Find Nearby Plumbers In New Orleans, Louisiana

Ken Brown & Sons demonstrates strong technical expertise and problem-solving ability, with multiple reviews praising their knowledge of hard-to-find parts and helpful advice. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by consistent complaints about poor customer service, rudeness, dismissive attitudes, and selective treatment favoring long-term customers over new ones. Pricing is a major weakness, with numerous reviews citing markups 50-150% above competitors and complaints about lack of transparency. The business appears to prioritize existing relationships over customer acquisition, which damages overall trustworthiness despite genuine technical competence.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 6 of 10 reviews are older than 5 years (2012-2014), with only 3 reviews from 2018-2021. Recent data is limited.
• POLARIZED PATTERN: Reviews show extreme polarization—5-star reviews from established customers vs. 1-star reviews from new/one-time customers. This suggests service quality is highly dependent on customer relationship status, not consistent standards.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY: Multiple independent reviews cite excessive markups (50-150% above competitors) and lack of transparent pricing. This is a systemic issue, not isolated complaint.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE CONSISTENCY: Negative reviews consistently describe dismissive attitudes, lack of greeting, selective service based on spending history, and sarcasm. Positive reviews do not address customer service quality.
• RETURN POLICY DISPUTES: Two detailed reviews cite refusal to accept returns or issue refunds, creating legal/ethical concerns beyond normal business practice.

This score should be treated with moderate caution. While the technical expertise dimension is well-supported, the professionalism and pricing scores are based on consistent patterns across multiple independent reviews spanning years, suggesting systemic issues rather than isolated incidents. The extreme polarization between customer types and the age of most data limit confidence in current operational standards.

Leon Plumbing shows highly polarized performance with two excellent 5-star reviews praising responsiveness, fair pricing, and quality work, contrasted against three damaging 1-star reviews citing inflated pricing, lack of transparency, poor communication, and questionable billing practices. The positive reviews emphasize quick response times and reasonable costs, while negative reviews document specific instances of unexplained charges ($973 for consultations, $302 for a 20-minute repair) and refusal to provide itemized invoices. The company demonstrates capability in technical execution but appears to have serious issues with pricing transparency and customer communication that undermine trust.

• SEVERE PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (3 of 5) explicitly cite inflated or unexplained charges with lack of transparency. One customer was charged $973 for consultations and estimates without authorization; another was charged $302 for a 20-minute repair with no itemization.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Negative reviews document ignored requests for itemized invoices and refusal to clarify billing. This suggests systemic communication problems beyond isolated incidents.
• RECENCY BIAS: Positive reviews are recent (2024), while negative reviews are older (2017-2018). However, the 2017-2018 reviews describe specific, detailed problems with documentation, suggesting these are not fabricated complaints.
• POLARIZATION PATTERN: The stark 5-star vs 1-star split (2 positive, 3 negative) with no middle-ground reviews is unusual and suggests either highly variable service quality or different customer segments experiencing different treatment.
• VEHICLE MAINTENANCE CONCERN: One review mentions excessive black smoke from work vehicles, raising questions about overall operational standards and professionalism.

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (5 reviews) and extreme polarization. While the two recent positive reviews are encouraging, the three detailed negative reviews from 2017-2018 document specific billing and communication failures that appear systematic rather than isolated. The WW Score of 54.3 reflects this conflict, but potential customers should carefully review the detailed complaints about pricing transparency before engaging this company.

Eagle Plumbing receives a critically low WW Score of 42.3, driven by severe deficiencies across all dimensions. Pricing is the most damaging factor (28.5/100), with overwhelming evidence of overcharging, hidden fees, bait-and-switch tactics, and charges for incomplete or failed work. Project completion scores poorly (45.0/100) due to repeated instances of incomplete repairs, multiple callbacks required, misdiagnosis, and abandoned jobs. Professionalism is significantly compromised (48.0/100) by documented rudeness, poor communication, missed appointments, and unprofessional handling of customer complaints. While experience shows moderate capability (52.0/100), technical knowledge is undermined by frequent misdiagnosis and poor workmanship that required correction by other companies.

• SEVERE PRICING PATTERN: 68 reviews explicitly mention pricing concerns. Systematic overcharging documented across 40+ negative reviews spanning 2012-2025. Pattern includes: diagnostic fees not disclosed upfront, charges for incomplete work, prices quoted verbally then inflated on invoice, emergency surcharges, and charges for work never performed. Multiple customers report being charged 2-4x market rates for simple jobs.
• QUALITY & COMPLETION FAILURES: 61 reviews document incomplete work, failed repairs requiring second company intervention, multiple callbacks for same issue, and misdiagnosis. Specific pattern: customer pays full price, problem recurs within days/weeks, company either refuses warranty or charges additional fees. At least 15 reviews describe jobs that required complete redo by competitors.
• PROFESSIONALISM CRISIS: 52 reviews cite unprofessional behavior including: no-shows/late arrivals without notice, rude/aggressive staff (particularly office staff named Jennifer, Claudia, Charles), refusal to honor stated warranties, threats of legal action/liens over disputed charges, gaslighting customers about service provided, and supervisor retaliation against negative reviews.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Multiple reviews (15+) report unanswered callbacks, dispatch failures, technicians arriving outside promised windows without notification, and management refusing to engage with complaints despite promises to do so.
• POTENTIAL FRAUD INDICATORS: Several reviews describe charges for services explicitly not performed, documented on customer cameras/video. One customer provided video evidence technician never turned on equipment but was charged $550. Another reports technician walked property counting steps but never attempted work. Invoices reportedly contain full credit card information written in plain text.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Approximately 25-30 reviews (mostly 5-star, dated 2025-03-2025-06) contain generic praise with minimal specifics ('Reliable, Fast, Friendly Service', 'Everything went good. Thanks', 'Great service!', multiple blank reviews rated 5.0). These cluster in recent months and lack the detailed complaint/resolution narratives present in negative reviews. However, given the volume and consistency of detailed negative reviews spanning 13 years (2012-2025) with specific names, amounts, and outcomes, the negative reviews appear authentic and the positive reviews may be inflated.
• RECENCY CONCERN: While recent reviews (2025) show some positive ratings, the negative pattern is consistent across entire 13-year history with no improvement trend. Recent positive reviews lack detail compared to historical pattern.
• LEGAL/REGULATORY HISTORY: Multiple reviews reference complaints to Louisiana Attorney General (at least 2 documented), BBB (mentioned as 'F rating'), credit card disputes, and attorney involvement. One customer reports company threatened mechanical lien on house for unpaid balance within 24 hours of service.

This WW Score of 42.3 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 125 reviews with 52-68 mentions per dimension, all meeting HIGH confidence thresholds. The score is conservative and evidence-based, driven by overwhelming documentation of systematic overcharging, incomplete work, and unprofessional conduct spanning 13 years. The consistency of specific complaints (pricing, misdiagnosis, failed repairs, rude staff) across hundreds of independent reviews from different customers and time periods indicates a structural business problem, not isolated incidents. This company presents significant financial and service risk.

Stuart Services receives a critically low WW Score of 42.3, driven primarily by severe pricing concerns and significant professionalism issues. While the company demonstrates technical competence in workmanship (65/100), this strength is overwhelmed by pervasive complaints about astronomical pricing, hidden fees, and deceptive billing practices across 58 reviews. Professionalism scores poorly (48/100) due to frequent appointment cancellations, no-shows, poor communication, and unresponsiveness to customer complaints. Project completion issues (52/100) include incomplete work, callbacks not honored, and extended timelines. The company's business model appears predatory, with customers consistently reporting being charged 2-4x market rates for routine repairs.

• CRITICAL: Systematic overpricing pattern — 58 reviews explicitly mention excessive charges, with customers reporting quotes 2-10x higher than competitors for identical work (e.g., $518 capacitor vs. $100 market rate; $5,738 electrical vs. $2,300 competitor; $1,510 refrigerant leak vs. $400 competitor)
• CRITICAL: Deceptive fee structure — multiple reviews report hidden charges, bait-and-switch tactics (advertised $99 drain cleaning becomes $327), non-disclosed service call fees ($79-$400), and automatic billing without customer authorization
• CRITICAL: Appointment reliability crisis — 15+ reviews document repeated cancellations (often 30 minutes before scheduled time), no-shows without notice, and rescheduling delays of days/weeks despite promised priority
• CRITICAL: Unresponsive to complaints — multiple customers report 3+ weeks with no response to damage claims, warranty disputes, or service failures; some received only invoices and automatic charges as 'response'
• CRITICAL: Warranty/guarantee not honored — customers report company refusing to stand behind work, denying responsibility for faulty installations despite written guarantees, and charging additional fees for warranty-covered repairs
• Pattern of predatory targeting — elderly customers and those in urgent situations (holidays, emergencies, time constraints) appear systematically overcharged; one review explicitly states 'prey on the elderly'
• Quality control failures — multiple reviews document incomplete diagnostics, misdiagnosis (claiming problems don't exist when they do), faulty installations requiring callbacks, and technicians lacking proper equipment
• Positive reviews (15 five-star ratings) are concentrated in 2012-2019 period; recent reviews (2024, 2023) are overwhelmingly negative (1-2 stars), suggesting significant company deterioration
• One customer noted: 'I have found their work has changed. Very poor workmanship, higher costs and their guaranteed workmanship is not backed up' — indicating decline from previously acceptable service

This WW Score of 42.3 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely — it is based on 80 detailed reviews with consistent, explicit evidence across all dimensions. The overwhelming volume of specific, corroborated complaints about pricing, cancellations, and unresponsiveness (58+ mentions of overcharging alone) creates a clear pattern of systemic business problems. The company's recent trajectory (deterioration from 2019 onward) and the severity of documented consumer harm (thousands of dollars in overcharges, property damage, warranty breaches) make this a high-confidence assessment of a problematic service provider.

The reviews for this contractor present a deeply mixed picture. On the positive side, two recent reviews (2024) praise friendly, knowledgeable service and timely work at reasonable prices, and a 2019 review highlights professional problem-solving. However, a detailed 2021 review raises serious concerns about the owner's rude and dismissive communication style, and a 2018 review documents significant workmanship failures including a failed inspection, gas line issues, and incomplete work. The professionalism score is dragged down substantially by the owner's documented rudeness and the unauthorized work performed without customer consent. Project completion is similarly penalized due to the 2018 review's multiple failures, schedule delays, and inspection issues. Pricing scores moderately as two reviews mention reasonable or fair pricing, but the sample is too small to be confident. Overall, the score reflects genuine uncertainty — positive recent signals are offset by documented serious failures in earlier reviews.

• One review (Rating: 1.0, 2024-03-27) appears to be for a different business entity — 'Noel's Plumbing Supply Inc' (a retail supply store in Evendale, Ohio) — and contains embedded Google review content from that separate business. This review has been excluded from scoring as it does not appear to relate to the plumbing contractor being evaluated.
• The usable review sample is very small (4 reviews spanning 2018–2024), which severely limits reliability. Scores should be treated with caution.
• Two of the four usable reviews are 3–6 years old (2018 and 2019). Only two reviews are from the past 12 months. Recency weighting is limited.
• The 2018 review describes multiple serious failures on a new construction project including a gas line not tightened (safety hazard), a failed plumbing inspection, and schedule delays due to personal issues — these are significant red flags for project completion and experience.
• The 2021 review explicitly documents the owner performing unauthorized work without customer consent and responding dismissively when confronted — a notable professionalism concern.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the two 5-star reviews from 2024 are brief and lack specific detail, which slightly reduces their evidentiary weight.

This WW Score is based on only 4 usable reviews spanning six years and should be treated as LOW RELIABILITY — the small sample size, mixed review quality, and presence of serious documented failures mean this score cannot be considered a stable or confident representation of the contractor's current performance.

The review set is small and deeply divided, making any score inherently uncertain. The most detailed negative review (1-star, August 2024) describes serious failures across nearly every dimension: hidden fees, incomplete work, poor communication, and a technician who arrived without materials and left mid-job. This review is the most recent and most detailed, and it carries significant weight. The positive reviews, while present, are largely vague and lack specifics — one mentions quick toilet repair, one praises responsiveness and problem-solving on a complex leak job, and one is a single generic sentence. The contrast between the detailed negative account and the sparse positive ones limits confidence in the higher scores suggested by the 4- and 5-star ratings.

• Two of the three positive reviews contain very little specific detail ('Quick service and reliable' and 'Great results, friendly service') — these may be genuine but cannot be weighted heavily due to lack of verifiable specifics.
• The most recent and most detailed review is a 1-star complaint describing hidden fees ($90 show-up fee, $160/hour) never disclosed upfront, work left incomplete, and toilets left in worse condition than before — this is a serious red flag.
• The negative reviewer explicitly states a neighbor used the same contractor one week prior and was not charged the same fees, suggesting inconsistent or arbitrary pricing practices.
• With only 4 reviews total, the WW Score should be treated as highly preliminary and not representative of consistent contractor performance.
• Recency note: The two most recent reviews (August 2024) conflict directly — one 4-star and one 1-star — making the current performance picture unclear.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews with significant conflict between them and should be considered highly unreliable — do not use it as a confident indicator of contractor quality without gathering substantially more review data.