Find Nearby Plumbers In Chesapeake, Virginia

Atech Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising professionalism, responsiveness, and technical knowledge across many years of service, with particular standout performance during the 2021 Texas winter storm emergency. However, several serious negative reviews meaningfully drag down the score: one review alleges employee theft of jewelry with no accountability from ownership, one describes work done entirely against plumbing code with structural damage, and one describes an abandoned job where disassembled faucets were left unusable for over a month. Pricing is a mixed signal — multiple reviewers praised fair or competitive pricing, while others explicitly accused the company of price gouging (especially during the 2021 storm) and overcharging. Project completion is similarly mixed, with most jobs completed well but at least two reviews describing incomplete or defective work with poor follow-through. The score reflects genuine quality in many interactions tempered by serious, credible negative incidents that cannot be dismissed.

• SERIOUS FLAG: One reviewer (2024-03-04) alleges that an Atech employee stole jewelry from their home during a service call, that the repair was faulty requiring additional correction, and that owner Joe Arce provided no meaningful response or resolution. This is a severe integrity and accountability concern.
• SERIOUS FLAG: One reviewer (2021-07-13) states that all work performed was against plumbing code, that structural integrity of walls was compromised by improper notching of studs, and that other contractors described the work as newsworthy in its negligence. This suggests a potential serious workmanship failure.
• SERIOUS FLAG: One reviewer (2020-06-02) describes a job abandoned mid-completion for over a month, with bathroom faucets left disassembled and unusable, and the company ultimately emailing to say they were 'finished' with the customer rather than completing the work. This is a direct project completion failure.
• PRICING CONCERN: One reviewer (2021-02-23) explicitly accused Atech of price gouging during the 2021 Texas freeze, quoting 2-3x the price of competitors. A separate reviewer (2020-09-10) said the company 'will clean out your bank account.' A third reviewer (2019-09-27) described feeling overcharged for a slab leak repair with missed code items. These are credible and specific pricing complaints.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERN: The 2019-09-27 reviewer, who identified themselves as being in construction, noted that the plumber failed to insulate new PEX pipe and omitted required metal stud guards — items they described as known to even beginner plumbers. A second trip was also required due to the plumber not bringing necessary parts.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews are from 2024 (1 review) and 2022 (3 reviews). The bulk of reviews — including most positive ones — are from 2015–2021. The most recent review (2024) is the most severe negative review. Score confidence is somewhat reduced by the lack of recent positive data to confirm current service quality.
• POSSIBLE MIXED ENTITY: Several reviews mention 'Ralph' as the plumber, while others reference 'Joe Arce' and technicians named 'Nick' and 'Jack.' It is possible some reviews may reference a different business or operator operating under a similar name (e.g., 'Altech' vs 'Atech'). One review (2021-07-05) references 'Altech Plumbing' specifically. This has been included but noted as a potential data quality issue.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews vary significantly in length, detail, writing style, and sentiment. Negative reviews are specific and credible. No coordinated fake review pattern identified.

This WW Score is based on 49 reviews spanning 2015–2024 with high mention counts across all dimensions, giving the score mathematical reliability — however, the presence of multiple serious, specific, and credible negative reviews (theft allegation, code violations, abandoned work, price gouging) means the score should be treated with caution, and prospective customers should read the negative reviews in full before hiring.

Goodman's demonstrates strong professionalism and pricing in positive reviews, with courteous staff and reasonable rates explicitly praised. However, a critical no-show incident with no communication significantly impacts project completion reliability. Two of three reviews are older than 12 months (2022), limiting recency. The small sample size (3 reviews) and presence of one severe failure create substantial uncertainty about consistency and trustworthiness of the overall score.

• Critical reliability issue: One review documents a complete no-show with no rescheduling communication on a confirmed appointment, contradicting the positive narrative in other reviews.
• Recency concern: Two of three reviews are from 2022; only one review from 2023. Limited recent data to assess current performance.
• Small sample size: Only 3 reviews analyzed. Score reliability is inherently limited with this volume.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to small sample size, mixed signals (strong positives offset by a critical failure), and limited recent data. The no-show incident raises serious questions about consistency and reliability that cannot be fully resolved without additional recent reviews.

Gildersleeve demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism in service delivery, with many customers praising technician knowledge and responsiveness. However, the company is significantly hampered by serious issues in project completion and follow-through, including failure to honor prepaid maintenance contracts, missed callbacks, and unresolved system problems spanning months. Pricing concerns are substantial, with multiple customers reporting unexpected charges, overpricing relative to market rates, and misleading 'free estimate' claims. The company shows inconsistent communication and scheduling practices that undermine customer trust despite strong individual technician performance.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2024, 2023, 2022, 2020) document systematic failure to follow up on callbacks and honor commitments. One customer waited months for a quote; another waited over a year with no response.
• PRICING INTEGRITY ISSUE: At least 3 reviews explicitly allege overcharging or unexpected fees ($1500 overcharge for fan, $150 undisclosed labor charge, $139 'service fee' contradicting 'free estimate' homepage claim).
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURE: One detailed 2024 review describes months-long inability to fix geothermal system with repeated misdiagnoses, defective parts, and poor follow-up after emergency situation (no heat in winter).
• MAINTENANCE CONTRACT VIOLATION: 2023 review documents that prepaid annual maintenance contracts are not honored; company does not proactively schedule and customers must call months in advance or lose service.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE BREAKDOWN: Multiple reviews cite poor phone answering, lack of communication between staff, and unresponsive management (Deb mentioned negatively in 2024 review).
• SAFETY/CONDUCT CONCERN: 2020 review alleges reckless driving by company vehicle operator; 2019 review documents technician rudeness and alleged threat of violence.
• INSTALLATION QUALITY ISSUE: 2015 review describes catastrophic installation errors (cut floor joists, miscut holes, undersized ductwork) causing thousands in repairs over 12+ years.
• RECENCY PATTERN: Most critical failures are in 2024, 2023, and 2022 reviews, suggesting ongoing systemic issues rather than historical problems.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with CAUTION. While the score reflects genuine strengths in technical expertise and individual technician professionalism, it masks serious and recurring failures in business operations, pricing transparency, and customer commitment that are well-documented across multiple recent reviews. The company excels at technical work but fails consistently at follow-through, scheduling, and honest pricing—critical dimensions for contractor reliability. Customers should weight the numerous detailed complaints about unresolved issues and broken commitments heavily against positive reviews of individual service calls.

Drain Masters shows significant inconsistency across all dimensions. While recent reviews (2025) are overwhelmingly positive with strong professionalism and experience ratings, historical reviews reveal serious systemic issues including no-shows, incomplete work, billing disputes, and poor follow-through on callbacks. Project completion is the weakest dimension, with numerous complaints about abandoned jobs, missed appointments, and failure to return for promised follow-up work. Pricing concerns emerge in older reviews regarding overcharges and unnecessary upsells. The company appears to have improved recently, but the extensive negative history—particularly regarding accountability and reliability—significantly impacts overall trustworthiness.

• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: Recent reviews (June 2025) show nearly identical positive language ('quick and efficient,' 'professional,' 'highly recommend') with minimal specificity. Multiple reviews mention the same technicians (Trevor, Ryan, Tyler) with generic praise. This clustering of 5-star reviews with repetitive phrasing suggests potential review manipulation or fake reviews.
• SEVERE HISTORICAL ISSUES: Reviews from 2014-2020 document systematic problems including: multiple no-shows, incomplete work requiring callbacks, wrong equipment installations, billing disputes, and owner defensiveness (threatening legal action against reviewers). One review documents 6 technician visits for same issue with conflicting diagnoses.
• ACCOUNTABILITY CONCERNS: Multiple reviews describe company refusing responsibility for their errors, blaming warranty companies, or claiming technicians acted independently. Owner's text response to complaint was hostile and threatening.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Stark contrast between recent glowing reviews and historical pattern of complaints suggests either dramatic recent improvement or review credibility issues.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: At least 12 reviews explicitly mention technicians not returning for promised follow-up work or callbacks never made.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews (2016-2020) document overcharging, unnecessary upsells (expansion tanks, code upgrades), and inflated labor rates compared to competitors.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While the recent 2025 reviews are numerous and consistently positive, they exhibit suspicious patterns suggesting potential manipulation. The extensive historical record (2014-2020) documents serious, recurring problems with project completion, accountability, and customer service that cannot be ignored. The dramatic shift in review quality and tone between historical and recent periods is atypical and raises credibility concerns. Prospective customers should heavily weight the documented historical issues and request recent references directly rather than relying on this score alone.

This contractor shows highly inconsistent performance across reviews spanning multiple years (2015–2023). Pricing receives strong marks for fairness and transparency, with customers praising reasonable rates and honest service recommendations. However, professionalism is severely compromised by multiple reports of rudeness, failure to show up for scheduled appointments, and aggressive driving behavior that endangered customers. Project completion data is limited but includes at least one no-show incident. The two positive reviews praising promptness and workmanship quality are offset by serious reliability and conduct issues. The overall WW Score of 62.8 reflects significant trust concerns despite some positive service examples.

• CRITICAL: Multiple no-show/cancellation incidents reported (2023 and 2018 reviews) — suggests unreliable scheduling and follow-through
• CRITICAL: Serious professionalism red flag — aggressive driving complaint with unsafe behavior (tailgating, passing in no-passing zone, speeding 15+ mph over limit) and hostile response to customer safety concern
• CRITICAL: One review explicitly states 'Rudest service' with no recommendation — direct professionalism failure
• RECENCY CONCERN: Reviews span 8 years (2015–2023) with significant quality variation; most recent negative review is from 2023, suggesting ongoing issues
• LIMITED DATA: Only 6 reviews total; project completion mentions are minimal (n=2), making that dimension unreliable
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews (praising kindness, reliability, fair pricing) and 1-star reviews (rudeness, no-shows, dangerous driving) suggests either significant operational inconsistency or potential service quality variation by technician

This score should be treated with caution due to limited review volume (n=6), significant temporal spread, and highly polarized ratings with serious professionalism and reliability concerns that outweigh positive pricing feedback. The contractor's inconsistent performance and documented failure to honor commitments present material trust risks despite some satisfied customers.

Allen Plumbing receives deeply mixed feedback across a large review set spanning over a decade. Professionalism scores moderately — many reviewers praise punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous technicians, but a meaningful number of negative reviews cite arrogance, poor communication, and unprofessional attitudes from the owner specifically. Pricing is the single most damaging dimension: an overwhelming volume of reviewers explicitly describe charges as exorbitant, non-transparent, and exploitative, with multiple reviewers comparing Allen's quotes to competitors who completed the same work for a fraction of the cost. Project completion is mixed — many jobs were finished satisfactorily, but several reviews describe incomplete work, callbacks refused without additional charges, and work that failed shortly after completion. Experience scores moderately positive, with many reviewers acknowledging technical competence, though a handful describe diagnostic failures and workmanship errors that required correction.

• THREE reviews appear to be for unrelated businesses (a dental office doctor 'Dr. Daly' and a general 'great doctor' review) — these were excluded from scoring as they are clearly misattributed reviews and do not pertain to Allen Plumbing.
• One review (2024-06-09, 'Very professional, patient and a great doctor!') is almost certainly a misplaced medical review and was excluded from scoring.
• Two reviews (2023-06-10, both referencing 'Dr Daly') are clearly for a physician, not a plumber, and were excluded from scoring.
• Pricing complaints are extremely consistent and highly specific across many independent reviewers spanning 2008–2024, lending HIGH credibility to the pattern of overcharging. This is not a one-off complaint.
• Several 5-star reviews are very brief and generic ('Good!', 'Good', 'unknown', 'I've found my plumber!') with no specifics — these may inflate the positive signal and were treated with reduced weight in narrative assessment.
• A recurring pattern exists where customers report being quoted one price and charged more, or being charged for work that did not resolve the problem — this suggests a systemic billing transparency issue.
• Multiple reviewers independently recommend a competitor ('Alewife Company' / 'Alewife Plumbers') after negative experiences with Allen Plumbing, which adds credibility to the pricing complaints.
• Review dates span from 2008 to 2025. The majority of detailed negative pricing reviews are from 2011–2018. More recent reviews (2024–2025) trend more positive, suggesting possible improvement, but the sample of recent reviews is smaller.
• One review (2011-09-23) is unusually long and appears to be a BBB complaint response — it was included as it contains substantive, specific feedback about billing practices.

This WW Score is based on a large, multi-year review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, and the score of 54.3 should be considered a reliable reflection of this contractor's mixed reputation — strong on responsiveness and technical ability, but significantly undermined by a well-documented and consistent pattern of pricing complaints that spans over a decade of customer feedback.