Find Nearby Plumbers In Bowie, Maryland

RJ Plumbing shows a mixed but generally functional track record across five reviews spanning nearly a decade. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is dragged down significantly by a serious no-show incident, a pattern of failed communication attempts, and multiple hygiene concerns including a plumber urinating in the street in front of neighbors and children. Project completion is similarly mixed — the company does follow through on difficult jobs and honors callbacks, but there is a documented case of a leak caused by their work that went unaddressed for an extended period, and a toilet that was not fully reconnected after being moved. Pricing and experience receive modestly positive marks, with one reviewer explicitly noting fair pricing and another praising advice on how to save money, while workmanship is generally described as acceptable with minor errors corrected. The overall picture is a contractor capable of solid work but with meaningful reliability and professionalism concerns that cannot be ignored.

• RECENCY WARNING: All five reviews are older than 12 months, with the most recent dating to February 2020 and the oldest to October 2013. This data is significantly dated and may not reflect current business practices.
• SMALL SAMPLE WARNING: Only 5 reviews are available. The WW Score carries very limited statistical reliability at this sample size.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERN: One review documents a pattern of missed emails and phone calls, a no-show appointment, and a dismissive response from the owner when contacted. This is a substantive complaint, not a minor grievance.
• HYGIENE CONCERN: One review explicitly describes a plumber not washing hands after using the restroom, careless cigarette disposal, and a plumber urinating in the street while the owner was present and did not intervene. These are serious conduct issues.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERN: One review describes a leak resulting from RJ Plumbing's work that caused floor damage and was not acted upon by the company for an extended period.
• NO FAKE REVIEW FLAGS DETECTED: Reviews vary in rating (1, 3, and 5 stars), tone, specificity, and date. Language is distinct across reviews. No patterns suggesting fabricated reviews were identified.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — it is based on only 5 reviews, all more than four years old, and includes substantive negative experiences that meaningfully offset the positive ones; prospective customers should seek more recent references before hiring.

D&J receives mixed signals across all dimensions from just three reviews. Professionalism scores moderately — two reviewers praised friendly and professional staff, but one negative review noted workers arrived without knowledge of the agreed scope of work. Pricing is a concern, with one reviewer paying $200 more than quoted due to a combination of client error and contractor misjudgment, pulling that dimension down significantly. Project completion is similarly mixed: one reviewer reported an excellent outcome, while another explicitly stated the crew could not complete the job they were hired for and performed unrequested work instead. Experience scores conservatively given one strong positive outcome on power washing and furniture restoration, offset by a clear failure to assess and execute a comparable power washing and stain removal job.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as highly preliminary and unreliable for decision-making.
• The two positive reviews (4-star and 5-star) are relatively generic in praise and lack granular detail, which slightly reduces their evidentiary weight.
• The negative review (2-star, July 2024) is the most detailed and specific, describing scope miscommunication, unapproved work, and cost overrun — this carries disproportionate weight given the small sample size.
• All three reviews are from July 2024, meaning there is no long-term trend data available and recency is uniform — no recency weighting adjustment applied.
• No reviews mention licensing, insurance, follow-up callbacks, or warranty — these critical contractor attributes are entirely unassessed.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be considered highly unreliable — a minimum of 8–10 reviews with substantive detail would be needed before this score can be trusted for contractor selection.

This contractor's review set is deeply divided, with enthusiastic praise from some customers and serious complaints from others. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension and is heavily dragged down by multiple accounts of rude behavior, hanging up on customers, and poor communication — including two separate reviews describing the owner yelling at or dismissing clients. Project completion is similarly mixed: several reviews explicitly describe jobs that were not fixed, money charged for no results, or repairs that failed within 24 hours, while positive reviews do highlight responsive same-day service. Pricing concerns appear in multiple reviews, including undisclosed credit card surcharges, billing for repeat visits that should have been one, and charges for work that produced no improvement. Experience scores moderately, as some reviewers praise quality workmanship while others describe a plumber who could not identify basic parts or diagnose obvious issues. The overall picture is a contractor with genuine capability in some cases but a troubling and recurring pattern of poor customer service, incomplete work, and billing disputes.

• SUSPECTED MIXED ENTITY: Several reviews reference 'Diamond Plumbing' and 'Mike/Michael Dornisch' while others reference 'Pletsch Plumbing' and 'Kellie.' These appear to be two distinct businesses whose reviews may have been aggregated together. Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may not reflect a single contractor.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW DETAIL REVIEWS: Multiple reviews dated 2021-06-10 have identical dates and several are blank (no text) with 4- or 5-star ratings. These blank reviews provide no usable data and may be artificially inflating the star average.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — SELF-PROMOTIONAL LANGUAGE: The 2016 review for Diamond Plumbing reads as promotional copy ('go-to plumbing company,' 'Don't just take our word for it') rather than a genuine customer account and may be a planted review.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent substantive negative reviews (2024, 2023) describe serious professionalism and project completion failures. Positive reviews with detail are largely from 2021 and earlier, suggesting possible service quality decline over time.
• Four reviews contain no text whatsoever and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• Multiple reviews describe the owner hanging up on customers — this is a recurring and specific pattern, not an isolated incident, and significantly reduces confidence in professionalism scores.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a high volume of substantive reviews, but is significantly complicated by the likely aggregation of two separate businesses, multiple suspected low-quality or fake reviews, and a stark divergence between positive and negative experiences that suggests inconsistent service rather than a stable quality baseline.

CW Heating and Plumbing presents a deeply polarized review profile. Reviews from roughly 2014–2017 are predominantly positive, praising Craig's responsiveness, technical knowledge, fair pricing, and professionalism. However, a significant cluster of serious negative reviews — spanning 2016 through 2024 — describes a pattern of abandoned or incomplete work, fraudulent charges, misdiagnosis, safety hazards (a gas leak left unaddressed after installation), and aggressive or threatening behavior toward customers. The most recent review (2024) is a 1-star warning of scam behavior, and several negative reviews from 2016–2022 describe taking advance payments and failing to complete work. These severe, specific, and credible negative accounts substantially drag down all four dimensions and cannot be dismissed as outliers given their detail and consistency.

• SERIOUS SAFETY CONCERN: One reviewer (2018) reports a gas leak was left undetected after furnace installation; the technician refused to use a detector despite the customer smelling gas. Washington Gas confirmed a dangerous leak. This is a critical safety flag.
• PATTERN OF ADVANCE PAYMENT FRAUD: Multiple reviews (2022, 2024, 2018) describe Craig accepting advance or deposit payments and then failing to complete work, becoming unresponsive, or disappearing entirely. This is a recurring and serious pattern.
• UNAUTHORIZED CREDIT CARD CHARGES: At least two reviews (2018, 2016) explicitly describe Craig charging credit cards without authorization or for amounts exceeding the quoted price.
• POSSIBLE UNLICENSED CONTRACTOR: One detailed 2017 review alleges Craig may be operating without a valid Maryland HVAC license and that neither Craig nor his attorney would provide a license number when requested.
• MISDIAGNOSIS / POTENTIAL FRAUD: A 2016 reviewer reports Craig diagnosed a cracked heat exchanger requiring a $2,000 furnace replacement when the actual problem was a $400 inducer blower fix. Another 2016 reviewer reports Craig was going to charge $800 to fix an outside unit when the actual problem was inside.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: The positive reviews from 2014–2017 show some generic phrasing patterns and several were noted by other reviewers as coming from accounts with only 1–3 total reviews. Confidence in the positive review pool is reduced accordingly.
• RECENCY WARNING: The most recent review (July 2024) is a 1-star scam warning. The majority of positive reviews are from 2015–2017, making them 7–10 years old. Recent reviews skew heavily negative, suggesting significant deterioration in service quality or business conduct.
• PRICE GOUGING ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews describe being charged far above quoted prices, receiving invoices with no itemized breakdown, and being pressured or threatened into immediate payment.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be treated with serious caution — the contractor's recent track record (2018–2024) is dominated by credible, detailed allegations of fraud, safety negligence, and abandoned work, and prospective customers are strongly advised to avoid engagement based on the available evidence.

Lewrose Plumbing exhibits highly inconsistent performance with a polarized review pattern. Professionalism is severely compromised by documented instances of tardiness without notification, dismissive attitudes toward customers, verbal disrespect, and poor communication—though some reviews praise friendly and professional conduct. Project completion is problematic, with multiple complaints of incomplete work, false diagnoses, and failure to follow through on callbacks, offset by several positive emergency service completions. Technical experience shows mixed results: some technicians demonstrate competence and problem-solving, while others perform inadequate diagnostics and provide false information to warranty companies. Pricing appears fair when work is completed, but the inconsistency in service quality and completion undermines overall value.

• CRITICAL: Polarized review pattern suggests two distinct service tiers or inconsistent quality control. 5 reviews are 5-star with specific positive details; 5 reviews are 1-star with detailed complaints of inadequate diagnostics and false reporting.
• Multiple reviews (2022-03-29, 2022-01-27, 2021-12-22) describe identical problematic behavior: minimal diagnostic effort, false cause reporting to warranty companies, and incomplete work. This pattern suggests systemic issues with warranty claim handling.
• Serious allegations of dishonesty: customers report technicians providing false information to warranty companies to deny claims (2022-03-25, 2022-01-27, 2021-12-22). This is a legal and ethical concern.
• Recency concern: Most negative reviews are from 2020-2022 (older than 2 years). Most recent reviews (2024) are positive. This may indicate company improvement or selection bias in recent reviewers.
• Customer service incident (2020-12-05): Owner/manager allegedly called customer 'ignorant' and refused service. This is a severe professionalism failure.
• No fake review indicators detected. Reviews contain specific details, varied language, and credible complaint patterns consistent with warranty company vendor issues.

This score should be treated with caution due to extreme polarization and apparent service inconsistency. The WW Score of 54.8 reflects genuine quality concerns, particularly around diagnostic accuracy and project completion, but the company demonstrates capability for good service in some cases. Customers should be aware of documented risks with warranty claim handling and verify technician credentials independently.

Haynes Plumbing scores significantly below acceptable standards across all dimensions. Professionalism is severely compromised by chronic no-shows, missed appointment windows without notification, rude dispatchers, unprofessional appearance, and disrespectful treatment of customers' time. Pricing is a major complaint with numerous reports of inflated quotes, bait-and-switch tactics, and prices that change mid-job based on supervisor intervention. Project completion suffers from incomplete work, unfinished follow-ups (particularly yard restoration and toilet replacement), and failure to honor callbacks. While technical skill is occasionally praised (particularly by employees named Mike and Paul), this is overshadowed by systemic operational failures and customer service breakdowns.

• CRITICAL: Extreme recency bias in negative reviews. 23 of 35 reviews (66%) are from 2019 or earlier, with only 5 reviews from 2024. However, the 2024 reviews show the same core problems (pricing, responsiveness, professionalism) persist, suggesting systemic issues have not been resolved.
• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews describe identical problematic behaviors across different time periods: no-shows without notification, missed appointment windows, unresponsive follow-up, and price changes mid-job. This consistency suggests systemic operational dysfunction rather than isolated incidents.
• PRICING MANIPULATION: At least 4 reviews explicitly describe price changes during service delivery or supervisor intervention to increase charges after initial quotes. Review from 2015-02-20 documents supervisor 'Chris' attempting to override agreed-upon pricing mid-job.
• SENIOR CITIZEN EXPLOITATION: 2024-08-14 review documents deliberate overcharging of elderly customer ($1000 vs. market rate ~$500), with company only offering adjustment after customer escalation. Manager admitted senior discount should have applied.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between 5-star reviews (praising specific technicians like Mike and Paul) and 1-star reviews describing same company. This suggests individual technician quality varies dramatically, but company systems fail to maintain standards.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Multiple reviews (2019-12-26, 2018-06-06, 2023-11-07) describe promised callbacks and follow-up work that never materialized despite repeated customer contact.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERNS: Multiple reviews describe technicians arriving without identification, in inappropriate attire (flip-flops, shorts), appearing unprepared, and displaying defensive/rude attitudes when questioned.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW RISK - LIMITED: The 5-star reviews (2023-08-12, 2022-05-23, 2019-10-31, 2019-08-21, 2019-08-08, 2019-06-16, 2017-11-22, 2013-11-28) are notably more generic and lack specific complaint details compared to 1-star reviews. However, they do contain specific technician names and situational details, reducing fake review likelihood. Confidence in positive reviews remains LIMITED due to small sample size (8 of 35) and potential selection bias from satisfied customers.

This WW Score of 38.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong warning indicator. The score is based on 35 reviews with consistent patterns of failure across all dimensions, particularly professionalism and pricing. While most reviews predate 2024, recent reviews (2024-08-14, 2024-08-03) confirm that core problems persist. The company demonstrates systemic operational dysfunction that has not been remediated over a 10+ year period. Customers should exercise extreme caution or seek alternative providers.