Find Nearby Plumbers In Richmond, Virginia

James River Irrigation demonstrates severe deficiencies across nearly all dimensions. Professionalism is critically weak, with consistent complaints about unreturned calls, unresponsiveness, poor communication, and unprofessional behavior spanning multiple years. Project completion is the most damaging dimension—multiple reviews document incomplete work, abandoned jobs, lack of follow-up, and damage caused during service (broken pipes, snapped lines, damaged property). While a few recent reviews (2021–2023) suggest possible improvements in responsiveness and technical skill, the overwhelming pattern of failures, particularly from 2015–2019, indicates systemic operational problems. Pricing appears reasonable when work is completed, but poor value is evident when jobs are abandoned or incomplete.

• CRITICAL: Strong pattern of non-responsiveness and abandoned work across multiple years (2015–2019, 2023). Three separate reviews document customers left without callbacks after deposits or service requests.
• CRITICAL: Multiple reports of damage caused during service (broken pipes, snapped lines, cracked pipes, property flooding) with company denial of responsibility.
• TEMPORAL CONCERN: Most damaging reviews are from 2015–2019. Recent reviews (2021–2023) show improvement in responsiveness and professionalism, suggesting possible company changes. However, 2023 reviews still report incomplete work and communication failures.
• INCONSISTENCY: One 2021 review praises the company and suggests changes were made; however, 2023 reviews contradict this, indicating problems may have recurred or never fully resolved.
• RELIABILITY ISSUE: Long gaps between service requests and follow-up (weeks to months) documented in multiple reviews.

This score is highly reliable due to substantial evidence across 8 reviews spanning 8 years, with consistent patterns of failure in professionalism and project completion. However, the temporal split between older severe failures (2015–2019) and recent mixed results (2021–2023) suggests the company may be in transition; scores should be interpreted as reflecting a historically problematic company with uncertain current status.

Kane Plumbing receives a critically low WW Score of 32.8, driven primarily by severe and consistent pricing complaints across 8 of 9 reviews. Customers report hourly rates of $180–$292 without advance disclosure, resulting in bills of $562–$1,800 for routine work, with multiple instances of incomplete problem diagnosis. Professionalism is compromised by unprofessional technician behavior, failure to honor customer requests (door left open causing pet loss), poor communication, and unresponsiveness to follow-up calls. Project completion is mixed—some work was completed but often failed to solve the underlying problem, requiring customers to hire competitors. Experience shows technical competence in execution, but this is overshadowed by systemic failures in transparency, pricing ethics, and customer care. The two positive reviews (from 2015 and 2010) are vastly outweighed by seven 1-star reviews citing predatory billing practices.

• CRITICAL: Overwhelming pattern of pricing complaints (8 of 9 reviews). Customers consistently report being charged without advance quotes, with rates 2–3x market average ($100–$150 typical vs. $180–$292 charged). This suggests systemic billing practices, not isolated incidents.
• Multiple reviews report refusal to provide estimates in advance (at least 3 explicit mentions), indicating deliberate opacity in pricing.
• Two reviews mention management refusing to communicate or work with customers on payment disputes, suggesting poor customer service culture.
• One review reports unprofessional behavior (technician left door open, causing pet loss) and failure to follow customer instructions.
• Recency concern: Most negative reviews are from 2011–2018 (8+ years old). The two positive reviews are from 2010 and 2015. No recent reviews provided. Cannot assess if company practices have changed.
• Pattern of incomplete problem-solving: Multiple customers report paying for work that did not fix the underlying issue, requiring them to hire competitors (Michael and Sons mentioned twice).
• One customer reports being placed in collections without warning despite 27-year payment history, suggesting aggressive debt collection practices.

This WW Score of 32.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong warning signal. The score is based on 9 reviews with consistent, specific, and detailed complaints across multiple dimensions. However, all reviews are 6+ years old, so current practices may differ; prospective customers should seek recent references before engaging this company.

This contractor has a deeply mixed and largely negative review profile across all four dimensions. Professionalism is heavily dragged down by multiple explicit complaints of no-shows, unreturned calls, and unprofessional conduct, with only two reviews offering positive counterpoints. Pricing drew direct criticism for overcharging and a disputed $149 diagnostic fee with poor follow-through, though one reviewer described the pricing as fair. Project completion is a significant concern, with at least three reviews describing abandoned or never-started work, no-shows, and failure to deliver promised documentation. Experience scores slightly higher due to one detailed positive review praising technical skill, but is offset by one reviewer explicitly calling the workers 'rank amateurs.'

• Three of the six reviews are dated 2019 or earlier, with one as far back as 2013 and one from 2014 — only two reviews fall within the past 12 months (2023), meaning the majority of data is significantly outdated.
• The two positive reviews (2014 and 2023) are notably detailed and specific, reducing fake review suspicion, but the small sample size limits reliability.
• A recurring pattern of no-shows and unreturned calls appears in two separate reviews from 2019, suggesting a systemic reliability issue that may or may not have been resolved.
• With only 6 total reviews spanning a decade, this score should be treated with extreme caution — the sample is too small and too spread out in time to draw firm conclusions.

This WW Score is based on only 6 reviews spanning approximately 10 years, with most data being outdated, resulting in very low reliability — prospective customers should seek additional recent references before making a hiring decision.

Empire Plumbing demonstrates severe and consistent deficiencies across all measured dimensions. The company exhibits critical failures in professionalism, with 20 reviews documenting no-shows, missed appointments, poor communication, rude staff, and unresponsiveness to callbacks. Project completion is the most damaging dimension, with 22 reviews detailing incomplete work, multiple failed visits, abandoned jobs, and failure to honor commitments. Pricing concerns appear in 8 reviews, revealing dishonest billing practices, unauthorized charges, and misrepresentation to warranty companies. Experience scores reflect poor workmanship, misdiagnosis, code violations, and unsafe installations. Only 3 positive reviews exist among 25 total, and these are significantly outweighed by overwhelming negative evidence spanning from 2012 to 2019.

• CRITICAL: 22 of 25 reviews (88%) are 1-star ratings with detailed, specific complaints. This is not a pattern of isolated incidents but systemic failure.
• Multiple reviews document dangerous installations: water heaters installed against code with carbon monoxide risk, improper exhaust venting, and safety violations.
• Consistent pattern of no-shows and missed appointments across 15+ reviews with documented evidence (cameras, warranty company records, tenant testimony).
• Fraudulent billing practices documented: charging for services not rendered, misrepresenting work to warranty companies, attempting to collect duplicate deductibles, billing for inferior parts as superior ones.
• Repeated misdiagnosis and incomplete work: faucet requiring 3 visits, water heater requiring 4+ visits, sump pump assessment contradicted by lead technician, leak diagnosis proven wrong by insurance adjuster.
• Poor communication endemic: voicemails not returned, promised callbacks never made, false claims about attempted contact, no advance notice of delays.
• The 3 positive reviews (2012, 2017, 2018) are vastly outnumbered and do not offset the systematic pattern of failure. Two positive reviews mention specific technicians (Lee, Stephanie, Rodney) but Rodney is also named in a 1-star no-show review.
• Review dates span 2012-2019 with heaviest concentration of complaints 2015-2018, suggesting long-standing operational problems.
• Multiple warranty companies have terminated relationships with this contractor, indicating institutional recognition of failure.

This WW Score of 28.4 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 25 detailed reviews with explicit evidence across all dimensions, representing a clear and consistent pattern of severe professional failure, incomplete work, dishonest practices, and safety violations that spans multiple years.

This contractor has a deeply troubled review profile dominated by serious, specific complaints across all four scored dimensions. Multiple reviewers describe work being left incomplete after full payment, repeated no-shows without communication, and a failure to honor return commitments — all of which devastate the project completion score. Professionalism is similarly damaged by accounts of chronic tardiness, poor communication, and dishonest dealings. A critical licensing allegation — that neither the owner nor his father hold a valid plumbing license, with the father's license reportedly revoked in 2005 — severely undermines the experience score and raises legal and safety concerns. The handful of positive reviews (mostly from 2019–2021) describe a friendly, quick, and reasonably priced service, but these are outweighed in both volume and recency by the negative accounts, and the most recent reviews (2023–2024) are exclusively negative.

• SERIOUS LICENSING CONCERN: One reviewer provided detailed DPOR records alleging the owner (David Simmons) has never held a license, and his father (Donald Simmons) had his contractor license revoked in 2005. If accurate, this is a critical legal and safety issue for any prospective customer.
• RECENCY BIAS — NEGATIVE TREND: All reviews from 2023 and 2024 are 1-star. Positive reviews are concentrated in 2019–2021, suggesting a significant decline in service quality over time.
• PATTERN OF INCOMPLETE WORK: At least two independent reviewers explicitly state they paid in full and the job was never completed, with the contractor failing to return as promised.
• OWNER ADMISSION: One reviewer states the owner admitted he 'hated plumbing and wanted to get out of the business,' which may explain the deteriorating service pattern.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW AWARENESS: The positive reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'clean, quick, and economical'), while negative reviews contain specific names, dates, dollar amounts, and license numbers. The positive reviews are not flagged as fake but carry less evidentiary weight given the specificity of the negative accounts.
• TAX EVASION ALLEGATION: One reviewer alleges tax evasion. This cannot be verified from reviews alone but is noted as a serious claim.

This WW Score is based on 11 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions and carries MODERATE overall confidence; while mention counts are sufficient for HIGH confidence per dimension, the score should be treated with caution given the unverified but highly specific licensing allegations, which — if true — would make this contractor unsuitable to hire regardless of any other score.

This contractor's review set is deeply divided between two strongly negative and two strongly positive reviews, making a reliable assessment difficult. The negative reviews describe serious professionalism failures: ghosting clients after initial contact, ignoring calls and emails, and failing to return a customer's property — all of which heavily drag down the professionalism and project completion scores. The positive reviews praise speed, quality, and pricing, but they are generic in nature and lack specific detail, raising authenticity concerns. The BBB fraud flag mentioned in one review is a significant red flag that further undermines confidence in this contractor's integrity. Given the small sample size and the severity of the negative experiences described, scores are held conservative throughout.

• One review explicitly mentions this contractor was flagged by the Better Business Bureau for fraudulently displaying their logo — this is a serious integrity concern.
• The two positive reviews (5-star) are notably generic and lack specific project details, names, or verifiable context, raising suspicion of potentially inauthentic reviews.
• The contractor is accused in two separate reviews of completely ceasing communication after initial contact — a pattern consistent with unreliable or predatory business behavior.
• A customer's personal property (ladder) was allegedly taken and not returned despite initial promises — this constitutes a serious trust and conduct violation.
• All reviews are from 2020–2021 (3+ years old). No recent reviews are available, making it impossible to assess current business conduct.
• With only 4 total reviews, the WW Score carries very low statistical reliability and should be treated with significant caution.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning 2020–2021, with a stark positive/negative split, suspected generic positive reviews, and serious misconduct allegations — it should be considered highly unreliable and insufficient to make a confident hiring decision.