Find Nearby Plumbers In Virginia Beach, Virginia

Power Plumbing has a large and broadly positive review base spanning many years, with the majority of customers praising individual technicians by name for being professional, knowledgeable, punctual, and communicative. Professionalism scores are pulled down meaningfully by a recurring pattern of serious complaints: technicians arriving late or not at all, poor internal communication, unanswered callbacks, and at least one instance of inappropriate conduct by a technician. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple credible and detailed complaints about billing from the time a technician leaves a prior job rather than arrival on site, charges exceeding quoted amounts, parts marked up significantly, and in several cases customers feeling outright overcharged or scammed — including one allegation of a $10,000 unnecessary system replacement recommendation. Project completion is generally strong, with most jobs described as finished correctly, but there are notable failures including incomplete work, jobs requiring emergency return visits due to new damage caused during service, and at least one instance of a toilet being left uncleaned and a tank lid left on the floor. Technical experience is a relative strength, with many reviewers specifically praising diagnostic skill and problem-solving, though offset by several reviews describing technicians who misdiagnosed problems or lacked necessary tools.

• Multiple reviews appear to be duplicates submitted on different dates with identical text (e.g., the Brian overcharge review appears twice, the 'SO WONDERFUL' Kevin review appears twice, the 'Avoid Power Plumbing' lien review appears twice, and the Saturday water heater Kevin review appears twice). This inflates review count and may indicate platform cross-posting or manipulation.
• Several reviews contain no text and only a star rating (approximately 30+ blank reviews), which cannot be scored and reduce the reliability of the overall rating distribution.
• Two reviews appear to be about the physical filming location of the TV show Sanford and Son and are entirely unrelated to plumbing services — these were excluded from scoring.
• One review states 'It's my dads work' suggesting a potential fake or biased review from a family member.
• Pricing complaints are numerous, specific, and credible: at least 8 distinct reviewers with detailed billing grievances including charges for drive time not disclosed upfront, final bills 3x the quoted amount, $1,100+ for simple pipe replacements, and a $10,000 upsell allegation. This pattern is too consistent to dismiss.
• A significant number of highly positive reviews reference the same individual technicians (Rameez, Alan, Johnny, Jorge, David) repeatedly, which is consistent with genuine repeat customers but also warrants noting as a concentration of praise around specific individuals rather than the company as a whole.
• Recency note: The review set spans from 2006 to June 2025. Reviews from 2024-2025 are the most relevant and show a mixed but generally positive recent trend, though pricing complaints and professionalism failures continue into 2025.
• One review explicitly alleges the company installed a used, soiled toilet and another alleges a technician attempted to pick up a customer in her home — both are serious conduct allegations that, if accurate, represent significant professionalism failures beyond what the score alone conveys.

This WW Score is based on a very large review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but should be interpreted with caution due to confirmed duplicate reviews, a substantial number of blank reviews, serious and credible recurring pricing complaints, and several alarming conduct allegations that suggest meaningful inconsistency in service quality across different technicians and locations.

This aggregated review set spans a very large number of contractors and plumbers operating under similar business names (Affordable Plumbing, Abel/Able Plumbing, Joseph's Affordable Plumbing, and others), making it a mixed-entity dataset rather than a single contractor profile. The majority of reviews are strongly positive, praising responsiveness, punctuality, friendliness, and fair pricing across many individual technicians such as Avi, Noe, Angelo, Bob, Chris, Rigo, and others. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — roughly 15 to 20 percent of substantive reviews — describe serious issues including incomplete work, no-shows, dishonest pricing, rude owner behavior, property damage left unaddressed, and failure to honor callbacks or warranties. Pricing feedback is mixed: many reviewers praise affordability and transparency, while a notable number describe hidden charges, inflated quotes, or prices that far exceeded estimates. Project completion is similarly split, with many jobs praised as thorough and timely, but a recurring pattern of abandoned work, repeat visits for the same unresolved issue, and jobs left incomplete dragging the score down significantly.

• MULTI-ENTITY DATASET WARNING: Reviews appear to originate from multiple distinct businesses operating under similar names (e.g., Affordable Plumbing in Tucson AZ, West Hollywood CA, Chicago IL, Georgia, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and others). Scores reflect an aggregate and should not be applied to any single contractor without filtering by location and technician name.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A subset of reviews, particularly those dated 2017-06-08 through 2017-06-13 and 2018-06-08, share identical or near-identical dates with no review text detail (e.g., 'Excellent workmanship', 'Great job', 'Excellent', 'Very well'). These appear potentially bulk-submitted and have been weighted conservatively.
• NO-TEXT REVIEWS EXCLUDED: Approximately 15 to 20 reviews contained no review text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from approximately 2000 to June 2025. A significant portion of reviews predate 2020 and some predate 2015. Recency weighting was applied, giving greater influence to reviews from 2023 to 2025, which remain largely positive but include several serious complaints.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — OWNER CONDUCT: Multiple independent negative reviews across different apparent business locations describe the owner or manager as rude, argumentative, or retaliatory toward customers who complained. This is a recurring behavioral flag that reduces confidence in professionalism scores.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — INCOMPLETE WORK AND NO-SHOWS: Multiple reviews across different time periods describe technicians failing to show up for scheduled appointments without notice, jobs left unfinished, and management refusing to return to correct their own errors. This materially reduces the project completion score.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — PRICING DISPUTES: Several reviews describe quotes that escalated significantly after work began, charges for work not performed, and refusal to itemize costs. One review describes a quote growing from $75 to $7,000. These are serious red flags for pricing transparency.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE COMPLAINTS: At least three reviews describe property damage caused by technicians (scratched toilet, flooded house, broken shower door) with the company refusing to accept responsibility or make repairs.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but LOW entity reliability because the dataset aggregates reviews for multiple distinct businesses operating under similar names across different US cities and states; consumers should treat this score as a general industry benchmark rather than a rating for any single contractor, and must independently verify the specific business and technician before hiring.

Premier Plumbing draws a large volume of positive reviews praising individual technicians by name for professionalism, communication, punctuality, and technical skill, which drives reasonably strong scores in professionalism and experience. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — spanning the full date range of the dataset — document serious concerns including missed appointments with no communication, incorrect diagnoses charged at full price, abandoned work, and billing disputes, which significantly tempers all dimension scores. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple reviewers across different years describe charges they considered excessive, hidden fees, bait-and-switch quoting, and charges for work not performed, pulling the pricing score well below average. Project completion is also mixed, with several reviews describing jobs left incomplete, recurring problems not resolved, and callbacks that were never honored. The overall WW Score of 72.1 reflects a company with genuine strengths in individual technician quality but persistent systemic issues in billing transparency, communication, and follow-through.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Three reviews dated 2016-05-03 and 2016-05-05 are nearly word-for-word identical regarding a boiler/Rinnai/Trane installation. These appear to be duplicate submissions of the same review and were counted only once for scoring purposes.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 10 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (all 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: The review corpus appears to aggregate reviews from multiple businesses operating under similar 'Premier Plumbing' names across different geographic markets (Texas, California, South Carolina, Iowa, etc.). This significantly reduces the reliability of the aggregate score as it may not reflect a single contractor's performance.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews are distributed across the full date range (2006–2025), indicating that communication failures, no-shows, and billing disputes are not isolated incidents but recurring patterns over many years.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW-MODERATE: A subset of 5-star reviews from 2021–2023 use generic praise with no specifics ('Great company,' 'Always good service,' 'Excellent service'). These add minimal evidentiary weight and were not used to inflate dimension scores.
• ABANDONED WORK: At least two reviews explicitly describe technicians removing fixtures or cutting into walls and then not returning to complete the job, which is a serious project completion red flag.
• BILLING INTEGRITY CONCERNS: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe being charged for work not performed, incorrect diagnoses billed as repairs, and prices significantly higher than competing quotes for identical work.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its reliability as a reflection of any single contractor is MODERATE at best, given strong evidence that reviews span multiple unrelated businesses operating under the 'Premier Plumbing' name across different states, and that recurring negative patterns in billing, communication, and project completion are documented consistently across many years.

Prestige Plumbing has a large and predominantly positive review base spanning many years, with recurring praise for responsiveness, punctuality, technical skill, and fair pricing across dozens of detailed reviews. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — including serious allegations of price gouging, bait-and-switch pricing, no-shows, abandoned jobs, rude behavior, and poor workmanship — significantly tempers the overall score. Pricing in particular is a split dimension: many customers praised affordability and transparency, while several others explicitly described being charged double quoted amounts, overcharged for unrendered services, or pressured into expensive unnecessary work. Project completion is similarly mixed, with multiple reviews describing technicians who failed to return to finish jobs, ghosted customers after quoting, or left work incomplete. The experience dimension scores highest, as the majority of detailed reviews affirm genuine technical competence, but a handful of reviews describe incorrect diagnoses, faulty repairs, and property damage during work.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., two identical 'Poor quality of work' reviews on 2024-08-22, two identical 'Chico and crew did amazing work' reviews on 2023-01-16 and 2023-01-17, two identical 'Nick was great to deal with' reviews on 2024-05-29, two identical 'Very good job with good workmanshif' reviews on 2024-05-31, two identical 'Did excellent job' reviews on 2024-05-30, two identical 'Everything was fine' reviews on 2024-06-05, two identical 'So professional' reviews on 2024-06-03, two identical 'The plumber did a good job' reviews on 2024-07-22, two identical 'I spoke with Nick' reviews on 2024-08-04, two identical 'I had a great experience with Prestige Plumbing, thanks to Chico' reviews on 2024-09-03 and 2024-09-12, and two identical 'Shout out to Scott' reviews on 2023-12-01). These duplicates inflate the positive review count and reduce reliability.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN SUSPECTED: A large cluster of reviews dated exactly 2025-05-10 and 2025-06-02 through 2025-06-08 contain very short, generic, low-detail praise (e.g., 'LUIS IS THE BEST', 'Amazing Work by Luis great service', 'A good job y professional', 'Thank you Christian Correa!'). Several of these contain no substantive detail about the job performed, which is consistent with solicited or incentivized review patterns. Confidence in this recent cluster is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 5 reviews contain no text at all (only a 5-star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE ALLEGATIONS: Multiple 1-star reviews allege bait-and-switch pricing (quoted $450, charged $3,550+), double-charging after seeing a veteran's license plate, charging for services not rendered, no-shows on multiple scheduled appointments, ghosting customers after quoting, a technician who refused to complete work and left a mess, and a plumber who called a customer's husband a liar and treated a woman disrespectfully. These are not isolated incidents and span multiple years.
• ROAD CONDUCT COMPLAINTS: At least 3 separate reviews (2020, 2024, 2024) describe reckless or aggressive driving behavior by company vehicle operators, including speeding at 90mph with unsecured loads, cutting lanes, and road rage incidents. While not directly related to plumbing quality, these reflect on company culture and employee conduct.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews reference many different named technicians and locations (Hawaii, Florida, California, North Carolina), suggesting this may be a franchise, aggregated listing, or name-shared business rather than a single contractor. Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may reflect multiple distinct operations under one brand name.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (May-June 2025) are disproportionately short and generic, while the most detailed and credible reviews — both positive and negative — span 2019 through 2024. The 2025 cluster shows hallmarks of a review solicitation campaign and should be weighted lower.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be treated with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews, a suspected solicited-review campaign in the most recent period, serious and recurring negative allegations across multiple years, and strong evidence that this listing may aggregate reviews from multiple distinct business entities operating under the same name.

AM PM Plumbing has a large and broadly positive review base spanning over a decade, with many customers praising punctuality, friendliness, and technical competence across numerous technicians including Jose, Brian, Dax, Frankie, Clint, and others. However, a significant cluster of negative reviews — many specifically tied to home warranty (AHS) jobs — describes a consistent pattern of inflated 'modification' charges ranging from $525 to $675+ for work customers and independent contractors deemed unnecessary or grossly overpriced, which materially drags down both the pricing and project completion scores. Communication failures, including no-shows, unreturned calls, and unresponsive office staff, appear repeatedly across multiple years and represent a genuine operational weakness. The professionalism score is tempered by multiple credible accounts of rude technicians, threatening behavior over payment, and poor follow-through on estimates and callbacks. Experience scores remain relatively higher because many positive reviews specifically cite skilled diagnostics and quality workmanship, but shoddy work complaints from a minority of reviewers prevent a top-tier score.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: A notable cluster of reviews dated 2025-02-09 and 2025-03-11 show highly similar patterns — short, generic praise with initials appended (e.g., 'JG', 'G'), repetitive phrasing ('top notch', 'knowledgeable'), and several blank 5-star reviews with no text. Multiple reviews reference 'Brian and his team' with nearly identical language and the same appended initials, suggesting possible coordinated or incentivized review activity. Confidence in the most recent review cluster is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 30+ reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These have been excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• HOME WARRANTY SCAM PATTERN: At least 7 independent negative reviews (spanning 2023–2024) describe a near-identical scheme involving inflated 'modification' charges ($525–$675+) on AHS/home warranty jobs for parts customers and independent contractors deemed unnecessary or worth a fraction of the quoted price. This is a serious and credible pattern, not isolated complaints.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly 5-star and include suspected coordinated reviews. The negative reviews are concentrated in 2023–2024 and represent a meaningful share of substantive feedback. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) are given reduced weight but still inform long-term patterns.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reviews across different years cite unreturned calls, no-shows, unresponsive office staff, and failure to follow up on estimates — indicating a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.
• BBB RATING: One reviewer explicitly states the company holds an 'F' rating on the Better Business Bureau, which corroborates the pattern of complaints about deceptive billing practices.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEWS: At least 2 reviews appear to reference a different company or service entirely (e.g., an HVAC technician named Fernando at a veterinary hospital, and a reference to 'PM Plumbing and Mechanical' with HVAC services). These were excluded from scoring.

This WW Score of 72.1 is based on a large review set and carries HIGH data confidence, but should be interpreted cautiously due to a credible and recurring pattern of deceptive billing on home warranty jobs, suspected coordinated positive reviews in the most recent period, and documented communication failures — consumers using home warranty services in particular should exercise significant caution.

A1 Sewer and Drain earns strong marks for individual technician professionalism, with the vast majority of reviews praising named technicians as courteous, punctual, communicative, and respectful of customers' homes. However, pricing is a significant weak point: multiple reviews explicitly cite overcharging, non-transparent quotes, inconsistent pricing between representatives, and charges perceived as grossly unfair relative to the work performed, pulling the price score down considerably. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are completed efficiently and correctly on the first visit, but a meaningful number of reviews describe missed appointments, no-shows, wrong equipment brought to jobs, incomplete work requiring multiple return visits, and at least one case of a faulty installation never properly resolved. Experience scores moderately well overall, with many reviewers praising technical knowledge and problem-solving, but offset by several credible accounts of misdiagnosis, unnecessary upselling, and work that had to be corrected by other companies.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Eight reviews dated 2025-06-05 through 2025-06-08 are exact word-for-word duplicates of reviews from the same period (JaJuan spigots review, Mitchell sink review, P. Corbett review, Mike Hannan two reviews, Jeronmy Nixon review, Willie review, and the generic 'professional and courteous technician' review each appear twice). These duplicates were counted only once per unique review for scoring purposes but strongly suggest either a platform glitch or potential review manipulation.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several reviews are extremely generic with no specific details (e.g., 'A professional and courteous technician.', 'Outstanding service.', 'Very Professional and Pleasant', 'Amazing company from setting up the appointment to the technician completing the job.'). These provide no scorable data and inflate the apparent review count.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 7 reviews contain no text whatsoever despite carrying a 5-star rating. These were excluded from scoring as they provide no usable data.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENTS: Multiple 1-star reviews describe significant misconduct including alleged fraudulent upselling (crawl space flooded with sewage, $18,500 job claimed unnecessary), a $6,000 charge alleged to be double the fair market rate, a faulty $8,000 tankless water heater installation never properly resolved, a technician ignoring a reported gas smell that was later confirmed as two real leaks by the gas company, and a customer alleging scam membership sales tactics.
• OFFICE VS. TECHNICIAN SPLIT: A recurring pattern across multiple detailed reviews distinguishes excellent individual technician performance from poor office/scheduling/billing operations. This structural issue is a reliability risk that the aggregate score cannot fully capture.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2024-2025 and are therefore within the 12-month recency window. A small number of reviews date back to 2019-2022 and were given reduced weight accordingly.

The WW Score of 72.1 is based on a large volume of reviews and carries HIGH statistical confidence, but consumers should weigh it cautiously given confirmed duplicate reviews, multiple blank 5-star reviews, a clear pattern of office and billing failures alongside strong field technician performance, and several serious unresolved complaints involving alleged fraud, misdiagnosis, and installation failures.