Find Nearby Plumbers In Manassas, Virginia

Ashton Plumbing has a strong base of satisfied customers who consistently praise Curtis for punctuality, friendliness, and responsiveness — including same-day and emergency service. However, professionalism is meaningfully dragged down by a recurring and serious pattern of the owner contacting reviewers who left negative feedback, including calling customers' family members, using aggressive language, and demanding review removal — behavior documented across multiple independent reviews. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many customers describe fair or reasonable prices, a notable minority explicitly describe feeling overcharged (e.g., $400 for flapper replacements, $500 for an unresolved pressure issue, $120 service call for a 2-minute visit, undisclosed credit card surcharges, and marked-up parts). Project completion is generally solid with most jobs completed as promised, but there are documented instances of incomplete work, a missed appointment the owner forgot to schedule, and at least one case where the job was left worse than before. Technical skill is generally well-regarded, with multiple reviewers praising Curtis's knowledge and problem-solving, though one review describes an inability to fix the problem and leaving a new leak behind.

• OWNER HARASSMENT PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews (at least 3) document the owner calling customers after negative reviews, using profane language, demanding removal of posts, and in one case speaking aggressively to a reviewer's college-age daughter. This is a significant professionalism red flag and has been weighted accordingly.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS: At least 8 reviews explicitly raise pricing concerns including undisclosed Saturday surcharges, a $15 undisclosed credit card processing fee, marked-up parts, high service call fees for minimal work, and one case where $500 was charged with the problem unresolved.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are older than 1 year relative to a current analysis date. The most recent review is from August 2022, but the bulk of reviews cluster between 2011 and 2017. Only 2 reviews are from 2019 or later. Scores may not reflect current business performance.
• SERVICE AREA INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviewers report being told their location was outside the service area despite the business website listing those areas as covered. This was flagged in at least 2 separate reviews.
• INCOMPLETE WORK INSTANCE: One reviewer (January 2016) explicitly states Curtis left a constant drip of hot water after failing to fix the problem, placed a bowl under the sink, and said it would 'seal itself' — the customer ultimately fixed it themselves.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: LOW. Reviews show sufficient variation in language, detail, and sentiment (including negative reviews) to suggest an authentic review pool. No fake review flag raised.

This WW Score is based on 70 reviews spanning approximately 13 years and carries HIGH data confidence due to volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given the recency gap, documented owner harassment of reviewers (which may have suppressed legitimate negative reviews), and a meaningful minority of pricing and workmanship complaints that prevent a higher score.

Red and Blue Services has a strong base of satisfied customers who consistently praise Craig's responsiveness, professionalism, technical knowledge, and willingness to go above and beyond — including weekend and holiday emergency calls. Pricing is frequently described as reasonable or better than expected, with no complaints about hidden charges. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — describes a recurring pattern of missed appointments, no-shows, and complete unresponsiveness, which significantly drags down the professionalism and project completion scores. Several negative reviews also describe incomplete or ineffective appliance repairs (particularly refrigerator/ice maker work), suggesting inconsistency in non-plumbing service categories. The mixed record across a multi-year span prevents this contractor from scoring in the high tier despite genuine strengths.

• RECURRING NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 5 separate reviews across different years (2019, 2023, 2024) describe Craig canceling appointments last-minute, failing to respond to messages for a week or more, or texting cancellations with no explanation. This is a systemic professionalism concern, not isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE REPAIRS: Three reviews (2024 ice maker x2, 2024 freezer) describe technicians performing minimal or ineffective work and leaving without resolving the issue. One reviewer reports the same ice maker was replaced twice and still not working.
• ABANDONED JOB / UNRESPONSIVENESS: One 2021 review describes Craig refusing to complete an authorized warranty repair mid-process. One 2023 review describes repeated appointment cancellations over weeks with food spoilage resulting.
• POSSIBLE REVIEW CLUSTERING: A large number of reviews share the exact date '2024-06-09' and '2023-06-10', which may indicate batch-imported or aggregated reviews rather than organically submitted ones. This reduces confidence in the precise timing of those reviews.
• 4 REVIEWS CONTAIN NO TEXT: Four reviews have no written content (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent negative reviews are from 2024 and 2023, suggesting the professionalism and completion issues are not historical anomalies but ongoing concerns.
• OLDEST REVIEW DATED 2013: One review is over 10 years old and was given minimal weight in scoring.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews with usable text and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy, but prospective customers should weigh the documented pattern of missed appointments and incomplete repairs seriously, as these negative experiences are spread across multiple years and multiple reviewers rather than representing a single outlier.

Cameron Plumbing performs consistently well across all four dimensions based on this small but substantive review set. Professionalism is a clear strength — multiple reviewers specifically praised punctuality, communication, patience under difficult circumstances, and courteous behavior from named technicians. Pricing scores well but not perfectly: one reviewer noted a potential miscommunication about hourly vs. half-hour billing, and another had to shop around before finding Cameron's price competitive, suggesting pricing transparency could be improved. Project completion is strong, with all jobs described as fully finished, tested, and cleaned up. Experience is supported by reviewers noting efficient, skilled work and sound judgment, including one instance where a technician honestly advised a customer they may not need the full job — a mark of integrity and competence.

• All 5 reviews are 4 or 5 stars, which warrants mild caution, though the reviews contain specific details, named technicians, and varied scenarios that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• RECENCY WARNING: All 5 reviews are dated between 2012 and 2019 — the most recent is over 5 years old as of 2024. This score may not reflect current service quality. Treat with caution until more recent reviews are available.
• Sample size is very small (5 reviews). While the WW Score is calculable, it should be considered a preliminary signal only. A larger review base is needed for high reliability.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews, all of which are more than 5 years old, making it a low-volume and potentially outdated signal — the score direction is positive and internally consistent, but should not be treated as a definitive assessment of current performance.

M&M Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for responsiveness, politeness, and appropriate safety measures across multiple reviews. Pricing is a clear strength, with 8 mentions of fair, reasonable, and competitive rates. Experience and workmanship are solid, though one significant 2023 review documents multiple scope creep issues and a 2020 review describes failed inspections and incomplete work, which substantially lower the project completion score. The company shows good follow-through on warranty issues but has documented instances of incomplete work and customer dissatisfaction.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2018-2020 (4+ years old). Only 2 recent reviews (2024 and 2023). The 2023 review documents significant issues including scope creep ($1,250 in unexpected charges) and questionable diagnostics (shower head issue resolved with Teflon tape). The 2020 review is highly negative, citing failed inspections and incomplete work across multiple job components.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW: Two reviews dated 2015 and 2014 contain only 'unknown' as text with 5.0 ratings—these appear to be placeholder or fraudulent entries and were excluded from scoring.
• CONFLICTING EVIDENCE: Review 10 (2018) appears to be a response to a negative review by a 'disgruntled former employee,' which suggests internal conflict and raises questions about review authenticity.
• QUALITY VARIANCE: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews (mostly pre-2021) and documented failures in recent years (2020, 2023), suggesting possible decline in service quality or inconsistent performance.

This score should be treated with caution due to significant recency bias (most positive data is 4+ years old), documented service failures in recent reviews, and the presence of suspicious placeholder reviews. The MODERATE overall confidence reflects conflicting evidence: strong historical professionalism and pricing data versus recent project completion failures and scope creep issues.

Andy Hawkey Plumbing has a strong base of long-term repeat customers who consistently praise his technical knowledge, courteous manner, and reliable workmanship across many years of reviews. Professionalism scores are tempered by two notable negative incidents: one reviewer was refused service after politely questioning a dual labor charge on an estimate, and another reviewer reported being dropped as a client for asking questions — both suggesting a pattern of defensiveness toward customer scrutiny. Project completion is similarly mixed: one reviewer explicitly states the same faucet was charged for twice and remains unfixed to this day, which is a serious completion failure that meaningfully pulls down that dimension. Pricing is generally rated as fair and reasonable by multiple reviewers, but the unexplained dual labor charge incident introduces a transparency concern. The majority of reviews are older than 12 months, with only one review from the past 12 months, which limits confidence in how current these patterns are.

• 8 reviews contain only the text 'unknown' with no substantive content — these were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data beyond a star rating.
• 2 reviews contain only a period '.' with no content — also excluded from dimension scoring.
• The majority of substantive reviews are more than 5 years old (pre-2019), with only one review dated within the past 12 months (May 2024). Current performance cannot be reliably assessed.
• A recurring behavioral pattern was identified across two separate negative reviews (2013 and 2022): the contractor or his wife refused continued service or dismissed concerns when customers asked questions about charges or work quality. This is a notable professionalism red flag.
• One verified project completion failure: a bathroom faucet was charged for twice across two visits and remained unfixed, with the contractor deflecting responsibility to a manufacturer warranty not documented on his website.
• No suspected fake reviews detected — negative reviews are specific and credible, and positive reviews generally include job-specific details.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: the dimension scores are grounded in explicit review content across a reasonable number of mentions, but the score is significantly undermined by the age of most reviews, the exclusion of 10 content-free reviews, and two credible negative incidents that reveal a specific and repeated pattern of poor responsiveness to customer questions and at least one unresolved project failure.

RJ Home Services scores strongly on professionalism, with numerous reviewers explicitly praising punctuality, communication, courtesy, and responsiveness across a wide range of jobs. Project completion is also a clear strength — multiple reviews confirm jobs were finished on time, same-day additions were accommodated, and follow-through was consistent. Experience scores well based on specific mentions of quality workmanship, technical explanations, and problem-solving across electrical, plumbing, and HVAC tasks. However, pricing is a significant drag on the overall score: at least three reviews explicitly call out costs as too high or surprising, including a 1-star review flagging a $149 diagnostic fee misrepresented as a free service call, and another citing over $1,000 to replace GFCI outlets — these are concrete, specific complaints that meaningfully lower the pricing dimension. The WW Score of 76.4 reflects a contractor with genuine operational strengths but a recurring and credible pricing transparency problem.

• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: At least three reviews raise specific, credible pricing complaints — a hidden $149 diagnostic fee after a '$0 service call' was advertised, $1,000+ quoted for GFCI outlet replacement, and $301 for a drain swap described as too high. These are not vague complaints and suggest a pattern of sticker shock or unclear upfront pricing.
• UNDATED REVIEWS: 8 of 22 reviews have no date attached. These cannot be assessed for recency and were scored but treated with reduced weight in confidence assessment. If these are older reviews, the current performance picture may differ.
• GENERIC PRAISE FLAGS: Several undated reviews ('Absolutely amazing! I would 100% do business with them again.' and 'Great professional service from Tommy and the RJ Electronics team.') are very brief and lack specific detail. While not conclusive, these reviews contribute minimally to scoring confidence.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of dated reviews fall within the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025), which is a positive signal. One dated review is from May 2024, which is still within a reasonable recency window.
• REVIEW VOLUME: With only 22 total reviews, the dataset is relatively small. Scores are directionally reliable but should be revisited as more reviews accumulate.

This WW Score is moderately reliable — the professionalism, completion, and experience dimensions are supported by a sufficient number of specific, credible reviews, but the pricing score carries meaningful negative signals that prospective customers should take seriously, and 8 undated reviews reduce overall temporal confidence.