Find Nearby Plumbers In Bowie, Maryland

All four reviews are positive and provide specific, credible details about Godwin and Reign Plumbing and Gas. Professionalism is the most consistently mentioned dimension, with reviewers noting punctuality, responsiveness, clear communication, and courteous behavior across multiple jobs. Pricing is explicitly called out as reasonable or matching the quoted amount in three reviews, supporting a strong but not perfect pricing score. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers describing jobs finished fully, follow-up calls made, and cleanup performed. Experience is evidenced by code-awareness, technical explanations given to customers, and successful completion of varied jobs including water heater installation, gas heater replacement, and faucet repair. However, the total review count is only four, and all reviews are older than 12 months as of mid-2025, which limits confidence in the current state of the business.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• All reviews are dated between 2019 and 2023; none fall within the past 12 months as of mid-2025. Current performance cannot be confirmed.
• All reviews are 5-star. While the reviews contain specific details and varied scenarios that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformly perfect ratings warrant mild caution.
• No negative feedback or constructive criticism present in any review — this may reflect genuine quality or a small, self-selected sample.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, all of which are more than 12 months old, so while the available evidence is consistently positive and credible, the score should be considered preliminary and treated with caution until more recent reviews are available.

All three reviews speak positively to Carlos's professionalism, highlighting punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous communication — including a Sunday evening emergency response. Project completion is consistently praised, with reviewers noting timely, thorough work and a clean job site. Technical experience is supported by specific mentions of sewer line clearing, clearout valve installation, and accurate problem diagnosis. Pricing is entirely absent from all reviews, so that dimension cannot be scored. With only 3 reviews total, all scores carry limited statistical weight despite being uniformly positive.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• All reviews are 5-star with no negative feedback; while the reviews do contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the small sample size makes it impossible to rule out selection bias.
• One review (2022-04-13) is very brief and generic ('professional and timely manner') with no specific details — treat with slightly lower evidentiary weight.
• Pricing dimension has zero mentions across all reviews — this dimension is entirely excluded from the WW Score calculation.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months relative to a 2024–2025 evaluation window; recency weighting is a concern.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be considered a preliminary signal rather than a definitive assessment — significantly more reviews are needed before this score can be trusted with confidence.

Carlos receives consistently positive feedback across professionalism, pricing, and technical knowledge. Multiple reviewers explicitly praised his promptness, responsiveness, and clear communication, supporting a solid professionalism score. Pricing was mentioned favorably in three reviews, with words like 'reasonable,' 'good price,' and 'affordable' used directly. Experience and problem-solving ability were noted in at least three reviews, with one reviewer describing a potential water disaster being resolved efficiently. Project completion evidence is thinner, with only two reviews touching on follow-through, keeping that dimension's confidence limited.

• Two reviews are exact duplicates (same text, same rating, same date: 2019-05-09). One has been excluded from scoring as a likely duplicate submission, reducing usable reviews to 4.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback, which warrants caution — though the reviews do contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion somewhat.
• All reviews are dated between 2018 and 2019 — none are within the past 12 months. Recency is a concern; this score may not reflect current performance.
• Small sample size (4 usable reviews) means confidence factors are reduced across all dimensions. Scores should be treated as directional, not definitive.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to a small sample of 4 usable reviews, all dated over 5 years ago, and the presence of one confirmed duplicate review — treat this score as a preliminary positive signal rather than a confident assessment.

Patterson Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. On the positive side, many reviews — particularly from 2011–2014 and a handful from 2019–2024 — praise punctuality, friendliness, responsiveness, and clean, efficient work. However, serious negative reviews drag every dimension down significantly: multiple reviewers describe abandoned or incomplete jobs, shoddy workmanship with multiple return visits required, unlicensed workers, rude behavior from the owner, and deceptive pricing practices (notably a $500 add-on falsely described as a code requirement). Project completion is especially concerning, with at least four reviews describing work left unfinished, repeated no-shows, or jobs requiring significant rework. Pricing is similarly mixed — some reviewers praise fair or even zero-cost service, while others report overcharging, unclear billing, and deceptive upsells. The experience dimension is undermined by reviews citing improper installations, code violations, and work that created new problems rather than solving existing ones.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are older than 3 years, with only 3 reviews from the past 12 months (2024). The bulk of data comes from 2011–2013, which may not reflect current service quality.
• SERIOUS WORKMANSHIP CONCERNS: At least 3 reviews (2013, 2021, 2024) describe installations that failed code inspection or were outright dangerous, including a gas water heater with disconnected venting leaking carbon monoxide into an attic.
• LICENSING CONCERN: One reviewer (2013) reported that the plumber's license appeared to have lapsed for 3 years per the state website. A separate reviewer (2023) stated 'none of the workers are licensed.'
• ABANDONMENT PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2015, 2015, 2012) describe a consistent pattern of taking payment or partial payment and then repeatedly canceling or failing to return to complete work — a significant red flag.
• DECEPTIVE PRICING FLAG: The 2024 review explicitly states a $500 add-on was falsely described as a code requirement, which the city inspector confirmed was not required. This is a serious ethical concern.
• OWNER CONDUCT: One review (2016) describes the owner Ron becoming verbally aggressive and 'blowing up' at a customer who raised a legitimate scheduling complaint.
• GENERIC POSITIVE REVIEWS: Several older 5-star reviews (2011–2013) are very brief and lack specific detail (e.g., 'Excellent, no problems with anything', 'They came they cut they glued & they left', 'unknown'). While not conclusively fake, these add limited evidentiary weight.
• MULTIPLE WORKERS NAMED: Reviews reference Dan, Danny, Reggie, Steve, Roy, Caleb, Ray, and Ron — suggesting either a larger team or significant staff turnover, making it difficult to assess consistency across the business as a whole.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of 44 reviews spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the serious and recurring nature of the negative reviews, the predominance of older data, credible licensing concerns, and a documented pattern of job abandonment and deceptive billing.

USA Plumbing shows strong technical expertise and professionalism from individual technicians (particularly Jacob, Joe, Rylan, and Landry), with many customers praising their knowledge and courteous demeanor. However, the company is significantly hampered by severe operational failures: chronic no-shows and no-calls, missed appointments despite confirmed scheduling, poor follow-up on callbacks, and inconsistent pricing practices. While recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive, older reviews reveal a persistent pattern of scheduling unreliability and customer service breakdowns. Pricing concerns include hidden credit card fees, price increases mid-job without explanation, and occasional overcharging relative to market rates. Project completion is inconsistent—some jobs are finished promptly and thoroughly, while others are abandoned or require multiple callbacks.

• CRITICAL: Severe no-show/no-call pattern documented across multiple years (2013–2022). At least 12 reviews explicitly mention missed appointments, broken promises, or failure to return calls despite confirmed scheduling windows.
• RECENCY BIAS: Reviews from 2025 (past 6 months) are overwhelmingly 5-star with minimal critical detail, contrasting sharply with 2018–2022 reviews which contain extensive complaints. This suggests either genuine operational improvement or potential review manipulation. Recommend treating recent scores with caution.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews report price increases after initial quotes, hidden credit card surcharges (9%), and charges significantly higher than market rates. At least 8 reviews cite pricing concerns.
• CALLBACK FAILURES: At least 6 reviews document failure to honor callback commitments or return voicemails, particularly for warranty work and emergency services.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE TONE: Several reviews report rude, dismissive, or aggressive behavior from dispatch/ownership (Richard, JW Watson) when customers complained about missed appointments.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEWS: The 2025 cluster contains 30+ reviews with minimal detail, generic praise, and identical 5-star ratings within a 2-week window (June 2–7, 2025). Language is repetitive ('awesome,' 'highly recommend,' 'very professional'). This pattern is atypical and warrants skepticism.
• SAFETY CONCERNS: One review documents lack of safety protocols (no cones for street work); another mentions reckless driving behavior by technicians.
• WARRANTY WORK ISSUES: Multiple reviews indicate poor performance on home warranty assignments, including missed deadlines, incomplete paperwork, and failure to communicate with warranty companies.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE-TO-LOW confidence despite HIGH confidence labels on individual dimensions. The company exhibits a stark bifurcation: recent reviews (2025) suggest operational improvement, but historical data (2013–2022) documents chronic systemic failures in scheduling, follow-up, and customer communication. The recent 5-star cluster is suspicious and may inflate the overall score. Customers should verify current operational reliability independently before booking, as past performance suggests significant risk of appointment cancellation or no-show.

Ron the Plumber has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension and is sharply divided: many customers praise punctuality, friendliness, and responsiveness, while multiple detailed negative reviews describe hostile, condescending, and dismissive behavior — including hanging up on customers and refusing to address failed work. Pricing is similarly split, with several reviewers calling it reasonable or fair and others describing it as expensive, opaque, or unfair given the quality of work delivered. Project completion is a significant concern: multiple reviews explicitly describe jobs that were not fixed correctly the first time, abandoned callbacks, and work that required a second plumber to resolve — including two nearly identical reviews about a clogged toilet that overflowed after being 'repaired.' Experience scores are dragged down by credible accounts of incorrect pipe installation, inability to find leaks, and work requiring correction by other tradespeople, despite a number of positive reviews praising skill and knowledge. The overall picture is a contractor with a loyal base of satisfied long-term customers but a meaningful pattern of serious failures in attitude, workmanship, and follow-through.

• SUSPECTED DUPLICATE REVIEWS: Two reviews (dated 2023-06-10 and 2022-10-05) are nearly word-for-word identical, describing the same negative experience with the clogged toilet and $85 house call charge. This may represent the same reviewer posting twice, or a copied review. Confidence in these as independent data points is reduced; they were counted as one unique incident for scoring purposes.
• TWO REVIEWS (dated 2018-06-11 and 2018-04-28) describe nearly identical negative experiences with employee 'Dave' — wrong piping, inability to patch wall, over $1000 charge for 5 hours. These appear to be the same customer posting twice or two customers with near-identical experiences. Treated as one incident for scoring.
• TWO BLANK REVIEWS (5-star, dated 2021-06-10) contain no text whatsoever and were excluded from dimension scoring. They cannot be used as evidence of quality.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of positive reviews are from 2021 or earlier. The two most recent reviews (June 2024) include one negative (job not completed, expensive) and one positive. The trend does not show clear improvement over time.
• PATTERN CONCERN: Several 5-star reviews from 2021 and earlier are very brief and generic ('Great service', 'fantastic job') with minimal specifics, which slightly reduces confidence in those reviews. However, enough detailed positive reviews exist to avoid a full fake-review flag.
• EMPLOYEE INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews reference a specific employee named 'Dave' who is associated with the most serious complaints about workmanship and attitude. This suggests quality may vary significantly depending on which technician is dispatched.

This WW Score is based on 35 reviews with usable content spanning approximately 18 years, with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, making the score mathematically reliable — however, the wide variance in customer experiences and the presence of suspected duplicate negative reviews mean prospective customers should read individual reviews carefully rather than relying solely on the aggregate score.