Find Nearby Plumbers In New Orleans, Louisiana

Anywhere Plumbing Repair has an overwhelmingly negative review profile, with 17 of 22 reviews awarding 1 star. The most dominant and recurring theme across reviews is deliberate misrepresentation to home warranty companies (AHS) in order to deny covered claims or inflate out-of-pocket costs — a pattern so consistent it constitutes a systemic business practice rather than isolated incidents. Project completion scores are severely penalized by repeated no-shows, unresolved repairs requiring multiple callbacks, and work that failed immediately after completion. Professionalism scores are dragged down by rude staff, a defensive manager, alleged racist remarks, and attempts to solicit under-the-table payments. The handful of positive reviews (5 out of 22) describe friendly and competent technicians, but these are insufficient to offset the volume and severity of negative experiences. Pricing scores reflect numerous complaints about fabricated modification charges, inflated quotes, and bait-and-switch billing practices.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN — MODERATE: The 5 positive reviews are notably brief, generic, and lack specific detail compared to the highly detailed negative reviews. Phrases like 'Super professional,' 'Highly recommended,' and 'fast service' with no specifics are consistent with potentially inauthentic reviews. Confidence in positive signals is reduced accordingly.
• SYSTEMIC FRAUD PATTERN: At least 9 reviews independently allege that the company deliberately submitted false or misleading diagnostic reports to American Home Shield (AHS) to deny warranty coverage. This is not a pattern of isolated errors — it appears to be a deliberate business strategy.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2023–2024) continue to reflect the same fraud and misconduct patterns seen in older reviews (2018–2022), indicating no improvement over time. The negative pattern is sustained and current.
• LEGAL/REGULATORY FLAG: One reviewer references a class action lawsuit against a toilet manufacturer (Vortens) that directly contradicts the technician's diagnosis of 'excessive force,' suggesting the technician's report was knowingly false. Another reviewer called for Louisiana State Police Bureau of Investigation involvement.
• CALLBACK FAILURE: Multiple reviews describe the company refusing to return to fix work that failed immediately after completion, instead directing customers back to the warranty company — a clear failure of workmanship accountability.
• UNDER-THE-TABLE SOLICITATION: At least one reviewer explicitly states the technician attempted to persuade them to bypass the warranty company and pay cash directly, which may constitute insurance fraud.
• BBB NOTE: At least one reviewer notes the company is not accredited by the BBB, consistent with the volume of complaints described.

This WW Score of 28.1 is based on a substantial sample of 22 reviews with high mention counts across all four dimensions, and should be considered a reliable and conservative reflection of this contractor's actual service quality — the score is low because the evidence overwhelmingly and consistently supports it.

The most recent and detailed review (2024) is severely negative, describing workers with poor manners, limited plumbing knowledge, and a flooded kitchen that was left unaddressed — dragging down professionalism, project completion, and experience scores significantly. The two positive reviews are from 2018 and 2021, making them 3–6 years old and far less relevant to current performance. Pricing received a modest positive mention in the 2018 review, but with only one mention it carries very limited weight. The overall picture is one of a company that may have declined in quality over time, with the most recent evidence pointing to serious operational and accountability failures.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The only review from the past 12 months (2024) is a 1-star review describing significant property damage and unprofessional conduct. The two positive reviews are from 2021 and 2018 and should be weighted less heavily.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews total. The WW Score cannot be considered reliable with this volume of data.
• ACCOUNTABILITY FAILURE: The 2024 review describes workers flooding a kitchen and leaving without explanation, and an owner who sided with employees without offering remediation — a serious red flag for project completion and professionalism.
• SCOPE MISMATCH: One positive review references solar panel removal, which may not reflect plumbing-specific competency and could represent a different service line.

This WW Score has very low reliability due to only 3 reviews spanning 6 years, with the sole recent review being a serious 1-star complaint — prospective customers should seek additional references before hiring.

Vaughns Drainage and Plumbing demonstrates severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is undermined by dishonesty (false claims about doorbell ringing, lying to owner), incomplete callbacks, and poor communication. Project completion is critically weak, with multiple instances of abandoned work, incomplete repairs, and failure to honor commitments to return and finish jobs. Pricing practices are problematic, including excessive estimate fees ($65), low-ball quotes followed by additional charges, and refusal to complete quoted work properly. The single positive review from 2023 praising experience and professionalism is substantially outweighed by five recent negative reviews (2022-2024) documenting systematic failures. The company's willingness to misrepresent work completion and charge for incomplete jobs represents a fundamental breach of contractor accountability.

• CRITICAL: One review alleges fraud and IRS/State involvement regarding business registration under false names — this is a serious legal allegation that should be independently verified.
• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews document dishonesty and false claims (doorbell ringing duration, callback claims, work completion statements).
• RECENCY CONCERN: The single 5-star review is from May 2023 (18+ months old). All five negative reviews are from the past 24 months (May 2022 - September 2024), indicating deteriorating service quality or consistent poor performance.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Three separate reviews document abandoned jobs, incomplete repairs, and failure to honor return commitments.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews cite excessive estimate fees, incorrect hardware installation, and refusal to complete quoted work without additional charges.
• The positive review, while detailed, stands alone against overwhelming negative evidence and should not be weighted equally given recency and volume of complaints.

This WW Score of 28.4 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong indicator of poor contractor performance; it is based on six reviews with consistent patterns of failure across professionalism, completion, and pricing, with recent negative reviews substantially outweighing an older positive review, and supported by serious allegations of fraud and systematic dishonesty.

Primecast Plumbing receives overwhelmingly negative feedback across nearly all dimensions. Professionalism is severely damaged by multiple accounts of an aggressive office manager threatening police over payment, fabricated claims submitted to home warranty companies, and dishonest diagnoses — with only one or two reviews offering genuine praise for individual technicians. Project completion is the weakest area, with multiple reviewers reporting that jobs were left unfinished, misdiagnosed, or made worse, and one reviewer requiring a second plumber to complete a repair in minutes that Primecast had abandoned. Technical experience is similarly poor, with reviewers citing wrong diagnoses, referrals to competitors mid-job, and a second opinion confirming Primecast worsened a problem. Pricing data is limited but mixed — one reviewer praised a fair price, while another was hit with fabricated late fees and a revised invoice after work was completed.

• DISHONESTY FLAG: Multiple reviews allege that Primecast submitted false or misleading reports to home warranty companies (AHS), including claims of 'tampered piping' and chemical misuse, which appear to be fabricated to avoid completing covered work.
• BILLING MISCONDUCT FLAG: One reviewer documents a $50 late fee added to an invoice within 24 hours of job completion, with threats of additional $50/day charges and a police call threat — suggesting predatory or retaliatory billing practices.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: The single 5-star review from 2022-01-03 is extremely brief, generic, and lacks any specific detail. It may not reflect a genuine customer experience and has been weighted conservatively.
• RECENCY NOTE: All reviews are from 2022–2023. The most recent negative reviews (late 2023) suggest problems have not improved over time.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 6 reviews total. The WW Score should be treated as directional only — not statistically robust.
• PATTERN WARNING: A consistent pattern of misdiagnosis, incomplete work, and dishonest reporting to warranty companies across multiple independent reviewers suggests systemic operational issues rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score is based on only 6 reviews and should be treated with caution, but the consistency of serious misconduct allegations across multiple independent reviewers — including dishonest warranty reporting, billing threats, and failed repairs — gives the low score meaningful directional credibility.

This contractor's review profile is dominated by two highly negative reviews that describe serious failures across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is severely damaged by one reviewer reporting the owner responded to a complaint with 'Whatever Pal, sue me,' and another describing an obnoxious, manipulative attitude — partially offset by one positive review praising the crew's friendliness. Project completion is critically undermined by reports of improperly reinstalled toilets, pipes breaking in walls shortly after work, ongoing leaks, and pipes buried at dangerously shallow depths in a garden — all pointing to systemic follow-through failures. Experience scores are low due to explicit claims of poor workmanship resulting in mold growth, repeated pipe failures, and a second opinion from another company finding no issues where this contractor claimed $9,000 in repairs were needed. Pricing concerns are flagged by an alleged fraudulent $800 inspection report and a disputed $9,000 repair estimate that a competing company found entirely unnecessary.

• SERIOUS INTEGRITY CONCERN: One reviewer alleges the owner colluded with a real estate agent to fabricate a $9,000 repair estimate, charging buyers $800 for a report a competing company (Tunnel Vision) found to be entirely false.
• OWNER CONDUCT WARNING: The owner, identified by name as Mark Peterson, allegedly told a customer 'Whatever Pal, sue me' when contacted about improperly reinstalled toilets — a significant professionalism red flag.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURE: One reviewer reports pipes breaking within weeks of completed work, mold development, ongoing leaks, and pipes buried at extremely shallow depths beneath a garden — suggesting systemic quality control failures.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most positive review is from October 2020 and involves a sand-pumping job, not plumbing work. The two negative plumbing reviews are from 2019 and 2016. The 2016 review includes a 2018 update confirming ongoing issues. All reviews are older than 12 months and should be weighted with caution regarding current performance.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 3 reviews are available. While the WW Score has been calculated, it carries very limited statistical reliability. More reviews are needed for a trustworthy assessment.
• SCOPE MISMATCH: The positive review describes a sand/fill pumping service, while the negative reviews describe plumbing inspection and installation work. These may reflect different crews or service lines, but all are attributed to the same company.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews — all older than 12 months — and should be treated as highly preliminary; the two detailed negative reviews describing fraud allegations, poor workmanship, and hostile owner conduct are serious enough to warrant significant caution regardless of the limited sample size.

Professionalism is the dominant signal in this review set and it is severely negative. Two of three reviews describe explicitly rude, hostile, or dismissive behavior — one involving a vulnerable elderly customer and another involving a refusal to accommodate a reasonable safety request followed by aggressive attitude. These are serious conduct failures, not minor complaints. The one positive review mentions a completed tankless water heater installation and pipe rerouting, which provides limited but real evidence of technical capability and job completion. However, with only three reviews total and two being strongly negative on the highest-weighted dimension, the overall WW Score is very low.

• Only 3 reviews total — score reliability is low and should be treated with caution.
• Two of three reviews are from different years (2021, 2023) and describe distinct but consistent patterns of rude and dismissive behavior, suggesting a recurring professionalism problem rather than an isolated incident.
• The single positive review (2020) is the oldest in the set and provides no detail on professionalism, limiting its ability to offset the negative pattern.
• Pricing data is entirely absent — no dimension score could be calculated for this category.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2021, 2023) are both negative. The only positive review is from 2020, making the current service quality outlook more concerning.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be considered a preliminary signal only — the professionalism score carries MODERATE confidence due to 3 explicit mentions, but all other dimension scores are LIMITED or absent, meaning this report cannot be considered a reliable overall assessment of the contractor.