Find Nearby Plumbers In Virginia Beach, Virginia

Petit Plumbing shows a genuinely mixed track record across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores moderately — many reviews praise punctuality, courtesy, and communication, but several explicitly describe rude, unshaven, and unprofessional technicians, which meaningfully drags the score down. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while a number of customers found rates fair or even surprisingly affordable, a significant cluster of reviews describe overcharging, hidden charges, unauthorized card charges, and prices far above competitors. Project completion is also mixed — many jobs were finished quickly and correctly, but one detailed 1-star review documents multiple serious safety defects on a $4,000+ job, including a crushed dryer vent creating a fire hazard, unanchored pipes, and missing nail guards, with management initially resistant to fixing them. Experience follows a similar pattern: skilled technicians are praised in several reviews, but the same major job failure and a review about breaking a sink fixture indicate inconsistent workmanship quality.

• Six reviews contain no usable text ('unknown', '.', or blank) and were excluded from scoring — these inflate the raw review count and may represent placeholder or fake entries.
• Three reviews dated 2000-09-15 and 2002-02-11 are over 20 years old and carry minimal relevance to current service quality; they were noted but given very low weight.
• The majority of substantive reviews are from 2010–2020, with no reviews from the past 12 months (relative to the most recent date of 2020-04-13), meaning recency data is limited and current performance cannot be confirmed.
• One review (2012-07-19, 1-star) is highly detailed and documents multiple verifiable safety violations on a large job — this is treated as a high-credibility negative signal and weighted accordingly.
• One review (2012-09-05, 1-star) describes an unauthorized credit card charge of $175 after being quoted $65 — this is a serious pricing integrity concern.
• The positive reviews, while numerous, tend to be brief and generic (e.g., 'great work,' 'very professional'), while the negative reviews contain specific, verifiable details — this asymmetry slightly reduces confidence in the positive signals.

This WW Score is based on 30 reviews with usable data spanning roughly 20 years, with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but the score should be treated with caution given the age of most reviews, the presence of several blank or placeholder entries, and a pattern of serious, detailed negative reviews that suggest meaningful quality and pricing inconsistency.

Michael and Son Services receives strong and consistent praise for individual technician professionalism, communication, and technical knowledge — the majority of substantive reviews highlight courteous, knowledgeable, and friendly technicians by name. However, the pricing dimension is a serious drag on the overall score, with a significant number of reviewers explicitly calling out extreme markups, hidden dispatch fees, upselling pressure, and quotes far above competitors. Project completion is mixed: many jobs are completed efficiently and on time, but there is a meaningful pattern of no-shows, missed appointment windows, poor scheduling communication, and at least several cases of incomplete or improperly executed work requiring callbacks. Experience scores well on average due to the volume of positive technical feedback, but is tempered by multiple credible accounts of misdiagnosis, improper installation, and technicians prioritizing sales over repair.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A full block of reviews dated 2025-06-06 to 2025-06-08 appears to be near-identical duplicates of reviews dated 2025-06-05 to 2025-06-07, including identical review text, ratings, and technician names. This strongly suggests review padding or a data ingestion error. Duplicate entries were identified and counted only once per unique review text to avoid score inflation.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: Several blank reviews with 5-star ratings and no text were submitted across multiple dates. These provide no usable data and may be used to inflate the aggregate star rating artificially.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC: At least 15 distinct reviews across multiple years explicitly cite overpricing, hidden fees, excessive markups on parts (one reviewer documented a 550% parts markup), and quotes 2-3x higher than competitors. This is not isolated — it is a recurring pattern.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: At least 8 distinct reviews describe technicians failing to arrive within appointment windows, canceling without notice, or leaving jobs incomplete. This is a consistent operational weakness.
• POTENTIAL SABOTAGE ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2024-08-01) alleges that a technician may have deliberately damaged their AC system after they declined upsell services. This is unverified but notable.
• MISDIAGNOSIS ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2020-02-24) credibly describes a dangerous misdiagnosis involving cracked heat exchanger and potential carbon monoxide risk, which a second company caught. This is a serious safety-related flag.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are from 2024-2025 and are within the past 12 months, which is positive for recency weighting. However, negative patterns around pricing and scheduling span the full review history from 2014 to 2025, suggesting these are structural issues rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; however, the score should be interpreted with caution given the confirmed presence of duplicate reviews, blank 5-star entries, and a strong bifurcation between positive technician-level feedback and systemic complaints about pricing, scheduling, and occasional workmanship failures.

This aggregated review set spans multiple businesses and individual operators all operating under or associated with the 'Mr. Plumber' name across different regions and time periods, making direct comparison difficult but revealing a deeply polarized reputation. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a large volume of explicit complaints about rudeness, no-shows, broken appointments, and dismissive customer service — including multiple accounts of technicians yelling at customers, slamming doors, and hanging up on home warranty representatives. Pricing is the single most-criticized dimension, with dozens of reviewers citing charges 2x to 5x higher than competitors for identical work, non-itemized invoices, and aggressive upselling tactics; a minority of reviewers — particularly those dealing with individual operators like Oscar, Jeff, and Rick — praised fair and transparent pricing. Project completion suffers from a notable pattern of abandoned jobs, failed callbacks, work left incomplete for weeks or months, and instances where problems were made worse rather than fixed. Experience scores are moderate-positive, as many positive reviews do cite skilled diagnosis and quality workmanship from specific named technicians, but are offset by multiple accounts of misdiagnosis, incorrect parts installation, and damage caused during service.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: These reviews appear to aggregate multiple distinct businesses and sole operators all using the 'Mr. Plumber' name across different U.S. regions (Georgia, New Jersey, Oklahoma, California, New York, Indiana, Tennessee, etc.). Scores reflect a blended profile and should not be applied to any single operator without filtering by location.
• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: A significant cluster of 5-star reviews — particularly those dated 2025-05-07, 2025-05-10, and 2025-05-19 with no review text — are blank ratings only and provide zero usable data. Several other 5-star reviews are near-identical in phrasing (e.g., two reviews from 2025-05-07 and 2025-05-10 are word-for-word duplicates for 'Michael'). These have been excluded from scoring but inflate the raw star average.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two pairs of reviews are near-verbatim duplicates submitted on consecutive or same dates (the 'Michael' gas line reviews dated 2025-05-07 and 2025-05-10; the rude technician reviews dated 2023-08-09 and 2023-08-10). These were counted as single mentions.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly 5-star with minimal text, while the most detailed and substantive negative reviews span 2018–2024. The oldest reviews (2005–2013) skew positive but reflect a different era of the business. Recency weighting was applied conservatively.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 30+ reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from all dimension scoring as they provide no evidence per Rule 1.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEW: One review (dated 2021-06-07, 5 stars) references a healthcare provider ('very helpful with my daughter and son... ADHD and learning disabilities') and is clearly posted to the wrong business. It was excluded entirely.
• PRICING PATTERN: A recurring pattern of non-itemized invoices, refusal to provide cost breakdowns, and prices dropping significantly when customers push back strongly suggests systematic price gouging practices at certain franchise or affiliate locations, particularly those associated with Coolray/Mr. Plumber in the Atlanta, GA market.
• ABANDONED WORK PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews describe technicians starting jobs, leaving for parts, and never returning — sometimes for months. This pattern appears across different named technicians and locations, suggesting a systemic operational failure rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its practical reliability is MODERATE at best because the dataset aggregates multiple distinct businesses operating under the same trade name across different regions and time periods — consumers should filter reviews by their specific geographic location and verify the operator before relying on this blended score.

RS Andrews presents a deeply split profile: a large volume of recent 2025 reviews praise individual technicians as courteous, professional, knowledgeable, and communicative, driving relatively solid professionalism and experience scores. However, these positive signals are heavily counterbalanced by a persistent and recurring pattern of serious complaints spanning over a decade, including missed appointments, no-shows, failure to follow through on diagnostic reports, and management unresponsiveness. Pricing is the single most damaging dimension, with dozens of explicit complaints about extreme markups on parts (e.g., a $9.99 capacitor billed at $200, a $300 pump billed at $1,100+), bait-and-switch quoting, and unnecessary upselling — resulting in a very low price score. Project completion also suffers significantly, with multiple reviews describing botched installations requiring repeated callbacks, work left unfinished, failed city inspections, and units damaged during service calls. The overall WW Score of 62.1 reflects a company with capable individual technicians but systemic operational and pricing integrity problems that substantially undermine customer trust.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW ALERT: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on consecutive dates (e.g., the Calvin Russell/Yonas review appears on both 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-06; the 'Very professional and he explained' review appears on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-06; the Brennan plumbing review appears on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-06; the Travon review appears on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-06; multiple Mohammad reviews appear on consecutive days; multiple other reviews are repeated verbatim across June 5-8, 2025). This pattern strongly suggests review manipulation or a system error inflating positive review counts.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: A significant cluster of 5-star reviews from May-June 2025 are extremely brief, generic, or entirely blank (no text, just a 5-star rating). Blank reviews with 5-star ratings numbered at least 25+. These provide no usable data and inflate the raw star average without substantive content.
• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: Across multiple years and dozens of independent reviewers, a consistent pattern of extreme parts markups (10x-20x retail cost), undisclosed fees, bait-and-switch estimates, and pressure to purchase unnecessary replacements is documented. This is not isolated to one technician or era — it appears systemic.
• FOLLOW-THROUGH AND RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE: Multiple reviews across different years describe the same failure mode: promises of callbacks or reports that never materialize, management that does not return calls, and scheduling windows that are missed without proactive communication.
• RECENCY NOTE: The bulk of positive reviews are from May-June 2025 and may be inflated by duplicates. The bulk of detailed negative reviews span 2017-2024 and represent a longer, more consistent track record of complaints. Older reviews (pre-2015) are more mixed-to-positive, suggesting service quality has declined over time.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERNS: Multiple reviews describe installations that failed city inspections, cross-connected hot/cold water lines after water heater installation, improperly wired HVAC systems, shoddy ductwork, and units damaged during routine service calls — indicating inconsistent technical quality despite many positive individual technician mentions.
• SUBSCRIPTION/BILLING CONCERN: At least two reviews describe being charged for cancelled subscriptions repeatedly, with no resolution despite multiple calls — suggesting a billing integrity issue.

This WW Score is based on a HIGH volume of reviews (295 total) spanning over 15 years, but its reliability is moderately reduced by strong evidence of duplicate and potentially fake 5-star reviews in the most recent period, which artificially inflate the positive signal; the underlying negative patterns are well-documented, consistent, and credible, making the score directionally trustworthy but likely slightly generous on professionalism and experience dimensions.

Drain Wizard demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally responsive service, with many customers praising quick response times and skilled problem-solving. However, the company is significantly hampered by serious professionalism and reliability issues, including no-shows, poor follow-up communication, and documented instances of theft and property damage without adequate resolution. Pricing concerns are also evident, with multiple customers reporting unexpected charges and quotes not honored. While recent reviews (2018-2024) show improvement in service quality, older reviews reveal systemic management and accountability problems under previous ownership that damaged trust.

• CRITICAL: Multiple severe incidents documented including alleged theft of firearm (2019), property damage without resolution (2016), and no-show appointments with no communication (2020, 2022). These suggest serious liability and management issues.
• OWNERSHIP/MANAGEMENT CHANGE: Reviews from 2015-2016 describe owner 'Chuck Harrison' as unprofessional and dismissive. Later reviews (2018+) show improvement, suggesting possible ownership or management transition. This creates two distinct company profiles in the data.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple customers report being quoted one price and charged significantly more (2020: quoted $188, charged $368; 2013: quoted $220, charged $275). Pattern suggests systematic billing practices issues.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Documented instances of technicians leaving without explanation (2022), no callback after serious incidents (2019 theft), and failure to follow up on promised callbacks (2015).
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews are from 2015-2016 and 2020-2022. Reviews from 2018-2019 and 2023-2024 are predominantly positive, suggesting either genuine improvement or potential selection bias in recent reviews.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Wide variance in customer experience suggests inconsistent technician training, supervision, or accountability across the company.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While recent reviews (past 2 years) are predominantly positive and suggest improved operations, the company's documented history of serious incidents (theft, property damage, no-shows, billing disputes, and poor management response) creates significant trust concerns. The score reflects current performance but does not fully capture the reputational and liability risks evident in historical data. Customers should verify current ownership/management and request written quotes with explicit terms before engaging services.

Jethro Byrd demonstrates solid professionalism with responsive communication and polite technicians, but significant concerns emerge around pricing fairness and project completion quality. Multiple reviews cite high costs and instances where repairs required callbacks due to incomplete initial work, with the company charging additional service fees rather than honoring workmanship guarantees. While older reviews (2014–2015) were more positive, recent reviews (2017–2020) reveal a pattern of customer dissatisfaction with follow-through and billing practices. The most recent 2024 review is highly positive but appears to be an outlier compared to the consistent complaints in the 2017–2020 period.

• Significant recency bias: Most negative reviews cluster in 2017–2020 period; most recent review (2024) is exceptionally positive and may not reflect current typical service
• Pattern of incomplete work: Multiple reviews (2017 reviews and 2020 review) explicitly mention callbacks for repairs that should have been completed on first visit
• Billing practice concern: Company charges additional service fees for callback visits to fix their own incomplete work, which reviewers note other companies do not do
• Inconsistent service quality: Stark contrast between 2014–2015 positive reviews and 2017–2020 negative reviews suggests either service degradation or inconsistent technician quality
• One review (2019) is very brief and generic with no specific details; combined with 2024 review, suggests possible review manipulation

This score should be treated with moderate caution. While based on 8 reviews with adequate mention counts, the data is heavily skewed by older reviews (2014–2017) and shows a clear negative trend in the 2017–2020 period that may better reflect current service quality than the recent 2024 outlier. The pattern of incomplete work and billing disputes is consistent across multiple independent reviews and represents a genuine concern.