Find Nearby Plumbers In Manassas, Virginia

Peed Plumbing's review record is dominated by serious complaints across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is undermined by multiple accounts of rudeness, hostility, deceptive upselling, and a plumber threatening to report a customer to the county. Project completion is severely damaged by numerous reports of incomplete work, incorrect installations, unhooked fixtures, and jobs left out of code. Experience scores are dragged down by repeated accounts of poor workmanship including backwards toilet rings, unsecured plumbing, off-center fixtures, and a plumber who failed to diagnose a simple faucet blockage. Pricing drew explicit complaints about charges of $620 for roughly an hour of labor and $50 in parts, with one reviewer calling the service 'overpriced.' The handful of positive reviews lack specific detail and are all dated 2012–2015, making them less reliable and less recent than the negative accounts.

• RECENCY WARNING: All reviews are from 2011–2017. No reviews from the past several years are present, making it impossible to assess current performance. The score reflects historical data only.
• POSITIVE REVIEW QUALITY CONCERN: The three 5-star reviews (2012, 2014, 2015) are notably vague and generic ('best,' 'exceptional service,' 'intensively trained') with little to no specific detail, while all negative reviews contain granular, specific complaints. This asymmetry reduces confidence in the positive reviews.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LIMITED: The 2015 5-star review reads as promotional in tone ('Unheard of these days!') with no job-specific details, which is a mild flag for a potentially inauthentic review.
• PATTERN OF SYSTEMIC WORKMANSHIP FAILURES: Multiple independent reviewers describe structural installation errors across different job types (toilets, faucets, spigots, shower fixtures, sump pumps), suggesting systemic quality control issues rather than isolated incidents.
• UPSELLING MISCONDUCT FLAG: One reviewer explicitly documented being charged over $200 for an unnecessary service based on false information provided by the plumber, which is a serious ethical and professionalism concern.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a reasonable number of reviews (11), but is limited by the age of all data (2011–2017), the generic nature of positive reviews versus the highly specific nature of negative ones, and the absence of any recent reviews to confirm whether performance has improved or declined.

This contractor's reviews paint a deeply concerning picture, particularly around pricing transparency and professionalism. Three of six reviews describe serious pricing misconduct — including unauthorized charges, bait-and-switch quotes, and invoices never provided upfront — which severely drags down both the pricing and professionalism scores. Project completion is mixed: jobs were technically finished in most cases, but several customers felt the outcome was unacceptable given the deceptive billing practices surrounding the work. The two positive reviews (2019 and 2020) do highlight responsive communication and competent workmanship, which prevents the experience and project completion scores from bottoming out entirely. Overall, the pattern of financial misconduct across multiple independent reviews is the dominant signal and cannot be offset by isolated positive experiences.

• SERIOUS PRICING MISCONDUCT: Multiple reviews (3 of 6) independently describe unauthorized charges, prices not disclosed before work, invoices withheld, and final bills far exceeding quoted amounts. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY CONCERN: All reviews are from 2019–2022. No reviews from the past 12 months are present. The score may not reflect current business practices.
• MIDDLE-MAN TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: One reviewer explicitly notes the company operates as an undisclosed intermediary, with contracted local plumbers who have no knowledge of pricing — a structural transparency problem flagged independently.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS ARE THIN ON DETAIL: The two 5-star reviews are brief and lack specifics about pricing or project scope, limiting their ability to offset the detailed negative accounts.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews vary significantly in tone, detail level, rating, and date — no strong indicators of coordinated fake reviews were found.

This WW Score is based on only 6 reviews spanning 2019–2022, but the reviews contain substantial detail and consistent independent corroboration of pricing misconduct, making the low score credible and reliable within the limits of a small sample size.

This plumbing company demonstrates severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Four of five reviews are 1-star ratings citing unprofessional behavior (yelling at customers, rudeness, lack of transparency), poor workmanship (improper installation techniques, incomplete work, damage to property), and aggressive pricing practices (excessive charges for minimal work, overcharging). The single 5-star review lacks specificity and appears generic. Technicians consistently lack basic plumbing knowledge, fail to complete jobs properly, and refuse accountability for errors. The company's pattern of blame-shifting and poor follow-up on complaints compounds customer dissatisfaction.

• Four of five reviews are 1-star ratings with detailed, specific complaints—this is not a fake review pattern but rather consistent genuine negative feedback
• The single 5-star review (2021-08-18) is suspiciously generic with no specific details, contrasting sharply with the detailed negative reviews
• All reviews are from 2020-2021 (3-4 years old); no recent data available to assess if company has improved
• Multiple reviews reference the same company name 'Plumbing Pros' and describe identical patterns of poor workmanship and unprofessional conduct, suggesting systemic issues rather than isolated incidents
• Customers explicitly warn others away and describe feeling 'robbed' and disrespected—strong indicators of serious business practice problems

This WW Score of 18.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted as an accurate reflection of this company's performance; the consistency of detailed negative feedback across multiple independent reviews, combined with specific examples of poor workmanship and unprofessional conduct, provides strong evidence of systemic operational failures.

Atlas Tank & Drain receives overwhelmingly negative reviews across nearly every dimension analyzed. Professionalism is severely damaged by repeated no-shows, failure to communicate delays, unanswered phones, and unresponsiveness to calls and emails across multiple reviewers. Project completion is the most critically scored dimension, with multiple reviews describing abandoned work, open holes left in yards for months, incomplete jobs, and a distribution box replacement that took over five months. The single positive review (2015) praises a technician named Justin for punctuality, politeness, and fair pricing, which provides the only upward pressure on pricing and experience scores. The vast majority of reviews are from 2016–2017, with the most recent being October 2017, meaning all data is more than six years old and the business may no longer be operating.

• All reviews are dated between 2014 and 2017 — all data is over 6 years old. This score should not be used to assess current business performance.
• Multiple reviews independently describe the same pattern of no-shows, unanswered phones, and abandoned work, strongly suggesting systemic operational failure or possible business closure around mid-2017.
• One reviewer explicitly states the company may have gone out of business in mid-2017. The WW Score may reflect a defunct business.
• The single 5-star review (2015) is isolated and contrasts sharply with all other reviews. While it appears genuine due to specific detail (technician name 'Justin'), it carries very limited weight against 7 negative reviews.
• No fake review patterns detected — negative reviews contain specific dates, times, and details consistent with authentic experiences.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall confidence due to a sufficient number of mentions across key dimensions, but the score's real-world reliability is significantly undermined by the age of all reviews (2014–2017) and strong indicators that the business may have ceased operations — use this score only as a historical reference and do not rely on it to evaluate current service quality.

All five reviews are negative, painting a consistently poor picture of ARS across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is severely damaged by repeated appointment cancellations, no-shows, failure to communicate delays, and dismissive technician behavior. Project completion is critically low, with multiple accounts of work left incomplete, incorrectly performed, or never started at all. Technical experience scores marginally above zero only because technicians did show up in some cases, but the quality of their work — including incorrect wiring and a decade of unresolved HVAC issues — reflects very poor workmanship. Pricing received a limited score because one reviewer explicitly noted financial loss from a paid service that failed to deliver, suggesting poor value.

• All 5 reviews are 1–2 star ratings with no positive reviews present — this may reflect a selection bias in the dataset rather than a complete picture of the contractor's performance.
• Review dates span from 2019 to 2023, indicating persistent and recurring issues over multiple years rather than isolated incidents.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details, unique phrasing, and varied complaint types, suggesting authenticity.
• Two reviews reference third-party referral sources (Nest, Lowes, Home Depot), suggesting the contractor may rely on partner channels rather than earned reputation.
• The oldest reviews (2019) are more than 4 years old and should be weighted less heavily, though the 2023 review confirms issues have not improved.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews, all negative, which limits statistical reliability but strongly signals serious and consistent performance problems across professionalism, completion, and workmanship.

Cannot calculate WW Score reliably due to insufficient review volume and severe data quality concerns. While the reviews that do contain specific details (primarily Review 1) demonstrate strong professionalism, punctuality, and problem-solving ability, the remaining 7 reviews are predominantly generic praise with minimal actionable information. The review dates are all from 2020 (3+ years old), raising recency concerns. The pattern of vague language ('very good,' 'excellent,' 'great') across multiple reviews without specifics, combined with all 5-star ratings and minimal detail, suggests potential review authenticity issues.

• CRITICAL: Suspected fake or low-quality reviews. Reviews 2-8 contain repetitive, generic praise with minimal specificity or detail. This pattern is inconsistent with authentic customer feedback.
• RECENCY ISSUE: All 8 reviews are from 2020 (3+ years old). No recent reviews available to assess current service quality or consistency.
• INSUFFICIENT VOLUME: Only 8 total reviews analyzed. Reliable WW Score calculation requires minimum 10-15 reviews with substantive data.
• DATA QUALITY: Only Review 1 provides detailed, specific information about service delivery. Reviews 2-8 lack actionable detail and appear formulaic.
• MIXED SERVICE TYPES: Reviews reference shed platform construction, A/C repair, and general work without clear contractor specialization, raising questions about review authenticity and relevance.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (8 reviews), all reviews being 3+ years old, and strong indicators of fake or low-quality reviews in 7 of 8 submissions. Any score derived would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.