Find Nearby Plumbers In Richmond, Virginia

RJ Tilley earns strong praise for individual technicians — particularly David and Tony — who are repeatedly described as professional, knowledgeable, and thorough. However, professionalism is meaningfully dragged down by multiple documented failures: a no-show pattern across several reviews, an appointment window missed without notification, an unprofessional showroom designer, and a serious insurance dispute following a company-caused flood. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly citing overcharging, a $18,000 shower quote described by a contractor as worth $6k-$7k, charges for unprepared technicians driving to supply stores, and a $125 charge for a 5-minute fix. Project completion is mixed — several jobs were completed well and on time, but recurring issues with technicians arriving without parts, jobs taking far longer than expected, and at least one review citing a month-long delay undermine confidence. Experience scores moderately well based on specific praise for skilled workmanship, but is tempered by one technician who admitted he had never seen a valve before and left without fixing it.

• 8 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several reviews are older than 3 years (2013–2017) and were given reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) show a more consistent pattern of professionalism but pricing concerns persist.
• Two reviews (2025-02-09) appear to be from the same customer on the same date — one negative and one revised positive after a manager callback. Both were counted but treated as a single customer experience to avoid double-weighting.
• A notable pattern exists where the company president or service manager personally intervenes after negative reviews to recover the customer relationship. While this reflects positively on responsiveness, it also suggests systemic service delivery issues that require executive escalation to resolve.
• One review (2021-06-10, 1 star) states the reviewer was never actually at RJ Tilley. This review was excluded from scoring as it contains no usable data about the company.
• The $18,000 shower quote (2024-11-11) and the flood/insurance dispute (2021-09-28) represent serious outlier concerns for both pricing and project completion that carry significant weight despite being individual incidents.

This WW Score is based on 44 reviews with usable content spanning 2013–2025, with sufficient volume across all four dimensions to produce HIGH confidence ratings; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given the wide variance in customer experiences — ranging from exceptional individual technician performance to documented no-shows, overcharging, and a year-long insurance dispute.

Bear Mechanical / Bremac has a strongly split review profile. The majority of recent reviews (2021–2025) are highly positive, praising responsive scheduling, friendly and knowledgeable technicians, and completed work. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning 2017 through 2021 and one in 2025 — raises serious concerns about pricing transparency, unauthorized charges, shoddy workmanship (including a dangerous wiring repair that nearly caused a fire), and aggressive billing practices. Professionalism scores well on average due to volume of positive mentions, but is dragged down by multiple credible accounts of hostile technician behavior and deceptive sales tactics. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple detailed complaints about hidden fees, trip charges, extreme markups on parts, and charges for unsanctioned work. Project completion is moderately strong but undermined by at least two reviews describing work left incomplete or requiring a return visit to fix errors. Experience is generally positive but the dangerous wiring incident and the misdiagnosed HVAC leak are significant demerits.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple detailed, credible negative reviews describe hidden charges (drive-time fees, trip charges), extreme parts markups, and charges for work never authorized by the customer. This is a consistent pattern across multiple years and reviewers.
• WORKMANSHIP SAFETY CONCERN: One reviewer (2019) reported that a repair left wires melted inside the air handler, which could have caused a house fire. This is a serious quality and safety flag.
• INCOMPLETE/UNSANCTIONED WORK: One reviewer (2019) was charged over $388 for gas log work that was never completed. Another (2021) reported an installed fan barely worked and required a separate electrician.
• BILLING WITHOUT CONSENT: Multiple reviewers (2021, 2019) describe being charged for work they did not authorize or were not informed would incur costs before work began.
• COLLECTIONS THREAT: Two separate reviewers (2021, 2019) report being sent to collections or threatened with legal action over disputed invoices, suggesting an aggressive billing posture.
• FAKE/LOW-DETAIL REVIEW RISK: Four reviews contain no text at all (rating only). Several additional reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Great service again and again', 'Such a reliable and affordable company!'). These contribute minimal signal and may inflate the positive review count.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most detailed negative reviews are from 2017–2021, which may reflect a prior operating period under the Bremac brand. More recent reviews (2022–2025) are predominantly positive, suggesting possible improvement — but the 2025 pricing complaint and 2021 workmanship complaint indicate issues have not fully resolved.
• BRAND AMBIGUITY: Reviews reference both 'Bear Mechanical' and 'Bremac' as company names. These appear to be the same or closely related entity. Scores reflect the combined review pool as presented.

This WW Score is based on a substantial review pool (55 reviews) with high mention counts across all four dimensions, giving it statistical credibility, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given a persistent and credible pattern of pricing, billing, and workmanship complaints that meaningfully offset the large volume of positive reviews.

Affordable Plumbing has a strong base of satisfied customers who consistently praise responsiveness, speed of arrival, and friendly service across many years of reviews. However, the pricing dimension is notably dragged down by several credible, detailed complaints: one customer documented being charged $896 for a water heater the supplier sold for $499, another was charged $120 for 30 minutes of minor adjustments, and a third paid $200 only to have their issue made worse. Professionalism is similarly mixed — while many reviewers describe courteous and prompt technicians, at least two reviews describe rude office staff, a no-show appointment with a 4-hour delay and no apology, and tension between the father-son team. Project completion scores moderately well, with most jobs described as finished same-day or next-day, but one review describes abandoned holes, unreturned calls, and work requiring a third party to correct. Experience scores reasonably well overall, with multiple reviewers noting skilled diagnostics and problem-solving, though the pattern of pricing disputes and one instance of a worsened problem temper that score.

• 6 reviews contain no usable text ('unknown', '.', or 'See above') and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• Several reviews are significantly older than 12 months — the majority of reviews predate 2020, with only 2 reviews from the past 12 months (2022 and 2024). Recency weighting is a concern; the most recent positive reviews are encouraging but the sample is thin.
• Pricing complaints are specific, detailed, and credible: one customer documented a $396 markup on a water heater with supplier price verification; another complained of $240/hr effective rate for minor adjustments. These are not vague dissatisfaction but documented overcharging patterns.
• One review (2010) describes abandoned work, unreturned calls, boot prints on carpet, and requiring third-party intervention — a serious project completion failure.
• One review (2013) describes a 4-hour late arrival with no apology and rude office staff when the customer inquired about timing — a clear professionalism failure.
• One review (2013) describes paying $200 and having the problem made worse, with the plumber dismissing the customer and telling them to fix it themselves — a combined professionalism and experience failure.
• No suspected fake reviews detected. Most positive reviews include specific details, named technicians, and varied language. The pattern appears organic.

This WW Score is based on 44 reviews with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically reliable in terms of volume; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given that the majority of reviews are more than 5 years old, and several credible negative reviews document serious pricing transparency and professionalism failures that meaningfully reduce confidence in consistent service quality.

Mike Wilson Plumbing has a strong base of satisfied customers who frequently praise punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous communication, particularly in earlier reviews. However, the dataset contains meaningful negative signals that cannot be ignored: one review documents physical damage to a toilet during augering, a rude owner response to a complaint, and a failure to complete basic faucet installation; another review raises concerns about overcharging and lack of professionalism (no shoe covers, excessive crew). Project completion is the most penalized dimension, as multiple reviews describe incomplete work, missing parts, no follow-through on quotes, and a drain issue left unresolved. Pricing scores moderately, with several positive mentions of fair rates offset by at least one reviewer feeling overcharged. The majority of reviews are from 2013–2019, with only one review from 2023, meaning the dataset is largely dated and may not reflect current service quality.

• RECENCY WARNING: 11 of 13 reviews are older than 5 years; only 1 review is from the past 12 months (2023). The WW Score may not reflect current performance.
• NEGATIVE INCIDENT FLAG: One detailed 1-star review (2017) describes property damage (scratched porcelain toilet), failure to complete a basic faucet installation, and a rude/dismissive owner response to a complaint. This is a significant quality and professionalism concern.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2017-10-26 3-star, 2014-09-10 4-star, 2017-02-21 1-star) describe work that was not fully completed or resolved, suggesting a recurring project completion risk.
• PRICING CONCERN: One reviewer (2017-01-22) explicitly stated they felt overcharged ($175 labor, three men sent for a simple job). This offsets otherwise positive pricing mentions.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews vary in tone, detail, rating, and date. Language is not repetitive or suspiciously generic. Dataset appears authentic.

The WW Score of 72.1 carries HIGH statistical confidence given 13 reviews with broad dimensional coverage, but should be treated with caution due to the age of most reviews and at least one serious documented incident involving property damage and owner misconduct.

Plumb Line Plumbing demonstrates consistently strong professionalism across the majority of reviews, with repeated praise for punctuality, communication, and responsiveness — including same-day and emergency availability. Pricing is frequently cited as fair, competitive, and transparent, which is a genuine strength. However, the score is significantly pulled down by one highly detailed, credible 1-star review describing a catastrophic flooding incident caused by a failed vanity installation, resulting in six months of displacement and alleged admission of fault by the contractor. This single review carries substantial weight because it describes a severe project completion failure with specific, verifiable details and is not contradicted by any other review. The experience dimension reflects a mixed picture: most reviews praise Kevin's skill and problem-solving, but the flooding incident raises serious concerns about workmanship quality in more complex installations.

• CRITICAL INCIDENT: One detailed 1-star review (2021-07-20) describes a catastrophic flooding event caused by a failed vanity and pipe installation, rendering a family homeless for over 6 months. The reviewer claims Kevin verbally admitted fault in front of a witness. This is a severe project completion and experience failure that materially lowers scores in those dimensions.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent reviews are from January 2023 and November 2022. Several reviews are 4–8 years old (2015–2019), which limits their relevance to current performance. More weight was given to the 2020–2023 reviews.
• RESPONSE TO INCIDENT: No public contractor response to the flooding complaint was found in the review data, which is a negative signal regarding accountability and communication.
• REVIEW VOLUME: Only 12 reviews total across what appears to be a multi-year period. This is a low volume, which limits statistical confidence despite the HIGH label being technically correct per mention counts.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in detail, tone, date, and rating. The presence of a detailed negative review further supports authenticity of the review set overall.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high structural reliability given sufficient mention counts across all dimensions, but consumers should treat the flooding incident review as a serious red flag that warrants independent verification before hiring for any complex or high-stakes plumbing work.

John Corbett scores well across all four dimensions based on a small but consistent set of reviews spanning late 2023 through late 2024. Professionalism is the strongest signal, with multiple reviewers explicitly praising his responsiveness, friendliness, and communication. Pricing is mentioned favorably in six reviews, including one instance of a proactive discount offered to a customer who had been let down by another plumber. Project completion scores slightly lower due to one review (July 2024) that explicitly noted the fence repair was not yet finished at time of writing, with a promise to follow up — no confirmation of completion was provided. Experience is supported by moderate evidence, with one reviewer specifically noting John's depth of plumbing knowledge after a detailed conversation.

• One review (dated 2024-07-14) is incomplete — the reviewer stated the job had not yet been finished and promised a follow-up that never appeared in the dataset. This introduces uncertainty into the project completion dimension.
• The review set is small (8 reviews), which limits statistical reliability. Scores should be treated as directional rather than definitive.
• All reviews are 4–5 stars with no negative or mixed feedback. While not conclusive evidence of fake reviews, the uniformly positive tone with limited specific detail in some reviews (e.g., 'Highly recommend. John was very responsive, provided quick service and high quality service.') warrants mild caution.
• No reviews are older than 13 months from the most recent review date, so recency weighting does not significantly alter the analysis. However, the one review from November 2023 is approaching the 12-month threshold.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability — the reviews are recent and consistent, but the sample size of 8 is too small to draw high-confidence conclusions, and one unresolved job completion case introduces a meaningful caveat.