if accurate, undermine trustworthiness despite technical skill.

This score should be treated with caution. While the numerical WW Score of 72.8 reflects mixed evidence, the concentration of positive reviews in the distant past (2011-2017) combined with serious documented failures in recent years (2022) and allegations of dishonesty suggests the company's current reliability may be lower than the score indicates. The detailed 2022 project completion failure is particularly concerning and warrants independent verification before engaging this contractor.

Brandon generally receives positive feedback for punctuality, friendliness, and working quickly, which supports a reasonable professionalism score. Pricing is a mixed signal — two reviews call it reasonable, but one 2-star review describes a small job escalating to $400 with unexpected wall damage requiring additional out-of-pocket repair, which significantly drags down the pricing dimension. Project completion is moderately supported, with most jobs described as finished, though the valve replacement review raises a concern about scope creep and incomplete restoration. Experience scores are moderate — reviewers note efficient diagnosis and clean work, but the one negative review suggests a possible misjudgment in approach that led to unnecessary damage.

• Two reviews dated 2019-09-13 are identical in content ('N/a' and 'n/a') with 5-star ratings and no usable text — these appear to be placeholder or potentially fake entries and were excluded from scoring.
• One review ('good job') is too vague to extract meaningful dimension data and was excluded from scoring.
• All reviews are dated between 2019 and 2020 — all reviews are older than 4 years. No recent data is available to assess current performance.
• The negative review (2-star, Dec 2019) describes unexpected cost escalation and wall damage left unrepaired — this is a meaningful quality and pricing concern that should not be dismissed despite the otherwise positive review set.
• Small total review count (8 total, only 6 with usable data) means this score carries limited statistical reliability.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — it is based on a small number of reviews, all of which are over 4 years old, with two non-informative entries excluded, and one notable negative experience that meaningfully impacts the pricing and project completion dimensions.