Find Nearby Plumbers In Norfolk, Virginia

All three reviews are positive and indicate satisfactory outcomes, with same-day service completion mentioned in two reviews and detailed customer education noted in one. Professionalism is supported by explicit mentions of professional conduct and responsive communication. Experience is inferred from successful repairs and a complimentary sewer and septic inspection, suggesting technical competence. However, pricing is entirely unmentioned across all reviews, leaving that dimension unscored. The overall score is tempered significantly by the very small review pool of only three reviews spanning nearly a decade.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score reliability is very low and should be treated as indicative only.
• Review date range spans from 2015 to 2024 — the 2015 review is nearly 10 years old and carries minimal weight under recency rules.
• No pricing or cost information mentioned in any review — the Pricing dimension cannot be scored.
• All three reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback — while not conclusive evidence of fake reviews, the uniformly positive tone with limited specifics warrants caution.
• The 2015 review does not name the contractor (Kelvin) and refers to 'they' rather than an individual — it is unclear if this review is for the same contractor or business entity.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 9 years, with one review nearly a decade old, making it insufficient to reliably assess current contractor performance — treat this score with significant caution.

Myers Plumbing has a generally positive track record across multiple dimensions based on the reviews that contain usable detail. Professionalism is mentioned in several reviews with praise for friendliness, communication, and cleanliness, but is significantly tempered by a recent 2024 report of a company vehicle driver behaving rudely and aggressively toward the public — a serious conduct concern. Pricing is mentioned positively in two reviews as fair and consistent with estimates, but the limited mentions prevent high confidence. Project completion feedback is solid, with reviewers noting jobs were finished on time, cleaned up afterward, and aligned with estimates. Experience is reflected in praise for quality workmanship and problem-solving, though all supporting reviews are over a decade old.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are extremely old, ranging from 2012 to 2019. Only one review is from the past 12 months (2024), and it is a 1-star complaint. This significantly undermines confidence in current service quality.
• CONDUCT FLAG: A 2024 review reports a driver of a company vehicle screaming at pedestrians from the window. This is a direct professionalism concern and the most recent data point available.
• LOW DETAIL REVIEW: One review consists only of a period ('.') with a 5-star rating and no text. This review was excluded from scoring as it contains no usable data.
• TEMPORAL SKEW: The positive reviews span 2012–2019 and may not reflect the contractor's current operations, staffing, or service standards. Scores should be interpreted with this in mind.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to the age of nearly all positive reviews, the presence of a recent conduct complaint, and the small total review count — prospective customers should seek more current references before making a hiring decision.

Petit Plumbing shows a genuinely mixed track record across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores moderately — many reviews praise punctuality, courtesy, and communication, but several explicitly describe rude, unshaven, and unprofessional technicians, which meaningfully drags the score down. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while a number of customers found rates fair or even surprisingly affordable, a significant cluster of reviews describe overcharging, hidden charges, unauthorized card charges, and prices far above competitors. Project completion is also mixed — many jobs were finished quickly and correctly, but one detailed 1-star review documents multiple serious safety defects on a $4,000+ job, including a crushed dryer vent creating a fire hazard, unanchored pipes, and missing nail guards, with management initially resistant to fixing them. Experience follows a similar pattern: skilled technicians are praised in several reviews, but the same major job failure and a review about breaking a sink fixture indicate inconsistent workmanship quality.

• Six reviews contain no usable text ('unknown', '.', or blank) and were excluded from scoring — these inflate the raw review count and may represent placeholder or fake entries.
• Three reviews dated 2000-09-15 and 2002-02-11 are over 20 years old and carry minimal relevance to current service quality; they were noted but given very low weight.
• The majority of substantive reviews are from 2010–2020, with no reviews from the past 12 months (relative to the most recent date of 2020-04-13), meaning recency data is limited and current performance cannot be confirmed.
• One review (2012-07-19, 1-star) is highly detailed and documents multiple verifiable safety violations on a large job — this is treated as a high-credibility negative signal and weighted accordingly.
• One review (2012-09-05, 1-star) describes an unauthorized credit card charge of $175 after being quoted $65 — this is a serious pricing integrity concern.
• The positive reviews, while numerous, tend to be brief and generic (e.g., 'great work,' 'very professional'), while the negative reviews contain specific, verifiable details — this asymmetry slightly reduces confidence in the positive signals.

This WW Score is based on 30 reviews with usable data spanning roughly 20 years, with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but the score should be treated with caution given the age of most reviews, the presence of several blank or placeholder entries, and a pattern of serious, detailed negative reviews that suggest meaningful quality and pricing inconsistency.

Newman Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most heavily flagged area: multiple reviews describe the owner becoming verbally abusive or rude when customers raised complaints, technicians arriving late and untidy, and dismissive responses to legitimate service failures — these are serious, specific, and credible negative signals that significantly drag the score down despite several positive mentions of friendly staff and good communication. Project completion is similarly split: several reviews praise same-day or next-day resolution of urgent issues, but there are credible accounts of incomplete work, a no-show appointment, a job that failed within 12 hours requiring a second plumber, and a callback dispute where the company refused to accept responsibility. Pricing drew both praise (value for money, reasonable rates) and criticism (expensive hourly rates, price escalation mid-job, unexpected charges), resulting in a below-average score. Experience scores slightly higher due to multiple specific mentions of skilled, knowledgeable technicians, but is tempered by documented workmanship failures and at least one instance where a contractor had to correct Newman's work.

• Multiple credible reviews describe the owner becoming verbally abusive toward customers who raised complaints — this is a serious and recurring pattern across at least 3 independent reviews spanning different years.
• One review (2022-12-21, 1-star) references the owner responding to negative reviews by claiming they are fake — this introduces a credibility concern and suggests possible review suppression behavior.
• One 1-star review (2019-03-09) is about a driver's road behavior and contains no plumbing service data — it was excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• Several positive reviews are generic in phrasing (e.g., 'great job,' 'very professional') with limited specifics, though enough contain named technicians and specific scenarios to be considered credible.
• A significant portion of reviews (approximately 10 of 19) are dated 2022 or earlier, meaning recency-weighted confidence in current service quality is reduced. Only 3 reviews are from 2023–2024.
• The review dated 2018-07-25 references an 'UPDATE' suggesting a prior positive experience that turned negative — this pattern of initial satisfaction followed by poor follow-through is consistent with other reviews and is treated as a genuine signal.
• No fake review pattern detected, but the mix of very high and very low ratings with specific details on both sides suggests a genuinely polarized service experience rather than manipulation.

This WW Score is based on 19 reviews with strong dimension coverage and HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the recurring and specific nature of complaints about owner conduct, incomplete work, and failed callbacks — these are not isolated incidents and represent a meaningful risk pattern for prospective customers.

This aggregated review set covers multiple distinct businesses operating under similar or shared names (Norfolk Plumbing, Rod-O-Matic, Patriot Plumbing across multiple geographic locations including Virginia, California, Florida, Missouri, and others), which severely limits the reliability of a single composite score. The positive reviews — concentrated heavily in 2024–2025 — describe prompt, professional, knowledgeable technicians and fair pricing, with many customers expressing strong loyalty and repeat use. However, a very large volume of deeply negative reviews, particularly associated with the Patriot Plumbing brand operating through home warranty companies (American Home Shield, AHS, HMS, 2-10), describe a consistent and serious pattern of alleged fraud: misdiagnosis to avoid warranty coverage, unnecessary upsell charges, cash-only payment demands, abandoned jobs, failure to return calls, rude or threatening behavior by owners and staff, and work left incomplete or made worse. The pricing dimension is particularly polarized — praised as fair and competitive by direct customers, but condemned as exploitative and deceptive by home warranty customers. Project completion scores are dragged down significantly by numerous accounts of jobs not finished, technicians leaving without completing work, and repeat visits failing to resolve issues.

• CRITICAL: These reviews appear to represent multiple distinct businesses operating under the same or similar names across different U.S. states (Virginia, California, Florida, Missouri, Ohio, and others). A single WW Score is not reliable for this dataset and should not be used to evaluate any single contractor.
• SUSPECTED FAKE OR INCENTIVIZED REVIEWS: A significant cluster of 5-star reviews with no text (rating only) are present throughout the dataset. Additionally, several reviews from the same date batches (e.g., 2025-06-07, 2025-05-26, 2025-04-10, 2023-06-10) appear to be bulk-submitted with generic praise and no specifics, suggesting possible solicited or incentivized review campaigns.
• FRAUD PATTERN DETECTED: A large and consistent pattern across dozens of negative reviews describes Patriot Plumbing (particularly the home warranty-contracted version) deliberately misdiagnosing issues, adding non-covered charges, demanding cash-only payment, and failing to complete work — consistent with a systematic scheme to extract out-of-pocket payments from home warranty customers.
• OWNER CONDUCT WARNINGS: Multiple independent reviewers describe the owner (referred to as Kirk, Steve, or Jimmy depending on location) as verbally abusive, threatening, showing up at customers' homes to demand payment, sending threatening texts, and in one case allegedly cutting a customer's water pressure line in retaliation.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) skew heavily positive and appear to represent different branch locations or operators than the older negative reviews. Older reviews (2018–2023) contain the highest concentration of serious complaints. Recency weighting partially improves the score but does not eliminate the serious concerns.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review describing Mike and Steven fixing a leak behind a shower appears verbatim twice (2024-06-09 and 2023-07-25), suggesting a copy-paste or system duplication.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review about being without a water heater for over a month appears verbatim twice (2022-11-12), suggesting a system duplication.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review about avoiding the company and paying $750 for modifications appears verbatim twice (2020-07-22), suggesting a system duplication.
• NON-PLUMBING REVIEWS PRESENT: Several reviews reference HVAC, electrical, and AC work (Nick's reviews from 2024-06-09), which are outside the scope of plumbing contractor evaluation and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• UNPERMITTED WORK ALLEGATION: At least one reviewer explicitly states Patriot Plumbing performed a full repipe without pulling a permit and that the matter was under investigation by the California State Contractors Board.

This WW Score of 62.1 should be treated with very low confidence as a guide to any single contractor, as the dataset aggregates reviews for multiple distinct businesses across different states and ownership structures; the score reflects a deeply divided customer base where direct-hire customers report largely positive experiences while home warranty-referred customers report a consistent and serious pattern of alleged fraud, incomplete work, and unprofessional conduct.

City Wide Services demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally professional conduct, with multiple reviews praising knowledgeable technicians, prompt response times, and courteous behavior. However, the company is severely hampered by persistent pricing concerns—multiple recent reviews (2023, 2019) describe charges as excessive, with specific complaints about inflated hourly rates and helper fees that customers felt were unjustified. Project completion shows mixed results, with one significant case of incomplete work (ceiling hole left unpatched for over a year, then charged multiple times to finish). The stark contrast between older positive reviews (2012–2016) and recent negative ones (2019–2023) suggests either service quality decline or increasingly aggressive pricing practices.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2012–2016 (8+ years old). Recent reviews (2019–2023) are predominantly 1-star with serious complaints about pricing and incomplete work.
• PRICING PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews cite excessive charges for routine work (e.g., $411 for flange plate replacement, $205 for three light bulbs). This is not isolated complaint—it appears systematic.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: One detailed 2021 review documents failure to complete ceiling patching, then attempting to charge three separate times for one job. This directly contradicts project completion claims.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: Two reviews (2016-02-26 and 2015-12-17) contain only '.' or 'unknown' as text with 5-star ratings. These appear to be placeholder/fake entries and were excluded from scoring.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Older reviews (2012–2016) describe fair pricing and reliability; recent reviews (2019–2023) describe the opposite. This suggests either company decline or data integrity issues.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While technical competence appears genuine (HIGH confidence), the dramatic shift from positive older reviews to negative recent reviews, combined with multiple independent complaints about pricing practices and one documented case of incomplete work with repeated billing, suggests the company's current reliability is significantly lower than historical data indicates. Recent reviews (past 3 years) should be weighted more heavily than older ones.