Find Nearby Plumbers In Richmond, Virginia

This contractor demonstrates severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by unprofessional behavior (smoking in customer homes, deleting negative reviews, unresponsiveness to callbacks). Pricing is consistently problematic with bait-and-quote tactics, inflated labor charges, and lack of transparency—customers report being quoted one price then charged significantly more upon arrival. Project completion is severely compromised with incomplete installations, abandoned work requiring customers to hire other contractors at substantial cost ($3k+ in one case), and failure to honor warranty obligations. Experience and workmanship are poor, evidenced by incorrect installations (improper ductwork sealing, unsafe piping ratings, missing safety devices, incorrect equipment placement), defective work discovered months or years later, and inability to diagnose problems correctly. All six reviews are uniformly negative with specific, detailed complaints spanning 2010–2014.

• CRITICAL: All six reviews are 1–2 star ratings with detailed, specific complaints. This is not a fake review pattern but rather consistent evidence of systemic business failures.
• Multiple reviews document financial harm requiring legal action, credit card chargebacks, and hiring competing contractors to remediate work.
• Evidence of permit violations, lack of final inspections, and potential regulatory non-compliance mentioned in multiple reviews.
• Pattern of bait-and-switch pricing: low initial quotes followed by substantial increases upon service delivery.
• Documented unprofessional conduct including smoking in customer homes, deleting negative reviews from social media, and ignoring customer communication.
• All reviews are from 2010–2014 (10+ years old). No recent reviews available to assess whether practices have improved.

This WW Score of 18.5 is highly reliable given the consistent, detailed, and specific nature of complaints across six independent reviews spanning multiple years and service types. However, the age of all reviews (2010–2014) means current business practices are unknown; the score reflects historical performance only.

George Foster Services demonstrates severe and consistent failures across all measured dimensions. Six of eight reviews report catastrophic professionalism failures including no-call/no-shows on multiple scheduled appointments, complete non-responsiveness to customer calls and voicemails, and dishonest communication with both customers and warranty companies. Project completion is critically compromised, with customers waiting weeks or months for promised callbacks and follow-ups that never materialize. Technical competence is questionable, with documented instances of incorrect diagnostics, improper installation techniques (using a torch instead of proper soldering), and leaving dangerous conditions (improperly installed capacitors). Only two positive reviews exist, both from 2019, while six one-star reviews span 2019-2022, indicating a persistent pattern rather than isolated incidents.

• CRITICAL: Pattern of no-call/no-show behavior documented in at least 3 separate reviews with multiple failed appointments
• CRITICAL: Systematic non-responsiveness to customer calls and voicemails across 6 reviews; customers report weeks of unanswered contact attempts
• CRITICAL: Dishonest communication documented—misrepresenting work status to customers and warranty companies differently
• CRITICAL: Potential fraud indicators—customer reports payment taken with no follow-up service; another reports technician left job mid-repair with extracted refrigerant
• CRITICAL: Technical incompetence documented—improper installation techniques (torch instead of sweating), incorrect diagnostics, leaving dangerous conditions
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2019-2020; only 2 positive reviews exist (2019), suggesting either business closure or continued poor service with fewer recent reviews
• PATTERN: All negative reviews cite home warranty assignments; positive reviews appear to be direct customers, suggesting selective service quality or potential review manipulation

This WW Score of 18.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 8 reviews with consistent, explicit evidence across all dimensions. The overwhelming majority of reviews (75%) report severe, documented failures in professionalism, completion, and technical competence. The two positive reviews are substantially outweighed by detailed, specific complaints from customers describing no-shows, non-responsiveness, dishonest communication, and dangerous workmanship. This business presents significant risk to consumers.

The overwhelming majority of reviews describe a contractor with severe, consistent failures across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is critically low, with multiple reviewers citing non-responsiveness, no-call no-shows, unbranded vehicles, and technicians lacking basic equipment. Project completion is the weakest area, with jobs routinely abandoned, left unresolved for weeks, or declared outside the company's specialty only after payment was collected. Pricing concerns center on collecting deductibles or fees without delivering results, which reviewers characterize as dishonest. The sole positive review, from 2017, describes a prompt and knowledgeable technician, but it is an isolated data point nearly 7 years old and is vastly outweighed by seven 1-star reviews spanning 2019–2022.

• RECENCY WARNING: The only positive review is dated December 2017 — over 6 years old. All negative reviews are from 2019–2022, suggesting a significant and sustained decline in service quality. The positive review should be given minimal weight.
• PATTERN WARNING: Two reviews (2019-05-23 and 2020-08-14) contain nearly identical phrasing — one appears to be a direct quote of the other or a copy-paste. This may indicate a duplicated review submission rather than two independent customer experiences. Confidence in the positive signal from any outlier review is reduced.
• SYSTEMIC FAILURE FLAG: Multiple independent reviewers report the same core failures — no phone answer, no callbacks, deductibles taken without service rendered, and jobs abandoned mid-process. This consistency across unrelated reviewers strongly suggests structural operational problems rather than isolated incidents.
• BBB COMPLAINT FLAG: At least two reviewers explicitly stated they filed or intended to file BBB complaints, indicating the issues may extend beyond online reviews to formal regulatory channels.
• NO VERIFIED ADDRESS FLAG: One reviewer explicitly noted the company lists no physical address, only a county and zip code, which raises legitimacy concerns.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall confidence due to a sufficient number of reviews (8), but the score is heavily skewed by 7 consistent 1-star reviews against a single dated 5-star review, making the low score highly credible and the contractor's poor performance well-documented.

All three reviews are negative and paint a deeply concerning picture of this contractor. Professionalism is severely damaged by reports of an employee becoming defensive and hanging up on a customer, refusing to provide receipts, failing to follow up for over two weeks, and demanding cash payment with no license number provided. Pricing is flagged as predatory, with one review detailing a faucet marked up from $89 to over $400 with no upfront estimate given, and another warning of a surprisingly high cash-only bill. Project completion is also poor, with one customer never receiving a callback and having to hire a different plumber entirely. The only marginally positive note is that the business owner 'Charlie' was described as personally pleasant in a prior engagement, but this does little to offset the pattern of serious misconduct documented across all three reviews.

• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAG: One review alleges that employee Ronald Poindexter has an expired plumbing license (expired 2006 per DPOR records), which would constitute unlicensed contracting — a significant legal and safety concern.
• FRAUD/ELDER ABUSE FLAG: One review explicitly alleges financial exploitation of an elderly customer, including a 350%+ markup on a faucet with no upfront estimate and refusal to provide a receipt.
• UNLICENSED SUBCONTRACTOR FLAG: A second review warns of a subcontractor ('Ronnie') who provided no address, phone number, or license number and demanded cash-only payment.
• RECENCY NOTE: Only one review is within the past 12 months (June 2021). The other two are from 2017. The most recent review is the most severe. All reviews are older than 1 year as of a 2024 analysis date.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 3 reviews are available. While the WW Score has been calculated, it should be treated with caution due to the small sample size.
• NO FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: Reviews are distinct in language, detail, and rating. No patterns suggesting fabricated positive reviews were detected. All reviews are negative and specific.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all negative, with the most recent dating to 2021 — the score should be treated as directionally accurate but not statistically robust; however, the severity and specificity of the allegations, including potential unlicensed work and financial exploitation, make this contractor a high-risk choice regardless of score confidence.

This contractor exhibits severe and systemic failures across all dimensions. The overwhelming majority of reviews (28 of 37) document chronic no-shows, missed appointments, and abandoned work. Professionalism is critically compromised by repeated tardiness, unresponsiveness, and dishonest communication. Pricing concerns are severe, with multiple reports of inflated quotes, unauthorized work, and non-refundable deposits obtained through fraudulent contracts. Project completion is the most damaging dimension, with extensive evidence of incomplete jobs, broken promises, and customers forced to hire other contractors to finish work. A small subset of positive reviews (5-6) praise specific crew members (Manuel, Mr. Castillo) and describe quality work, but these are vastly outweighed by fraud allegations, identity theft claims, and evidence of serial deception across multiple identities and business names.

• CRITICAL: Extensive evidence of fraudulent business practices including forged signatures, false identities (Jesse Alberio operating under multiple aliases: Alberto, Alverio, Mr. Fixit, ActNowPlumbing), and multiple addresses across multiple states
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document criminal behavior including theft of customer deposits, cashing checks for services not rendered, and alleged identity theft
• CRITICAL: Pattern of extreme project abandonment—customers report being left without functional plumbing for days/weeks after partial work and payment
• CRITICAL: Fake address documented (944 Rt 146 Clifton Park does not exist per Google Street View)
• CRITICAL: BBB dumped this company; multiple lawsuits filed by customers; arrest records mentioned in NC and NY
• SUSPICIOUS PATTERN: 5-6 highly positive reviews (all 5-star or 4-star, mostly generic praise like 'Great job', 'Amazing and cheap', 'They did a good job') clustered on 2019-06-11 and 2018-06-11 with minimal detail, contrasting sharply with detailed negative reviews. These appear potentially fabricated or posted by associates
• RECENCY: Most reviews are from 2018-2019 (5+ years old). Only 1 review from 2020 (positive, professional). This suggests either the business changed operations or reviews became less accessible
• INCONSISTENCY: Positive reviews mention different crew members (Manuel, Mr. Castillo) than negative reviews (Jesse, Tara, Shane), suggesting possible legitimate crew members working under a fraudulent operator's business name

This score cannot be reliably calculated and should NOT be used for decision-making. The data reveals a business engaged in systematic fraud, identity theft, and criminal conduct. The positive reviews appear potentially fabricated and are vastly outnumbered by detailed, corroborated accounts of theft, abandonment, and deception. DO NOT USE THIS CONTRACTOR under any circumstances.

These reviews are for a plumbing supply store (Hajoca), not a contractor or plumber. The reviews evaluate retail service, product availability, and staff helpfulness rather than job completion, punctuality, or workmanship on actual plumbing projects. While experience/knowledge is mentioned positively (5 mentions), pricing feedback is mixed (2 mentions), and professionalism/project completion cannot be reliably assessed from supply store reviews. A WW Score cannot be calculated as this business model does not align with the contractor/plumber evaluation framework.

• CRITICAL: These reviews are for a plumbing supply retailer (Hajoca), not a contractor or plumber. The WW Score engine is designed to evaluate service contractors, not retail stores.
• Most reviews are older than 1 year (6 of 8 reviews from 2013-2017). Only 1 review from 2023.
• Reviews focus on retail experience (product availability, staff friendliness, store hours) rather than project execution, job completion, or workmanship quality.
• Professionalism dimension cannot be scored—reviews mention 'friendly' and 'helpful' staff but do not address punctuality, communication on projects, or professional conduct in a service context.
• Project completion dimension has zero mentions—no reviews discuss whether jobs were finished on time, completed fully, or callbacks were honored.
• Pricing feedback is contradictory: one review praises 'great price' and 'reasonable pricing,' while another questions a $100 price premium with no clear explanation.

This WW Score cannot be reliably calculated because the reviews are for a plumbing supply store, not a contractor or plumber service provider. The evaluation framework does not apply to retail operations. Do not use this score for contractor evaluation purposes.