Find Nearby Plumbers In New Orleans, Louisiana

Moret Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, satisfied customers who consistently praise the team's responsiveness, thoroughness, and honest communication — particularly Tony Moret and his son Anthony. However, three notable negative reviews meaningfully drag down the scores across all dimensions: one describes incomplete work and poor communication, another details a new leak created during a fixture replacement and an unresolved faucet repair, and a third raises serious safety concerns about exposed wiring after a water heater installation along with pricing that appeared inflated for an elderly customer. Pricing confidence is tempered by one review citing a $400 labor charge plus a marked-up water heater, contrasting with other reviews praising fair and reasonable pricing. Project completion is the most impacted dimension, as multiple reviews describe jobs that were left unfinished or made worse, which is a significant concern for a plumbing contractor. The positive reviews are detailed and specific, lending credibility, but the negative reviews are equally specific and credible, preventing a high overall score.

• Three credible 1-star reviews describe serious issues: incomplete work, poor communication, a newly created leak, an unresolved repair, and exposed electrical wiring after a water heater install — these are not minor complaints and materially affect all dimension scores.
• The 1-star review from 2016 alleges a safety code violation (exposed wires) and potential price gouging on an elderly customer — this is a significant red flag even accounting for its age.
• Several positive reviews are older than 3 years (2015–2020), and only two reviews are from the past 12 months (2023–2024). Recency of positive feedback is limited; the most recent negative review is from 2021.
• No fake review patterns detected — positive reviews contain specific names, job details, and personal anecdotes, and negative reviews are equally detailed and credible.

This WW Score is based on 13 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy, though the mix of detailed positive and detailed negative reviews means the score reflects genuine variability in service quality rather than a consistent track record.

Doug's Service Company exhibits a stark bifurcation in customer experience. Technician professionalism and technical expertise are consistently praised across recent reviews (2024-2025), with specific technicians like Aubrey, Grant, Henry, and Daniel Tabor earning high marks for courtesy, knowledge, and efficiency. However, this is severely undermined by pervasive pricing complaints spanning multiple years, with customers reporting markups of 400-500% on parts, excessive service fees, and aggressive upselling of unnecessary repairs. Project completion issues are documented through communication failures (missed callbacks, delayed dispatches) and incomplete work. The company's reputation has deteriorated significantly post-acquisition, with multiple reviewers noting "not the Doug's we used to know." Recent positive reviews (2025) suggest possible operational improvements, but historical patterns of overcharging and poor follow-through remain substantial concerns.

• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple empty reviews with 5-star ratings (at least 12 instances) suggest potential fake or placeholder reviews inflating the rating average.
• TEMPORAL BIFURCATION: Reviews from 2024-2025 are predominantly 5-star with specific technician praise; reviews from 2017-2023 are predominantly 1-star with detailed complaints about pricing and service quality. This suggests either genuine operational improvement or review manipulation.
• PRICING FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple independent reviews (2017-2023) allege systematic overcharging, unnecessary repairs, and predatory practices targeting elderly customers. Specific examples: $605 thermostat (market $80), $3,600 control panel (actual need: $500 battery), $1,800 water heater (pilot light issue), $783 outlet replacement.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS: The review dated 2023-02-07 appears three times with identical text, suggesting either system error or intentional duplication.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple complaints about unanswered callbacks, missed appointments, and unresponsive management spanning 2022-2023.
• WORK QUALITY ISSUES: Documented cases of sloppy work (improper AC line installation, incomplete plumbing repairs, wrong diagnostics) in historical reviews.
• MEMBERSHIP PROGRAM ABUSE: Customers report paid membership programs not honored, with promised annual maintenance never scheduled and overtime fees still charged despite membership.
• RECENCY BIAS RISK: The dramatic shift from 1-star (2017-2023) to 5-star (2024-2025) warrants skepticism. Recent positive reviews lack the specificity and detail of negative reviews, while empty/placeholder reviews inflate recent ratings.

This WW Score of 62.3 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution due to apparent review manipulation (empty 5-star reviews, temporal clustering) and a documented pattern of pricing complaints spanning 6+ years that contradicts recent positive sentiment. The score reflects genuine technician quality but is heavily penalized by extensive pricing fraud allegations and communication failures. Customers should independently verify pricing and seek second opinions before engaging this company, particularly for major repairs or system replacements.

This aggregated review set covers multiple distinct businesses operating under similar or shared names (Norfolk Plumbing, Rod-O-Matic, Patriot Plumbing across multiple geographic locations including Virginia, California, Florida, Missouri, and others), which severely limits the reliability of a single composite score. The positive reviews — concentrated heavily in 2024–2025 — describe prompt, professional, knowledgeable technicians and fair pricing, with many customers expressing strong loyalty and repeat use. However, a very large volume of deeply negative reviews, particularly associated with the Patriot Plumbing brand operating through home warranty companies (American Home Shield, AHS, HMS, 2-10), describe a consistent and serious pattern of alleged fraud: misdiagnosis to avoid warranty coverage, unnecessary upsell charges, cash-only payment demands, abandoned jobs, failure to return calls, rude or threatening behavior by owners and staff, and work left incomplete or made worse. The pricing dimension is particularly polarized — praised as fair and competitive by direct customers, but condemned as exploitative and deceptive by home warranty customers. Project completion scores are dragged down significantly by numerous accounts of jobs not finished, technicians leaving without completing work, and repeat visits failing to resolve issues.

• CRITICAL: These reviews appear to represent multiple distinct businesses operating under the same or similar names across different U.S. states (Virginia, California, Florida, Missouri, Ohio, and others). A single WW Score is not reliable for this dataset and should not be used to evaluate any single contractor.
• SUSPECTED FAKE OR INCENTIVIZED REVIEWS: A significant cluster of 5-star reviews with no text (rating only) are present throughout the dataset. Additionally, several reviews from the same date batches (e.g., 2025-06-07, 2025-05-26, 2025-04-10, 2023-06-10) appear to be bulk-submitted with generic praise and no specifics, suggesting possible solicited or incentivized review campaigns.
• FRAUD PATTERN DETECTED: A large and consistent pattern across dozens of negative reviews describes Patriot Plumbing (particularly the home warranty-contracted version) deliberately misdiagnosing issues, adding non-covered charges, demanding cash-only payment, and failing to complete work — consistent with a systematic scheme to extract out-of-pocket payments from home warranty customers.
• OWNER CONDUCT WARNINGS: Multiple independent reviewers describe the owner (referred to as Kirk, Steve, or Jimmy depending on location) as verbally abusive, threatening, showing up at customers' homes to demand payment, sending threatening texts, and in one case allegedly cutting a customer's water pressure line in retaliation.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) skew heavily positive and appear to represent different branch locations or operators than the older negative reviews. Older reviews (2018–2023) contain the highest concentration of serious complaints. Recency weighting partially improves the score but does not eliminate the serious concerns.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review describing Mike and Steven fixing a leak behind a shower appears verbatim twice (2024-06-09 and 2023-07-25), suggesting a copy-paste or system duplication.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review about being without a water heater for over a month appears verbatim twice (2022-11-12), suggesting a system duplication.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review about avoiding the company and paying $750 for modifications appears verbatim twice (2020-07-22), suggesting a system duplication.
• NON-PLUMBING REVIEWS PRESENT: Several reviews reference HVAC, electrical, and AC work (Nick's reviews from 2024-06-09), which are outside the scope of plumbing contractor evaluation and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• UNPERMITTED WORK ALLEGATION: At least one reviewer explicitly states Patriot Plumbing performed a full repipe without pulling a permit and that the matter was under investigation by the California State Contractors Board.

This WW Score of 62.1 should be treated with very low confidence as a guide to any single contractor, as the dataset aggregates reviews for multiple distinct businesses across different states and ownership structures; the score reflects a deeply divided customer base where direct-hire customers report largely positive experiences while home warranty-referred customers report a consistent and serious pattern of alleged fraud, incomplete work, and unprofessional conduct.

National Economy Plumbers presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores moderately due to a significant number of positive mentions of courteous, prompt, and communicative technicians, but is substantially dragged down by multiple credible negative accounts including a technician laughing at a mask request, loud music being played on the job, a staff member hanging up on a customer, a plumber entering a property without permission and making aggressive political remarks, and unreturned phone calls over multiple days. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while a handful of reviewers praise reasonable or fair pricing, a substantial cluster of detailed negative reviews describe charges perceived as grossly excessive, lack of upfront quotes, parts marked up 4x retail, and at least one instance of a free estimate being misrepresented. Project completion is also problematic, with multiple reviewers explicitly stating that work was not completed correctly on the first visit, that callbacks were charged again rather than honored under warranty, and one severe case involving flooding, crossed water lines, and unpaid supplier liens. Experience scores slightly higher, as many positive reviewers specifically praise technical knowledge and problem-solving ability, but is offset by credible accounts of failed repairs, worsened plumbing conditions after service, and a furnace left unfixed across multiple years.

• 11 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These have been excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable qualitative data.
• Several 5-star reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Fantastic!', 'Very friendly & professional', 'Did a good job', 'Excellent service & price') with no specific details. These may inflate the perceived positive sentiment and were weighted minimally.
• A recurring pattern of loyal long-term customers leaving glowing reviews contrasts sharply with detailed, specific negative experiences from other customers — suggesting inconsistent service quality rather than fake reviews, but warranting caution.
• The review mentioning flooding a building four times, crossed hot/cold water lines, unpaid supplier liens, and unsupervised workers smoking indoors (2014) is an extreme outlier and was weighted heavily in project completion and experience scoring due to its specificity and severity.
• Multiple negative reviews reference the same staff member 'Glen' by name in the context of dismissive or rude responses to billing complaints, suggesting a systemic customer service issue at the administrative level.
• Recency note: The majority of reviews with substantive content span 2014–2024. The most recent reviews (2024) include both strong positives and strong negatives, indicating the mixed quality pattern has persisted and is not improving over time.

This WW Score is based on 57 reviews spanning approximately 11 years, with sufficient mention counts across all four dimensions to carry HIGH confidence labels; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given the wide variance between detailed positive and detailed negative experiences, suggesting that service quality is highly inconsistent depending on which technician is dispatched and which type of job is performed.

Bienvenu Brothers receives genuinely mixed feedback across all dimensions, making this a contractor that performs well for some customers but poorly for others. Professionalism is the most heavily flagged dimension: multiple reviews cite a rude office receptionist, failure to return calls, scheduling inflexibility requiring 20-minute notice windows, and technicians taking personal calls on the job — though field technicians like David, Dave, Walter, Kane, and Frank are frequently praised as courteous and professional. Pricing is a significant concern, with multiple explicit complaints about labor charges described as excessive or unethical (e.g., $612 labor for minor fixtures, $202 for a one-hour toilet repair, $500 for a 30-minute Freon fill), though a handful of reviews describe pricing as fair or reasonable. Project completion is undermined by recurring patterns of delayed callbacks (sometimes weeks), incomplete first visits requiring follow-up appointments, and at least one instance of a job left unfinished due to scheduling rigidity. Technical experience scores moderately well — several reviewers praise quick and accurate diagnoses, and technician David in particular is cited multiple times for strong technical skill — but this is offset by one notable case of a misdiagnosed or poorly communicated HVAC repair that failed within a week.

• 9 reviews contain no text (rating only) and were excluded from dimension scoring — these blank 5-star entries inflate the raw star average and should be treated with suspicion.
• One review ('3Aa') appears to be a test entry or accidental submission and was excluded.
• Two reviews appear nearly identical in content and phrasing (the two tankless water heater / David / circuit board reviews from April and June 2021) — these may represent a duplicate submission by the same customer or a coordinated posting, reducing confidence in those specific data points.
• A disproportionate number of blank or text-free 5-star reviews cluster around the same dates (2020-06-10, 2021-06-10, 2022-06-10), which is a pattern consistent with review padding. Confidence in the raw star rating is reduced accordingly.
• Review recency note: Several negative reviews are from 2015–2019, but negative patterns (rude receptionist, scheduling failures, pricing complaints) persist through 2024–2025, suggesting these are not isolated historical issues.
• The HVAC/AC-related reviews introduce service scope ambiguity — this company appears to offer both plumbing and HVAC, and some negative reviews relate specifically to AC work, which may or may not reflect plumbing service quality.

This WW Score is based on a substantial number of substantive reviews and carries HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given credible evidence of review padding (multiple blank 5-star entries on identical dates), one likely duplicate review, and persistent negative patterns across pricing and scheduling that span nearly a decade of reviews.

A Perfect Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension and is sharply divided: several reviewers praise punctuality, courtesy, and clear communication, while others describe rude technicians, unannounced visits, showing up without masks during a pandemic, and leaving messes including tools placed on oriental rugs. Pricing is a significant liability, with multiple reviewers citing a $5,500 water heater estimate (mentioned twice in near-identical language), a $200 charge for a $5 part and 2 minutes of labor, and a $175 charge for a 3-minute job with no parts — though a handful of reviewers describe pricing as fair and affordable. Project completion is the most damaging dimension: one detailed review describes repeated failure to finish work under a sink, surprise additional charges, and no follow-through without persistent customer contact; another describes misdiagnosis leading to unnecessary contractor work and a broken toilet that was concealed from the warranty company; and a long-term customer review from 2009 describes dead gas pipes left under a house for years without disclosure. Experience scores moderately, with some reviewers praising diagnostic speed and technical skill, while others cite clear misdiagnoses on a pressure tank and a shower leak.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with identical text ('A Perfect Plumbing is trustworthy. They replaced the water heater in my rental property...') appear on different dates (2024-06-09 and 2024-05-15). One has been excluded from scoring as a likely duplicate or fake entry.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: The two $5,500 water heater complaints (2021 and 2020) are from different accounts but describe nearly identical scenarios and dollar amounts. While this could reflect a real pricing pattern, the similarity warrants caution.
• 5 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These have been excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of negative reviews with substantive detail fall between 2020 and 2024, suggesting the mixed-to-poor experience pattern is not isolated to older reviews. Positive reviews span a wider date range including older entries from 2007–2019 which carry reduced weight.
• Several highly positive reviews (2018–2019) are generic in nature with limited specifics, which reduces their evidentiary weight under fake review awareness rules.
• One review is a single word ('Dishonest') with no supporting detail — scored conservatively and treated as a signal rather than full evidence.

This WW Score is based on 33 reviews with usable content spanning 2007–2025, with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically meaningful — however, the sharp polarization between strongly positive and strongly negative reviews, combined with duplicate review detection and several generic praise entries, means the score should be interpreted as a genuine reflection of inconsistent service quality rather than a stable average.