Find Nearby Plumbers In Norfolk, Virginia

This company exhibits a deeply polarized review pattern with stark contrasts between positive and negative experiences. Professionalism scores reasonably well (72) based on 18 mentions highlighting courteous staff, punctuality, and communication, but this is heavily undermined by serious pricing concerns (45/100) documented across 12 reviews alleging overcharges, inflated estimates, and deceptive billing practices. Project completion reliability is questionable (65/100) with multiple reports of no-shows, incomplete work, warranty disputes, and repeated callbacks on major installations. Experience/workmanship shows moderate competence (75/100) but is contradicted by accounts of misdiagnosis, poor quality repairs, and systemic failures on high-value units. The company's WW Score of 62.8 reflects significant trust deficits that outweigh positive service interactions.

• CRITICAL: Suspected fake review pattern detected. Approximately 20+ reviews from 2021-06-10 and 2022-06-10 with identical timestamps, many with no text content or generic single-sentence praise (e.g., 'Excellent service', 'Great honest people'). This clustering is highly suspicious and suggests artificial review inflation.
• SERIOUS PRICING FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple independent reviews (2019, 2021, 2016) allege deliberate overcharging, inflated estimates designed to be declined so diagnostic fees can be collected, and parts marked up 500-600% above market cost. One reviewer documented finding identical parts on Amazon for $172 vs. company quote of $1,266.
• REPEATED PRODUCT FAILURE: At least 3 reviews document new HVAC units requiring 6+ service calls within warranty period, with company allegedly shifting responsibility and retroactively charging for previously 'warranty-covered' work.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: Multiple documented instances of technicians failing to arrive at scheduled times or dates, requiring customers to take time off work.
• PROPERTY THEFT ALLEGATION: One 2015 review alleges workers stole over $20,000 in property from customer's attic during service call.
• POOR DIAGNOSIS: Multiple reviews document technicians misdiagnosing problems, recommending unnecessary expensive repairs, or failing to properly investigate issues before quoting.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are from 2015-2022. Only 3 reviews from 2024-2025 (1 positive, 1 negative, 1 generic). Recent data is insufficient to assess if company has reformed.
• INCONSISTENT OWNER BEHAVIOR: Reviews reference 'Dean' (owner) as both 'excellent' and 'rude/pathetic,' suggesting either inconsistent service or review manipulation.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While the 62.8 reflects genuine data from 56 reviews, approximately 35% of the review corpus appears artificially inflated through fake reviews clustered on specific dates, and multiple independent allegations of systematic pricing fraud and product failures are serious red flags that suggest the company's actual trustworthiness is likely lower than the score indicates. The polarized pattern (many 5-stars with no detail vs. detailed 1-stars with specific allegations) is characteristic of a company with real service problems attempting to mask them with fake positive reviews.

Professionalism is the most heavily penalized dimension, with multiple reviews citing no-shows without notice, failure to return calls including during an emergency, rude workers, and unauthorized work performed without customer consent. Project completion is similarly troubled — a leak was made worse after service, a sewer emergency went unresolved due to non-responsiveness, and a no-show appointment was never fulfilled. On the positive side, a small number of reviews do praise timely arrival, courteous behavior, and successful resolution of plumbing issues, which prevents scores from bottoming out entirely. Pricing received a poor score due to one explicit complaint about an unauthorized $250 charge and an additional $125 fee to reverse it, with no offsetting positive pricing mentions. Technical experience scores moderately, as the few positive reviews do credit the plumbers themselves with skill and accurate diagnosis, even when the surrounding service experience was poor.

• One review (2019-01-23) is suspiciously generic — 'Service rendered of excellent quality with efficient and trained personnel. super recommended!' — with no specifics, no job description, and no detail. This may be a fake or incentivized review and was weighted with low confidence.
• The majority of reviews (6 out of 8) are older than 12 months from a 2024 reference point, with most dating to 2017–2021. Only one review is from 2024 and one from 2023. Recency weighting significantly limits confidence in current service quality.
• A recurring pattern of front-office and communication failures appears across multiple independent reviews (no-shows, no callbacks, emergency non-response), suggesting a systemic operational issue rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a meaningful number of reviews with specific, credible detail, but is tempered by the age of most reviews, one suspected generic/fake review, and the absence of recent positive data to counterbalance documented service failures.

Causeway Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all dimensions. Professionalism is heavily dragged down by two serious negative reviews — one describing an owner as 'horrifyingly rude' with calls not returned, and another detailing a job site left in disarray with a newborn in the home — partially offset by positive mentions of honesty, thoroughness, and next-day responsiveness in other reviews. Project completion is a significant concern, with one reviewer reporting a 2.5-year incomplete job and another returning home to an unfinished wall with no communication, though two other reviewers praised quick and complete work. Experience scores moderately, with strong praise in one review for technical skill and doing the job right, but undermined by accounts of poor workmanship and leaving conditions worse than found. Pricing data is extremely thin, with only one implicit reference to a disputed $18,000 job and a partial refund, making that dimension very low confidence.

• Only 5 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and unreliable for high-stakes decisions.
• Reviews span from 2019 to 2023; the two most recent reviews (2023 and 2020) are both negative, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time. More weight has been given to these recent reviews.
• The two 5-star reviews from 2019 are brief and lack specific detail, which slightly raises generic praise concerns, though they are not identical in phrasing.
• One review describes a 2.5-year incomplete job on an $18,000 contract — this is a severe project completion and professionalism failure that significantly impacts scoring.
• The 2023 review describes unsafe living conditions left for a household with a newborn, including unfinished walls, dust, and an HVAC issue — this is a serious flag for job site conduct and completion standards.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning 4 years and should be considered LOW reliability — the small sample size, wide date range, and presence of two severe negative reviews make it insufficient to draw firm conclusions about current service quality.

Cassidy's Plumbing has a deeply troubled track record across nearly all dimensions analyzed. Professionalism is the most heavily penalized dimension: the overwhelming majority of reviews describe repeated no-shows, last-minute cancellations, unreachable customer service, and dismissive or rude office staff — with only a small handful of positive interactions noted. Project completion is similarly alarming, with multiple reviews describing abandoned jobs, unresolved leaks left running for days, and zero follow-through on damage caused to a customer's property. Experience scores are mixed: a few reviews praise fast, skilled workmanship, but others describe technicians unable to locate leaks, misdiagnosing problems, and leaving work incomplete. Pricing is the one relative bright spot, with several reviewers noting competitive or affordable rates, though this is undermined by the poor quality and reliability of the work delivered. The majority of reviews are from 2015–2022, with the most recent being from mid-2022, meaning there is no data from the past 12 months to indicate whether performance has improved.

• RECENCY WARNING: No reviews are present from the past 12 months (most recent is July 2022). Current performance cannot be assessed.
• PATTERN WARNING: A consistent and repeated pattern of no-shows, cancellations, and unreachable customer service appears across multiple independent reviews spanning several years, suggesting these are systemic operational failures rather than isolated incidents.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE: One review explicitly describes technicians damaging a customer's floor and the company refusing to acknowledge or repair it — a serious liability flag.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERN: One reviewer noted that sinks began leaking again within days of repair on multiple occasions, suggesting recurring quality-of-work issues.
• NO FAKE REVIEW FLAG: Reviews vary significantly in tone, detail, rating, and date. No suspicious patterns of fake or incentivized reviews were detected. Both positive and negative reviews appear authentic.

This WW Score is based on 9 reviews spanning 2014–2022 with HIGH mention counts for most dimensions, but the score should be treated with caution given the age of the data and the absence of any reviews from the past 12 months — the contractor's current operational quality is unknown.

This contractor exhibits severe and consistent professionalism failures across multiple reviews, including no-shows, unresponsiveness, poor communication, and unprofessional conduct (handwritten receipts, disorganization). Project completion is critically compromised with multiple abandoned jobs and failure to follow through on commitments. Two positive reviews praise quick response time and fair pricing for emergency services, but these are heavily outweighed by three detailed negative reviews documenting systematic failures. The stark contradiction between positive and negative reviews suggests inconsistent service delivery, with the contractor appearing capable on straightforward emergency calls but unable to manage complex or multi-day projects.

• CRITICAL: Severe pattern of no-shows and project abandonment documented in 3 of 5 reviews
• CRITICAL: Multiple reports of non-responsiveness and disappearance after collecting deposits
• CRITICAL: Unprofessional conduct including handwritten pencil receipts, disorganization, and lack of follow-through
• CRITICAL: Gas line work left incomplete and capped dangerously, leaving customer without heat/hot water
• CAUTION: Stark polarity in reviews (3 one-star vs 2 five-star) suggests highly inconsistent service quality or possible selective service delivery
• CAUTION: Positive reviews lack specificity about pricing details; negative reviews document cash-only transactions and deposit disputes
• RED FLAG: Pattern of deposit collection followed by non-performance or disappearance in multiple reviews

This score should be treated with MODERATE-to-HIGH caution: while the data is clear and consistent across negative reviews, the extreme polarity and documented pattern of abandonment and non-responsiveness suggest this contractor is unreliable for most project types, despite occasional positive emergency responses.

Price Right Plumbing has an overwhelmingly negative review record across all four scored dimensions. The vast majority of reviews describe a pattern of incomplete or abandoned work, fraudulent reporting to home warranty companies, misdiagnosis, and outright refusal to perform contracted jobs — driving the project completion score to a critically low level. Professionalism scores are severely depressed by repeated, specific complaints about rude and deceptive office staff (particularly a receptionist named McKenzie and others), technicians who leave without completing work, and failure to return calls. Pricing scores reflect widespread allegations of exploiting home warranty loopholes, charging service fees for no work performed, and fabricating out-of-pocket costs to extract additional money from customers. Experience scores are marginally higher than the other dimensions only because a small cluster of positive reviews (roughly 10 out of 72) describe competent, knowledgeable technicians — but these are heavily outweighed by detailed accounts of wrong diagnoses, improper installations, and technicians who lacked basic tools or skills. The WW Score of 22.1 reflects a contractor with serious, systemic, and well-documented service failures across every dimension.

• FRAUD PATTERN DETECTED: Numerous independent reviewers across multiple years describe an identical scheme — technicians reporting jobs as 'completed' to home warranty companies (AHS, HSA, First American, TPG) when no work was done, in order to collect service fees and prevent customers from obtaining second opinions or recalls. This is a recurring and specific allegation, not generic complaint language.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION (POSITIVE REVIEWS): The 10 positive reviews are notably brief, generic, and lack the specificity of the negative reviews. Several use near-identical praise structures ('on time, professional, friendly, quick'). While not conclusive, the contrast in detail level between positive and negative reviews warrants caution. Positive review scores have been treated conservatively.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews span from 2015 through mid-2024, indicating persistent and long-standing systemic issues rather than isolated incidents. The most recent reviews (2024) continue to reflect the same patterns as reviews from 2017–2020, suggesting no meaningful improvement over time.
• OFFICE STAFF MISCONDUCT: Multiple reviews across different years specifically name office staff (McKenzie, Autumn, and unnamed receptionists) as rude, deceptive, and unprofessional. One reviewer notes McKenzie falsely claimed to be the office manager. This is a named, repeated, cross-year pattern.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviewers allege that technicians caused physical damage to their homes (gouged hardwood floors, damaged pipes, blown PVC holes, damaged cabinets) and that the company denied responsibility and refused to remedy the damage.
• WARRANTY FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviewers allege the company colluded with or misled home warranty companies by submitting false diagnoses, falsely marking jobs complete, and fabricating reasons for non-coverage to extract out-of-pocket payments. Several reviewers state they filed formal complaints with warranty companies and/or considered legal action.

This WW Score of 22.1 is based on 72 reviews with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions and should be considered highly reliable — the volume, specificity, consistency, and multi-year span of negative reviews paint a clear and credible picture of a contractor with serious, systemic failures in professionalism, pricing integrity, project completion, and technical competence.