Find Nearby Plumbers In Richmond, Virginia

FH Furr demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise with courteous, knowledgeable technicians who communicate well and show up on time in most cases. However, the company is severely undermined by widespread pricing complaints—customers consistently report being charged 3-10x market rates for routine services, with aggressive upselling tactics and lack of transparency. Project completion is inconsistent, with multiple reports of scheduling failures, no-shows, unresponsiveness to callbacks, and incomplete work. The sharp divide between positive recent reviews (mostly 5-star with minimal detail) and detailed negative reviews from 2023-2024 suggests a company with excellent field technicians but serious operational and billing integrity issues.

• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: 25+ reviews from June 2025 (future date) with identical 5-star ratings, minimal detail, and generic praise. These appear to be fake or artificially generated reviews. Confidence in recent positive scores should be significantly discounted.
• PRICING ABUSE PATTERN: 16 reviews explicitly document egregious overcharging—$1,105 for a $96 faucet, $725 vs $600 quoted, $1,800 AC repair vs $350 competitor fix, $700 for simple element replacement, $4,500 water heater vs $1,100 market price. This is not isolated; it is systemic.
• RESPONSIVENESS CRISIS: Multiple reviews (2023-2024) document complete failure to return calls, follow up on complaints, honor callbacks, and respond to service requests. One customer waited 2 weeks with no response; another never received promised follow-up from owner.
• SCHEDULING FAILURES: Documented cancellations 1 hour before appointments, no-shows without notification, rescheduling 4-6 weeks out, and explicit contradiction of weekend service availability despite website claims.
• POST-ACQUISITION DECLINE: Multiple reviews note deterioration after FH Furr acquired McGee's and Red Dog. Customers report the technicians (inherited from acquisitions) are good, but company operations are predatory.
• QUALITY CONCERNS: One customer reported AC repair that failed in 5 days; another reported incomplete work (no flushing, no testing) and suspicious thermostat failures immediately after service.
• RECENCY BIAS: All positive reviews are dated June 2025 (impossible/future dates) or May 2025. Negative reviews span 2023-2024 with specific dates and details. This temporal pattern strongly suggests fake recent reviews masking real operational problems.

This WW Score should be treated with extreme caution. While the numerical score of 62.8 reflects genuine data from 67 reviews, the dataset is heavily contaminated by what appears to be 25+ fabricated 5-star reviews with future dates and generic language. The authentic negative reviews from 2023-2024 are detailed, specific, and consistent in documenting systemic pricing abuse, scheduling failures, and unresponsiveness. The true operational score is likely 15-20 points lower than reported. Customers should independently verify pricing, obtain multiple quotes, and check recent reviews on third-party platforms before engaging this company.

Michael and Son Services presents a deeply split picture across its review base. Individual technicians — including Isaac, Caleb, Nathan, Brian, Kevin, Russell, and Caderious — are frequently praised for professionalism, courtesy, punctuality, and technical knowledge, driving relatively strong scores in professionalism and experience. However, pricing is a persistent and serious concern across dozens of reviews spanning multiple years, with customers repeatedly reporting quotes 2x to 5x higher than competitors for identical work, hidden or undisclosed fees, and pressure-selling tactics that significantly drag down the pricing dimension. Project completion is mixed: many jobs are completed well and on time, but there are notable failures including no-shows, abandoned work, repeat service calls for the same unresolved issue, and at least one case of serious property damage from a faulty installation that the company refused to cover. The volume of recent reviews (2025) skews heavily positive and shows strong signs of duplication, which has been flagged and factored into confidence assessment.

• CRITICAL — DUPLICATE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: At least 10 reviews from June 2025 appear to be exact word-for-word duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., the 'BRENT came in and gave me a good estimate' review, the 'Russell was great to work with' review, the 'Caleb was prompt, communicative' review, and others each appear twice with identical text but different dates). This is a strong indicator of review manipulation or artificial inflation. Confidence in the recent positive review cluster has been reduced accordingly.
• PRICING CONCERNS — HIGH VOLUME: Over 25 reviews explicitly cite extreme overpricing, quotes 2x-5x above competitors, undisclosed fees, and pressure to purchase unnecessary services or upgrades. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe no-shows (sometimes twice for the same appointment), technicians arriving without proper equipment, repeat visits for unresolved issues, and at least one case of a new HVAC installation causing ceiling collapse and water damage that the company refused to remediate.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — RECENT CLUSTER: The June 2025 and May 2025 review clusters contain a high proportion of very short, generic, all-5-star reviews with no specific detail (e.g., 'Great service! Professional well mannered person.', 'Super competent, very professional, awesome to work with!!', 'Great people!'). Several blank reviews with 5-star ratings are also present. These patterns are consistent with coordinated or incentivized review activity.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews from 2017–2022 contain a disproportionately high number of 1-star complaints about pricing, no-shows, and poor follow-through. More recent reviews (2024–2025) trend more positive, but the duplicate pattern undermines the reliability of that improvement signal.
• TECHNICIAN FRAUD ALLEGATION: One review (2020) alleges a technician claimed to replace a fan motor but installed a motor from 1986 instead of a new one — a serious allegation of fraudulent work.
• TRANSPARENCY ISSUES: Multiple reviews cite refusal to provide itemized bills, undisclosed diagnostic fees, and technicians installing expensive parts (e.g., a $445 smart thermostat) without customer consent or price disclosure beforehand.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence of duplicate/manipulated recent reviews, a systemic pricing complaint pattern across many years, and significant project completion failures — the true performance of this company is likely lower than the positive technician-level reviews suggest.

Robinson's Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most contested dimension: while several reviewers praise specific technicians as courteous, responsive, and timely, multiple reviews document serious failures including a no-show without notification, a technician smelling of alcohol, discriminatory treatment of a customer, and a pattern of verbal commitments not honored by office staff. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with numerous reviewers explicitly calling out high charges, undisclosed trip fees, layered assessment charges, and a $300 bill for a simple toilet repair — though a small number of reviewers found pricing fair or reasonable. Project completion is similarly split: some jobs were completed quickly and correctly, but multiple reviews describe abandoned work, unfinished repairs, damage to property left unaddressed, and a refusal to return to complete jobs. Experience scores moderately higher, as several reviewers praised specific technicians for strong diagnostic and repair skills, though the tub installation shortcut and the misdiagnosed blown fuse as a wiring problem undercut confidence in consistent workmanship quality.

• Several older reviews (2010–2018) may not reflect current business practices; the majority of negative reviews are concentrated in 2022–2023, suggesting possible decline in service quality over time.
• The 2010 review uses humorous, vague language with no specific job details — low evidential value but not flagged as fake.
• No strong fake review pattern detected; reviews vary significantly in tone, detail level, rating, and specificity, which supports authenticity.
• Multiple reviews describe a pattern of verbal commitments being denied or reversed by office staff, which is a systemic trust and communication concern beyond isolated incidents.
• One review explicitly names a technician (Thomas Moon) as smelling of alcohol — a serious professionalism and safety concern.
• A recurring theme of incomplete work followed by refusal to return or compensate appears in at least two detailed negative reviews (2022 and 2023), suggesting a possible systemic issue with job follow-through.
• Pricing complaints span from 2013 to 2023, indicating this is a long-standing and consistent concern rather than an isolated incident.
• Most reviews older than 12 months; only 4 reviews fall within the past 12 months from the most recent review date (2023-11-29), limiting recency confidence.

This WW Score is based on 23 reviews with strong dimension coverage across all four categories, yielding HIGH confidence in the score directionally, but the wide variance between positive and negative experiences — and the concentration of serious complaints in recent years — means the score of 62.1 should be treated as a warning signal rather than a passing grade.

M.A. Williams demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with many recent reviews praising punctuality, courtesy, and skilled workmanship. However, significant pricing concerns emerge across multiple reviews, with customers reporting unexplained markups, non-itemized invoices, and charges perceived as excessive relative to work performed. Project completion shows mixed results, with some customers reporting unresolved issues requiring callbacks or alternative contractors. The company exhibits a stark bifurcation: recent reviews (2024-2025) are overwhelmingly positive, while older reviews (2011-2019) contain serious complaints about pricing practices, communication failures, and incomplete work. This pattern warrants caution.

• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: 18 of 60 reviews are 5-star with minimal detail or generic praise (e.g., 'Best service we have had yet !!!', 'These are the best plumbers around!', empty reviews). Multiple reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('professional', 'efficient', 'highly recommend'). This suggests possible fake or incentivized reviews, particularly concentrated in Feb-May 2025.
• RECENCY BIAS: Reviews from past 12 months (Feb 2025-present) are almost uniformly 5-star with glowing detail. Reviews from 2011-2019 contain severe complaints about pricing fraud, incomplete work, and poor communication. This dramatic shift raises credibility concerns about recent reviews.
• PRICING INTEGRITY ISSUES: Multiple detailed complaints (2014-2019) document predatory pricing practices: $275 capacitor marked up 1800-5500%, non-itemized invoices, misleading phone quotes, charges for minimal work. While recent reviews mention 'fair pricing', older reviews suggest systemic overcharging.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Several reviews document incomplete work requiring callbacks or alternative contractors (2011, 2014, 2016, 2024 apartment complex with 7+ visits for same issue). One customer reported $1000+ spent with problem unresolved.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple complaints about unreturned calls, no-shows without notification, and unresponsive management (2014, 2018, 2023).
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW CONCENTRATION: 5 reviews with 5.0 rating and zero or near-zero text content (dates: 2025-01-10, 2024-09-12 x2). This is atypical and suggests automated or placeholder reviews.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While recent reviews (2024-2025) paint an excellent picture, the concentration of generic 5-star reviews, stark contrast with detailed negative reviews from 2011-2019 documenting pricing fraud and incomplete work, and multiple communication failures suggest the recent positive reviews may be artificially inflated or incentivized. The company's historical pattern of pricing complaints and unresolved issues is not adequately reflected in the recent review surge. Customers should obtain detailed, itemized quotes, verify pricing in writing before work begins, and consider independent verification of diagnoses before committing to expensive repairs.

Kelleher demonstrates solid technical expertise and generally professional field staff, with many customers praising technician punctuality, politeness, and skill. However, the company is significantly hampered by inconsistent project completion (failed follow-ups, incomplete repairs requiring callbacks, billing disputes), aggressive pricing practices (markups on materials, charging for multiple trips that could consolidate), and deteriorating customer service responsiveness. While long-term loyal customers speak highly of the company's reliability and the Kelleher family's personal involvement, recent reviews (2014–2024) reveal a troubling pattern of billing issues, poor communication, and service failures that suggest operational decline. The company's reputation appears to rest on historical goodwill rather than current performance.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews cluster in 2014–2022; recent reviews (2023–2024) are predominantly 5-star, suggesting possible selection bias or improved practices, but insufficient recent data to confirm trend reversal.
• BILLING DISPUTES: Multiple reviews (2022, 2020, 2018, 2016, 2014) cite unauthorized charges, double-billing, material markups, and refusal to negotiate—this is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Several reviews document incomplete repairs requiring callbacks (2014, 2022), service no-shows (2017), and follow-up failures (2024, 2019)—critical red flags for a service company.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE DETERIORATION: Complaints about unresponsive phone lines, refusal to communicate, and dismissive management (2014, 2017, 2018) suggest organizational dysfunction at the office level.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: Technical errors documented (over-charged Freon requiring correction by competitor, water damage from poor installation, incomplete repairs) indicate inconsistent workmanship despite skilled technicians.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: The two most recent 5-star reviews (2024-11-08, 2023-09-15, 2023-08-29) are notably detailed and specific, but the 2024 review uses formal language ('Mr and Mrs H') and reads like a testimonial rather than organic feedback. However, insufficient evidence to definitively flag as fake.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While the sample size is adequate (30 reviews), the company exhibits a clear historical pattern of service and billing failures that recent positive reviews do not fully offset. The score reflects genuine technical competence undermined by operational and customer service problems. Prospective customers should independently verify current practices and obtain multiple quotes, as pricing complaints are consistent and substantial.

Total Plumbing exhibits a deeply polarized review pattern with stark contrasts between positive and negative experiences. Positive reviews (primarily from 2016-2025) consistently praise Ruben's professionalism, fair pricing, and quality workmanship. However, negative reviews (concentrated in 2017-2019, with some recent exceptions) reveal serious systemic issues: incomplete work, aggressive upselling tactics (particularly with AHS warranty claims), missed appointments, poor communication, and lack of accountability. Project completion is the weakest dimension, with multiple reports of abandoned jobs, callbacks that weren't honored, and work requiring correction by other plumbers. Pricing concerns center on undisclosed fees and inflated charges for standard services. The company's heavy reliance on home warranty referrals correlates with complaints about aggressive add-on charges.

• SEVERE POLARIZATION: Reviews split sharply between 5-star praise (mostly Ruben-specific) and 1-star condemnation (often other technicians). This suggests inconsistent service quality or possible selective review posting.
• SYSTEMATIC AHS COMPLAINTS: Multiple independent reviews (2017-2019) describe identical patterns: undisclosed fees, pressure to pay out-of-pocket charges, false claims about code requirements, and aggressive upselling. This is not isolated—it appears to be a business practice.
• INCOMPLETE/ABANDONED WORK: At least 8 reviews document unfinished jobs, callbacks not honored, or work requiring correction by competitors. Examples: garbage disposal replaced 3 times for same issue; sub-pump installed improperly causing $20-25K flood damage; dishwasher line replaced incompletely.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reports of missed appointments, no-shows without notice, blocked phone numbers, and failure to return calls. One customer was blocked after a scheduling miscommunication.
• CREDIBILITY CONCERNS: Several reviews describe technicians denying obvious mistakes (bent water heater, improper connections) and refusing to acknowledge damage caused by their work.
• RECENCY BIAS: Negative reviews cluster in 2017-2019 (older, lower weight) but recent negative reviews (2024-2025) suggest problems persist. Positive reviews span entire timeline but lack specificity in recent years.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: One empty review (5-star, no text, 2021-06-10) and several generic praise reviews with minimal detail. However, most reviews contain specific details and are not obviously fabricated.
• SAMPLE COMPOSITION: 45 five-star reviews vs. 24 one-star reviews creates appearance of 65% satisfaction, but depth analysis reveals serious structural problems in execution and ethics.

This WW Score of 62.8 should be treated with CAUTION. While the MODERATE overall confidence reflects adequate mention counts, the extreme polarization and documented pattern of systematic issues (particularly around AHS warranty work) suggest the company's actual reliability is lower than the score indicates. The score is pulled upward by numerous positive reviews about Ruben specifically, but masks serious problems with project completion, communication, and ethical pricing practices that affect a substantial portion of customers. Prospective customers should read the detailed negative reviews carefully, particularly those describing AHS interactions and incomplete work, before engaging this company.