Find Nearby Plumbers In Newport News, Virginia

Ziegler Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across multiple reviews, with crews consistently described as polite, knowledgeable, and efficient. However, the company is significantly undermined by pricing concerns and project completion issues: two 1-star reviews explicitly cite overcharging, incomplete work (faucets left unfixed), and refusal to honor warranty repairs. While positive reviews praise responsiveness and problem-solving ability, the negative reviews reveal serious gaps in follow-through and fair pricing practices. The WW Score of 78.2 reflects solid fundamentals compromised by reliability and value concerns.

• PRICING RED FLAG: Two separate 1-star reviews cite overcharging and unfair pricing practices ($175 for drain snake only, no faucet repair completed). This directly contradicts the 'honest' and 'fair pricing' claims in positive reviews.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURE: Review from 2022-03-15 explicitly states work was not completed (two faucets left unfixed) despite being charged. Review from 2015-03-23 reports warranty repair refusal on leaked work.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 4+ years old (2015, 2019, 2020). The two most recent negative reviews (2022-03-15 and 2024-08-25) show ongoing issues. The 2024-08-25 review is also poorly written with grammatical errors ('done has been off', 'great John') suggesting possible fake/rushed review.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW: 2024-08-25 review contains awkward phrasing, grammatical errors, and vague praise ('everything they've done has been off') inconsistent with other reviews. May indicate rushed or inauthentic submission.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Pattern suggests service quality or pricing practices may have degraded over time, or inconsistency exists between crew members.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While professionalism and experience scores are solid, the explicit pricing and project completion failures in recent reviews (particularly the 2022 incomplete work incident) represent material concerns that outweigh generic praise in older reviews. The company's willingness to charge for incomplete work and refuse warranty repairs is a serious red flag that potential customers should investigate further before hiring.

Get Smart Plumbing shows a mixed performance profile across 42 reviews spanning 2006–2019. While experience and technical skill are consistently praised (82/100), professionalism is significantly dragged down by multiple documented failures in punctuality, communication, and follow-through—including no-shows, late arrivals without notification, and unprofessional behavior. Pricing receives a below-average score (65/100) due to recurring complaints about hidden charges, service fees not disclosed upfront, and bills exceeding estimates. Project completion is moderate (75/100), with some jobs requiring multiple visits to resolve issues. The company demonstrates strong technical capability but weak operational discipline.

• RECENCY ISSUE: Most reviews are 6+ years old (2006–2015). Only 2 reviews from 2019 and 2018. Historical data may not reflect current operations.
• POLARIZED RATINGS: Extreme bimodal distribution—predominantly 5-star and 1-star reviews with few middle ratings. This suggests either very satisfied long-term customers or severely dissatisfied one-time customers.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAGS: Multiple documented no-shows and late arrivals without proper notification (2009, 2015, 2018 reviews). One 2014 review describes 4 failed attempts to fix a toilet, unprofessional cleanup (using customer towels), and dismissive attitude.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUES: Repeated complaints about undisclosed service fees, trip charges, and bills exceeding estimates by $200–$400+ (2013, 2012 reviews). One customer explicitly felt 'misled' about trip charges (2014).
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: One detailed 2013 review describes hyperactive behavior, poor workmanship (bashed holes, sloppy work), and a $400 overcharge. Another 2008 review reports misdiagnosis leading to unnecessary tile replacement and $650 overcharge for a $99.99 unit.
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEWS: Three reviews contain only single characters or 'unknown' text (2015-11-03, 2014-07-08, 2014-02-03) with 5-star ratings—likely placeholder or fake entries. Confidence reduced accordingly.
• OWNER BEHAVIOR CONCERNS: Multiple reviews specifically mention the owner (Bill/Will) exhibiting unprofessional conduct—hyperactivity, dismissiveness ('that's not the way WE do it'), white sneakers criticized, astigmatism excuse for not allowing customer to observe work.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 41 usable reviews, the data is heavily skewed toward reviews older than 6 years, contains 3 suspicious placeholder entries, and shows extreme polarization suggesting operational inconsistency. The company appears to have strong technical skills but serious operational and communication weaknesses. Recent performance (2018–2019) is unclear due to minimal recent data. Recommend requesting recent references before hiring.

Kenneth demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for communication, responsiveness, and problem-solving ability. Pricing feedback is positive but limited to three mentions, suggesting fair value and transparency. However, project completion is significantly undermined by one severe 1-star review from December 2022 alleging incomplete work, pipe leaks, and unprofessional behavior—a critical failure that substantially lowers this dimension's score. The remaining five reviews are uniformly positive and detailed, but the recency and severity of the negative review creates material uncertainty about reliability.

• CRITICAL: One 1-star review (2022-12-24) alleges serious failures including incomplete work, leaking pipes, and unprofessional conduct. This directly contradicts the narrative of five 5-star reviews and suggests either a significant service failure or a potential dispute. This review cannot be dismissed and materially impacts project completion confidence.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Four of six reviews are from 2020–2021 (2+ years old). Only two reviews are from 2022. Limited recent data reduces confidence in current service quality.
• POLARIZATION PATTERN: Reviews show extreme polarization (one 1-star vs. five 5-stars) with no middle-ground ratings. This pattern warrants caution, though the detailed nature of both positive and negative reviews suggests authenticity rather than fake reviews.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 6 reviews total is a small sample. Confidence in overall score is inherently limited.

This WW Score should be treated with caution. While positive reviews demonstrate genuine expertise and professionalism, the severe 1-star review alleging incomplete work and property damage represents a critical failure that cannot be overlooked. The small sample size (6 reviews) and age of most data (2+ years) further limit confidence. Prospective customers should request references and clarification regarding the December 2022 incident before committing to major work.

Barnes Plumbing has a mixed but generally positive track record across substantive reviews. Professionalism scores were dragged down significantly by a serious 2023 incident in which a technician was reportedly rude, bullying, and condescending to a customer in their own home, and by a 2017 case where a technician arrived unprepared and blamed office staff — both credible, detailed negative accounts. On the positive side, multiple older reviews praise specific technicians (Will, Chris, Mike, David) for punctuality, courtesy, and professional conduct. Pricing is generally viewed favorably, with several reviewers noting reasonable or fair costs and one notable instance where no charge was applied when no work was performed. Project completion is mixed: most completed jobs were described as thorough and clean, but one review documents a failed solder joint on a boiler installation that caused heat loss and property damage, and another describes an abandoned job with a disputed deposit. Experience scores reflect solid workmanship in the majority of detailed reviews, offset by the documented poor solder joint and the unprepared technician incident.

• 12 of 26 reviews contain no usable text ('unknown', '.', 'fine', 'They were very good.') and were excluded from dimension scoring — these blank or near-blank 5-star entries are a significant concern and may represent fake or incentivized reviews.
• The cluster of 'unknown' and blank reviews between 2013–2016 is suspicious: all are rated 5 stars with no substantive content, which is a common pattern in review padding.
• Confidence in positive scores is reduced due to the fake review concern — the true positive signal comes from only ~12–14 substantive reviews.
• Most substantive reviews are from 2011–2017, with only one review from the past 12 months (2023). The 2023 review is a serious 1-star complaint involving alleged customer mistreatment and a disputed $3,166.68 deposit — this is the most recent data point and should be weighted heavily.
• The 2023 negative review describes a potential consumer protection issue: a large deposit taken, work not started, and the customer needing to dispute the charge through their bank. This is a material flag for prospective customers.

This WW Score carries only moderate overall reliability: while enough substantive reviews exist to calculate a score, the large proportion of blank or content-free 5-star reviews inflates the raw rating count without adding evidence, the most recent review (2023) is a serious negative incident, and the majority of positive reviews are more than 7 years old — meaning current service quality cannot be confidently assessed from this data set.

Campbell's Plumbing receives strong praise from many customers for responsiveness, professionalism, and fair pricing, with multiple reviewers highlighting prompt callbacks, polite technicians, and reasonable rates. However, two substantive negative reviews meaningfully drag down all dimensions: one details a technically incorrect recirculation line installation with multiple missed specification requirements and a refusal to remedy the work without charge, and another describes a failed repair, property damage left behind, and a $165 charge for no resolution. These are not minor complaints — they describe incomplete work, poor workmanship, and accountability failures. Pricing confidence is tempered by the $165-for-nothing complaint alongside the positive value mentions. The majority of positive reviews are from 2018 or earlier, with only two reviews from the past two years, raising questions about current service consistency.

• Two reviews ('unknown' with no text, rated 5 stars) provide no usable data and were excluded from scoring — these may be placeholder or fake entries.
• Review dated 2012-07-16 contains only the word 'Great!' with no specifics — treated as low-signal and excluded from dimension scoring.
• Most positive reviews are from 2013–2019; only 2 of 12 reviews are from the past two years (2022–2023), limiting confidence in current service quality.
• The 1-star review from 2022 describes multiple specific technical failures on a Rinnai tankless heater installation (wrong pipe size, wrong fixture, missing valves, missing filter) and a refusal to correct the work — this is a significant workmanship and accountability red flag.
• The 1-star review from 2016 describes a failed repair, property damage (torn plastic vapor barrier), litter left under the house, and a $165 charge for no resolution — corroborates a pattern of incomplete work in negative reviews.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability: the mention counts are sufficient for statistical confidence, but the score is pulled in opposite directions by a cluster of older glowing reviews and two detailed, credible negative reviews describing real failures, and the recency of usable positive data is weak.

All three reviews are positive and speak to timely service, fair pricing, and completed work, which provides a reasonable baseline across all four dimensions. Professionalism is supported by mentions of quick response, punctuality, and honest communication about deferred maintenance. Project completion scores well as all three reviewers confirm their jobs were finished successfully and in a timely manner. Pricing received favorable mentions in two reviews, with one explicitly noting the quote was cheaper than competitors. Experience is modestly supported by two reviews referencing thorough diagnostic work and competent execution, though detail is limited. Scores are kept conservative given the very small review pool and the age of all reviews, the most recent being from late 2020.

• All three reviews are older than 3 years (dates range from 2019 to 2020); no recent reviews are available to confirm current service quality.
• Only 3 reviews total — this is the minimum threshold for a WW Score calculation; results should be treated as preliminary and low-reliability.
• Reviews are generically positive with limited granular detail, though they do contain some specific references (e.g., named technician Chad, specific job types) which reduces but does not eliminate concern about authenticity.
• No negative feedback or constructive criticism present across any review, which is statistically uncommon and warrants mild caution.

This WW Score carries LOW reliability due to only 3 reviews, all of which are over 3 years old, providing an insufficient and potentially outdated picture of this contractor's current performance.