Find Nearby Plumbers In Virginia Beach, Virginia

Claflin Plumbing demonstrates solid professionalism with consistent punctuality and courteous field staff (Steve and son), though office communication issues with Mrs. Clafin significantly detract from overall service quality. Technical work quality is strong across diverse projects, and pricing is generally competitive and reasonable. Project completion is reliable but marred by at least one instance where incomplete diagnosis required a second service call, and one callback that was never made. The business shows strength in skilled workmanship and customer relationships with the owner, but operational inconsistencies and office-side professionalism concerns limit the overall score.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 3-8 years old (2014-2021). Only 2 of 8 reviews are from 2024 or recent years, limiting confidence in current service quality.
• OFFICE STAFF ISSUE: Multiple reviews mention Mrs. Clafin's unprofessional and rude behavior. One 1-star review explicitly cites her attitude as the sole reason for not returning despite praising Mr. Clafin's professionalism.
• INCOMPLETE DIAGNOSIS: Review from 2021 indicates the company failed to diagnose both plumbing issues on first visit, resulting in a second service call for the same problem and customer dissatisfaction.
• CALLBACK FAILURE: One review (2018) reports a promised callback that never occurred, suggesting inconsistent follow-through on commitments.
• COMMUNICATION GAPS: One 2021 review mentions communication issues during installation and leak discovery, though overall satisfaction remained high.

This score should be treated with moderate caution due to limited recent data (only 2 reviews from 2024 or later) and documented office-side professionalism issues that contradict field-level quality, suggesting potential inconsistency in overall service delivery.

Dynamic Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across multiple reviews, with staff consistently described as polite, knowledgeable, and responsive. However, the company faces significant concerns around project completion and pricing transparency. Two critical negative reviews (2016 and 2014) document serious failures: incorrect work causing floor damage, poor customer service including profanity, and scheduling/communication breakdowns. Pricing feedback is mixed—some customers praise fair rates while others report unexpected charges and fee disputes. The oldest reviews (2007–2012) are uniformly positive, but more recent reviews show deterioration in service quality and customer satisfaction.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 7+ years old (2007–2016). The two most recent negative reviews (2016, 2014) suggest a decline in service quality over time.
• CRITICAL INCIDENTS: Two 1-star reviews document serious failures—incorrect installation causing property damage and unprofessional conduct (profanity toward customer). These are not minor complaints.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: One review praises 'great price' while another documents a $75 fee dispute and customer refusal to pay. Suggests inconsistent pricing communication or policy clarity.
• STAFF VARIABILITY: Positive reviews mention Joseph, John, and Ray by name with praise; negative reviews also mention Ray but with complaints about attitude and professionalism. Suggests inconsistent service quality depending on technician.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: 2014 review documents that company was told roof access was required before dispatch, yet technician arrived unprepared, wasting customer time and creating conflict.

This score should be treated with caution. While the company shows strong technical capability and professionalism in most interactions, two serious negative incidents involving incorrect work, property damage, and poor customer service significantly undermine confidence. The age of positive reviews (mostly pre-2016) versus recency of negative reviews suggests potential service degradation. A score of 78.2 reflects mixed performance; customers should request specific technicians (Joseph or John) and confirm pricing and scope in writing before work begins.

Jim Bertolino demonstrates strong professionalism, technical expertise, and project completion across most reviews, with consistent praise for responsiveness, communication, and workmanship quality. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with multiple reviews explicitly criticizing high costs, inflated estimates, and unfavorable comparisons to competitors. While 9 of 16 reviews mention pricing concerns (ranging from overcharges to estimates 3-6x higher than alternatives), positive reviews emphasize honesty and transparency. The WW Score of 74.8 reflects solid execution and professionalism offset by legitimate pricing objections that recur across different customer experiences.

• PRICING PATTERN: 9 reviews explicitly mention pricing concerns. Multiple customers report estimates significantly higher than competitors (e.g., $2,100 vs. $350 for same repair; $17,000 system vs. $525 fix elsewhere; $2,300 quote vs. actual need). This is not isolated complaint but recurring theme.
• RECENCY BIAS: 6 of 16 reviews are from 2018 or earlier (37.5%). Most recent negative reviews cluster in 2021-2022, while most recent positive reviews are from 2022. Recent data shows mixed satisfaction.
• POLARIZED RATINGS: Distribution is bimodal—10 five-star reviews vs. 4 one-star reviews with only 2 moderate ratings (3.0, 2.0). This suggests either highly satisfied or highly dissatisfied customers with little middle ground. Possible service quality variance or customer expectation mismatch.
• FRAUD ALLEGATION: One 2022 review explicitly calls Jim a 'fraud' after $1,195 in charges without problem resolution, later fixed by competitor for $525. This is serious and unresolved in review (customer states 'yet to call us back a week later').
• PAYMENT POLICY COMPLAINT: One review criticizes inflexible payment methods (check/credit card only, 5% credit card fee) and poor documentation (illegible notes on contract). Suggests operational friction points.
• DAMAGE CLAIM: One review reports scratches to newly installed floor due to inadequate work area protection, indicating potential quality control gaps in job site management.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While professionalism and experience dimensions are well-supported by 8-11 mentions each, the pricing dimension—critical to overall value perception—shows consistent negative evidence across 9 reviews with specific dollar comparisons, creating legitimate concern about value proposition. The polarized rating distribution and presence of unresolved service failure allegations (2022 fraud claim) suggest this contractor may deliver excellent work for some customers but at prices many find unjustifiable, or may occasionally fail to diagnose/resolve issues competently. Recommend obtaining multiple quotes before engaging.

Celtic Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising professionalism, fair pricing, and skilled workmanship, with multiple reviewers specifically calling out technical competence and pleasant demeanor. However, one detailed and credible 1-star review from 2019 describes a serious failure in professionalism and project completion — the contractor was a no-show on two consecutive days, provided a misleading initial quote that excluded inspection costs, and then went silent without rescheduling or apologizing. This single negative review carries significant weight because it is specific, detailed, and describes a pattern of unreliability that directly contradicts the positive reviews. Pricing scores well overall, with multiple reviewers noting fair or reasonable rates, though the hidden inspection cost issue in the negative review tempers that score. The majority of reviews are older than 12 months, with most dating from 2010–2022, which limits confidence in how well they reflect current performance.

• One review references 'Mark' and another references 'Mark Laverty' while most other reviews reference 'Niall' — it is unclear whether these are the same business or if reviews from a different contractor have been mixed in. This may inflate positive scores if the reviews are not all for the same individual.
• Several older reviews (2010–2012) are over 12 years old and may not reflect current service quality. These have been given reduced weight in scoring.
• Only one review is from the past 12 months (January 2024), which is too thin to assess current performance with confidence.
• The 2019 1-star review describes a no-show on two scheduled days, a price that increased by $250 after acceptance, and complete abandonment of the client with no follow-up — a serious project completion and professionalism failure that significantly impacts those dimension scores.
• Some positive reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'He was just delightful!') with no specific detail, which limits their evidentiary value and slightly raises concern about review authenticity for those entries.

This WW Score should be treated with moderate caution: while the volume of reviews is sufficient for calculation, the majority are more than two years old, there is a possible reviewer identity inconsistency between 'Mark' and 'Niall', and a single but highly credible negative review reveals a meaningful pattern of unreliability that prospective customers should weigh seriously.

Get Smart Plumbing shows a mixed performance profile across 42 reviews spanning 2006–2019. While experience and technical skill are consistently praised (82/100), professionalism is significantly dragged down by multiple documented failures in punctuality, communication, and follow-through—including no-shows, late arrivals without notification, and unprofessional behavior. Pricing receives a below-average score (65/100) due to recurring complaints about hidden charges, service fees not disclosed upfront, and bills exceeding estimates. Project completion is moderate (75/100), with some jobs requiring multiple visits to resolve issues. The company demonstrates strong technical capability but weak operational discipline.

• RECENCY ISSUE: Most reviews are 6+ years old (2006–2015). Only 2 reviews from 2019 and 2018. Historical data may not reflect current operations.
• POLARIZED RATINGS: Extreme bimodal distribution—predominantly 5-star and 1-star reviews with few middle ratings. This suggests either very satisfied long-term customers or severely dissatisfied one-time customers.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAGS: Multiple documented no-shows and late arrivals without proper notification (2009, 2015, 2018 reviews). One 2014 review describes 4 failed attempts to fix a toilet, unprofessional cleanup (using customer towels), and dismissive attitude.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUES: Repeated complaints about undisclosed service fees, trip charges, and bills exceeding estimates by $200–$400+ (2013, 2012 reviews). One customer explicitly felt 'misled' about trip charges (2014).
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: One detailed 2013 review describes hyperactive behavior, poor workmanship (bashed holes, sloppy work), and a $400 overcharge. Another 2008 review reports misdiagnosis leading to unnecessary tile replacement and $650 overcharge for a $99.99 unit.
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEWS: Three reviews contain only single characters or 'unknown' text (2015-11-03, 2014-07-08, 2014-02-03) with 5-star ratings—likely placeholder or fake entries. Confidence reduced accordingly.
• OWNER BEHAVIOR CONCERNS: Multiple reviews specifically mention the owner (Bill/Will) exhibiting unprofessional conduct—hyperactivity, dismissiveness ('that's not the way WE do it'), white sneakers criticized, astigmatism excuse for not allowing customer to observe work.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 41 usable reviews, the data is heavily skewed toward reviews older than 6 years, contains 3 suspicious placeholder entries, and shows extreme polarization suggesting operational inconsistency. The company appears to have strong technical skills but serious operational and communication weaknesses. Recent performance (2018–2019) is unclear due to minimal recent data. Recommend requesting recent references before hiring.

Tony & Son Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with most customers praising responsiveness, politeness, and quality workmanship. However, pricing is a significant and consistent concern across multiple reviews, with customers reporting charges substantially above market rates ($360 for under 1 hour, $675 for 1 hour, $215 for $25 in parts). Project completion is generally solid, though one severe case involved incomplete work, abandoned callbacks, and alleged fraud. The business shows polarized performance: loyal repeat customers report excellent service, while several one-time customers report exploitative pricing and poor follow-through on warranty claims.

• PRICING PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews (2023, 2019, 2018) report excessive charges relative to time/parts. One customer paid $975 vs $455 quoted; another paid $675 for 1 hour work; another paid $215 for $25 in parts. This is not isolated complaint but systemic pattern.
• SERIOUS CONDUCT ISSUE: June 2022 review alleges predatory behavior targeting widow, price gouging, cashing check before completing work, and abandoning job with unresolved defects. Customer reports paying $975 for work that required professional correction afterward.
• QUALITY CONTROL FAILURE: May 2022 review documents installation of lowest-rated toilet model (Mansfield Alto) despite assurances, requiring customer to hire another plumber to fix mistakes. Also reports rude behavior.
• WORKMANSHIP DEFECT: May 2019 review documents contamination of entire home water supply with dirt due to carelessness, with company refusing responsibility and charging $100 to fix their own error.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews are from 2015-2020 (older than 3 years). Most negative reviews are from 2018-2023 (recent). Recent pattern suggests declining service quality or increasing pricing aggression.
• RESPONSIVENESS INCONSISTENCY: December 2018 review reports customer was told plumber was 'tired' and refused same-day service on Friday, then charged $675 for Monday work. Contradicts other claims of 24-hour responsiveness.
• CONFIDENCE FACTOR: While mention counts are high, the extreme polarization (5-star vs 1-star with no middle ground) and severity of allegations (fraud, predatory targeting, contamination) warrant conservative scoring despite positive review volume.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with caution. While professionalism and experience scores are supported by substantial positive feedback, the pricing dimension is severely compromised by a consistent pattern of overcharging, and project completion is undermined by documented cases of incomplete work and refusal to honor warranties. The business appears to deliver quality work but at prices that many customers consider exploitative; recent reviews show deteriorating customer satisfaction. Customers should obtain detailed written quotes and compare with other providers before engaging.