Find Nearby Plumbers In Richmond, Virginia

New Age Plumbing has a strong and consistent reputation for fair, transparent pricing and responsive service, with the vast majority of reviewers praising Primo and his team as honest and reasonably priced. Professionalism scores are solid overall but are meaningfully dragged down by several credible negative reviews describing no-shows without communication, a technician giving a customer the finger, unanswered callbacks, and a stolen faucet — these are serious incidents that cannot be dismissed. Project completion is the most concerning dimension: while most jobs are described as completed efficiently, there are multiple explicit accounts of incomplete work (a hot water leak left unresolved), failure to clean up debris, refusal to provide receipts, and a significant sewer inspection failure that cost a customer $3,000 — all of which suppress the score considerably. Experience scores are generally positive, with reviewers frequently citing skilled diagnosis and quality workmanship, though the sewer misdiagnosis and the incomplete hot water heater job introduce meaningful doubt. The review base spans over a decade (2011–2024), and more recent reviews (2023–2024) trend positively, suggesting some improvement over time.

• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2011 to 2024. Approximately 18 reviews are older than 3 years and 10 are older than 5 years. More recent reviews (2023–2024) are predominantly positive, but older negative incidents are substantive and should not be ignored.
• SERIOUS INCIDENT — PROJECT COMPLETION: One reviewer (2023-08-01) explicitly states the technician left without fixing a continuous hot water leak after replacing the water heater, and the company then avoided their calls. This is a significant project abandonment flag.
• SERIOUS INCIDENT — PROFESSIONALISM: One reviewer (2016-05-20) states that 'Larry' gave them the finger when asked to wait and discuss an unresolved issue. This is an extreme professionalism failure.
• RELIABILITY INCIDENT: One reviewer (2017-07-14) describes a confirmed appointment where 'Larry' never showed, never called, and never responded to texts or voicemails. A second reviewer (2021-12-22) describes two consecutive days of no-shows with no communication.
• TRUST/ETHICS INCIDENT: One reviewer (2022-12-13) states the plumber took their old faucet without permission and never returned calls about it. Another reviewer (2021-03-19) states the plumber refused to show a receipt for parts and became angry when asked.
• SERIOUS COMPETENCE INCIDENT: One reviewer (2012-12-28) paid $250 for a sewer inspection that declared pipes 'old but in good condition.' A contractor's plumber subsequently found extensive blistering and rust, requiring $3,000 in sewer replacement work. This is a significant diagnostic failure.
• CLEANUP FAILURES: Multiple reviews (2020-07-23, 2021-03-19) explicitly mention failure to clean up debris or patch holes after completing work.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary meaningfully in tone, detail, length, rating, and content. Negative reviews are specific and credible. No suspicious clustering of identical phrasing was observed.
• PAYMENT NOTE: One reviewer (2021-04-17) notes the company does not accept credit cards, which may be a consideration for some customers.

This WW Score is based on 42 reviews spanning 13 years with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; however, the presence of multiple credible, specific negative incidents — including job abandonment, no-shows, a physical gesture of disrespect, a stolen item, and a costly inspection failure — means the score should be interpreted cautiously, and prospective customers are advised to confirm scope of work in writing and verify follow-through commitments before hiring.

DG Plumbing (Danny) receives overwhelmingly positive feedback across all four dimensions, with the majority of reviewers praising his responsiveness, fair pricing, and technical skill. However, three significant negative reviews meaningfully drag down the scores: one detailed 1-star review describes a botched toilet installation that caused flooding, a failure to return to fix the issue, and a preference for cash with a surcharge — directly impacting professionalism and project completion scores. A second negative review describes a no-show appointment with no follow-up communication, and a third (from 2010, involving a different technician named Geno) describes repeated failed repairs and inability to get a refund. Pricing is the strongest dimension, with many reviewers independently calling out fair and transparent rates. Project completion is the weakest scored dimension due to the serious incomplete-work incident and the no-show complaint.

• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A cluster of 9 reviews were posted within a 2-day window (2024-08-10 to 2024-08-12), several using near-identical praise language ('responsive,' 'reliable,' 'fair prices,' 'highly recommend'). While not conclusively fake, this pattern is suspicious and warrants caution. Confidence in that sub-cluster is reduced.
• THIRD-PARTY REVIEWER: One 5-star review (2023-10-16) is explicitly written by the owner of 'Rob's Odd Jobs,' a business partner who refers clients to Danny. This is a conflict-of-interest review and should not be treated as an independent customer review. It was excluded from scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: Two negative reviews are older — one from 2017 and one from 2010 — and may reference different personnel or an earlier version of the business. The 2010 review references a technician named 'Geno,' not Danny, suggesting possible business ownership change. These were weighted lightly but not excluded, as they reflect documented negative experiences.
• CASH PREFERENCE WITH SURCHARGE: The detailed 1-star review (2024-08-19) explicitly states Danny charged $50 extra for non-cash payment. This is a transparency and pricing concern that partially offsets the otherwise strong pricing scores.
• INCOMPLETE WORK INCIDENT: The 1-star review (2024-08-19) describes Danny leaving a toilet installation without connecting the supply line, resulting in office flooding. Danny allegedly refused to return and denied responsibility. This is a serious project completion and professionalism failure that is weighted heavily in scoring.

This WW Score is based on a reasonably large review set with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but reliability is moderately reduced by a suspicious burst of reviews in a short window, one conflict-of-interest review from a business partner, and one serious documented incident of incomplete work with property damage — consumers should weigh these flags carefully before hiring.

Agape Plumbing, led by Eugene Clark, earns strong marks across most dimensions based on a consistent pattern of positive reviews spanning several years. Professionalism is well-documented with repeated praise for punctuality, courtesy, and communication, though it is meaningfully dragged down by one review describing a no-show appointment and a lie about contact, and a 2006 review where the plumber left without resolving the issue and failed to follow up as promised. Pricing is a genuine strength, with multiple reviewers independently describing costs as reasonable or fair, and one instance of pro bono follow-up work. Project completion is solid overall — Eugene is frequently described as resolving issues fully and even returning the next day to address a secondary problem at no charge — but the no-show incident and the unresolved water leak in the 2006 review prevent a higher score. Experience is consistently praised, with reviewers highlighting technical knowledge and effective problem-solving, including a specific comparison where Eugene succeeded where another plumber failed entirely.

• One serious negative review (2024-01-03): Customer reports a no-show appointment and alleges the contractor lied about contacting the store. This is the most recent review in the dataset and carries elevated weight under recency rules.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months; only one review falls within the past 12 months (2024-01-03), and it is the sole negative review. The bulk of positive reviews date from 2017–2022, meaning recent performance is underrepresented and the 2024 negative incident cannot be offset by recent positives.
• Two reviews dated 2017-10-04 share nearly identical phrasing and structure ('He looked at it, gave me a good quote... went to work', 'He came over promptly, gave me a good quote'). These may be from the same reviewer or could reflect a pattern worth noting, though they are not identical enough to confirm fabrication.
• The 2006 review is extremely dated and was given reduced weight in scoring due to age, though it does contain relevant negative signals about project completion and follow-through.
• No reviews mention hidden charges or billing disputes beyond the 2006 partial-billing incident, which was ultimately resolved by the owner at no charge.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability given the volume of reviews and multi-dimensional coverage, but should be interpreted cautiously due to the recency gap — the only review from the past 12 months is a serious complaint, and the majority of positive evidence is 2–7 years old.

Mr. Rooter of Richmond scores well on professionalism, with a large number of reviewers explicitly praising punctuality, courteous technicians, shoe covers, cleanup, and communication — these positives are consistent across many years of reviews. Project completion is generally strong, with most jobs described as fully resolved, though a meaningful minority of negative reviews cite misdiagnosis, incomplete work, or jobs left worse than found. Experience scores are solid overall but are dragged down by several credible accounts of misdiagnosis and upselling without attempting simpler solutions first. Pricing is the weakest dimension by a significant margin: multiple detailed negative reviews across different years describe charges perceived as grossly disproportionate to the work performed, lack of upfront pricing transparency, and at least one alleged attempt at an under-the-table scam — these are not isolated incidents and represent a persistent pattern.

• 35 reviews contain no text (blank, 'unknown', or single punctuation) and were excluded from dimension scoring — these inflate the raw review count without providing usable data.
• Pricing complaints are a persistent, multi-year pattern (2011–2024): multiple reviewers independently describe charges of $300–$619 for minor repairs, lack of upfront pricing, and billing for time not worked. This is a structural concern, not isolated incidents.
• One review (2020-10-04) alleges a technician offered to perform work 'under the table' for $2,500 on a $100 part — a serious fraud allegation. This was reported to the company but its resolution is unknown.
• One review (2024-02-24) and one review (2023-11-05) describe misdiagnosis leading to expensive unnecessary recommendations; in both cases the customer solved the problem independently for a fraction of the quoted price.
• One review (2013-12-01) describes technicians tracking mud through the home, ripping vinyl flooring, poking a hole in a wall, and the technician refusing to accept responsibility — a significant workmanship and professionalism failure.
• One review (2013-06-14) describes a toilet left in worse condition after the service call, with scratch marks left inside the bowl.
• One review (2018-06-12) describes a promised quote that was never delivered after multiple follow-up calls — a project follow-through failure.
• One review (2013-09-30) describes four unreturned calls after service was performed — a communication failure.
• The large volume of blank or 'unknown' reviews (all rated 4 or 5 stars) is a mild flag for possible review padding, though not conclusive. No strong fake review pattern detected in the substantive reviews.
• Review recency note: A significant portion of detailed reviews are from 2012–2018. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) are predominantly positive but many lack detail. Pricing complaints appear in both older and more recent reviews (2022, 2023, 2024), suggesting the issue has not been resolved.

This WW Score is based on a large review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously on pricing — the volume and specificity of pricing complaints across more than a decade represent a credible and consistent pattern that meaningfully lowers trustworthiness in that dimension.

Plumb Perfect Plumbing scores well on professionalism and experience, with the large majority of reviewers praising courteous, knowledgeable technicians who arrive on time and communicate clearly. Project completion is generally strong — most jobs are finished as promised — but a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete fixes, return visits needed, or work that had to be redone by another plumber, which pulls the score down. Pricing is the weakest dimension by a significant margin: multiple independent reviewers across different years cite charges they considered excessive, hidden trip fees, non-itemized invoices, and quotes far above competitors, with several 1–2 star reviews driven entirely by pricing concerns. The volume and consistency of pricing complaints across a wide date range make this a genuine and persistent pattern rather than isolated incidents.

• 15 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• A cluster of 5-star reviews from 2025-05-19 (7 reviews on the same date) contains very brief, generic praise with minimal specifics. While not conclusively fake, this pattern warrants caution and these reviews were weighted conservatively.
• One review (2016-06-11) explicitly states 'I love this place because my dad works here' — this is a conflicted-interest review and was excluded from scoring.
• Pricing complaints span from 2012 through 2025, indicating a long-standing and systemic issue rather than isolated incidents. Multiple reviewers independently describe feeling overcharged, encountering undisclosed trip fees, receiving non-itemized invoices, or receiving quotes significantly above competitors.
• Several negative reviews describe workmanship failures: a plumber who failed to fix a clogged drain (later fixed by a competitor), a washer installation with transport bolts left in causing damage, a shower installation with the shower head not connected, and a pipe with a hole covered by tape that was missed. These are factored into the project completion and experience scores.
• One review (2020-10-07) describes an unauthorized double charge that was not resolved promptly, and another (2017-10-17) describes a detailed billing dispute involving alleged inflation of labor hours. These are serious integrity concerns.
• Most reviews from 2012–2016 reference a different operational era and possibly different ownership. One reviewer (2020-09-30) notes the company is under new ownership. Scores were not artificially separated by era but this context is noted.
• Recency note: The majority of detailed, substantive reviews are from 2018–2025. Reviews from 2012–2016 are older than 8 years and were given reduced weight.

With 140 reviews containing usable data spanning over a decade, this WW Score carries HIGH overall confidence, though the pricing dimension score of 52 is particularly well-evidenced and should be treated as a reliable signal of a genuine and recurring concern for prospective customers.

Plumber Near Me LLC earns strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness across a large volume of reviews, with many customers praising punctuality, friendly communication, and same-day availability. Experience and workmanship are frequently cited positively, with named technicians like Dewey, Casey, Aidan, and others receiving consistent praise for technical skill and clear explanations. However, pricing is a significant drag on the score: multiple reviewers across different time periods explicitly called out quotes as extremely high, non-transparent, or unreasonable, and several negative reviews describe being charged for incomplete or no work. Project completion is also mixed — while most jobs are described as finished promptly, there are credible complaints about technicians not returning as promised, failed repairs requiring callbacks, and one instance of a repair that immediately leaked after completion. The combination of strong positive volume and a meaningful cluster of serious negative experiences produces a moderate-to-good but not excellent overall score.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review describing replacement of a leaking outdoor hose bib (Casey, same-day service, 20-minute job) appears verbatim twice — once dated 2025-05-10 and once dated 2024-07-08. This is a copy-paste duplicate and one instance has been discounted.
• CLUSTER OF SAME-DATE REVIEWS: A large number of reviews (approximately 20+) share the exact date of 2024-06-09 and 2023-06-10. While not all are identical in content, this clustering pattern is unusual and may indicate a coordinated review push or incentivized review campaign. Confidence in this subset is reduced.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE RECURRING AND SPECIFIC: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2019, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025) explicitly cite overpricing, lack of transparency, or being charged for work not completed. This is a consistent pattern, not isolated incidents.
• ABANDONMENT AND NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least three separate reviews (2024-07-02, 2023-08-17, 2025-05-10) describe the company failing to follow up, not returning as promised, or charging fees without completing work. This is a notable reliability concern.
• FAILED REPAIR REPORTED: One reviewer (2025-03-11) paid $570 for a PVC repair that leaked immediately upon water restoration, and the company was slow to honor the warranty callback.
• TECHNICIAN CONDUCT COMPLAINT: One detailed review (2024-06-28) describes a technician named Adam behaving rudely, dismissively, and unprofessionally toward an elderly customer. This is an outlier but a serious one.
• THEFT ALLEGATION: One review (2019-02-13) alleges a technician named Shawn stole money and never returned a promised refund. This is unverified but noted as a serious flag.
• RECENCY NOTE: A significant portion of reviews predate 2023 and some predate 2021. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show a mix of strong positives and notable negatives, suggesting performance may be inconsistent rather than uniformly improving.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Several reviews contain no text and only a star rating (5 stars). These have been excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (110 reviews) and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy, but consumers should weigh the recurring pricing complaints, documented no-show and abandonment incidents, and the suspicious same-date review clustering before making a hiring decision.