Find Nearby Plumbers In Virginia Beach, Virginia

The overwhelming majority of reviews across all four dimensions are deeply negative, painting a consistent picture of a contractor that routinely fails to complete work, communicates poorly or not at all, and is frequently accused of fraudulent reporting to home warranty companies. Professionalism scores are dragged down by repeated accounts of rude staff, no-call no-shows, technicians arriving late or unannounced, and a front office that refuses to answer phones and communicates only by text. Pricing scores are among the lowest, with multiple reviewers independently documenting inflated estimates, unnecessary line items, and charges collected for service calls where no work was performed. Project completion is catastrophically low, with dozens of accounts of abandoned jobs, unresolved issues after multiple visits, and work left in worse condition than found. Experience scores reflect a pattern of misdiagnosis, failure to perform basic diagnostic steps, and at least one documented case of a plumber using an incorrect repair method that caused a subsequent leak. The small cluster of positive reviews (roughly 12 out of 75) provides some upward pressure but is insufficient to meaningfully offset the volume and specificity of negative accounts.

• SUSPECTED FAKE OR BIASED REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews are extremely brief, generic, and lack any specific detail (e.g., 'GREAT SERVICE', 'Very positive experience.', 'Good company, does great work. Would recommend them to anyone!'). These contrast sharply with the highly detailed negative reviews and may not reflect genuine customer experiences.
• OWNER RESPONSE MASQUERADING AS REVIEW: One 5-star entry dated 2021-06-10 reads as a defensive owner or employee response ('We didn't pick your plan, we only contract through them... Support your small businesses.') rather than a genuine customer review. This entry was excluded from scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews (dated 2019-06-11 and 2018-12-18) are nearly word-for-word identical, describing the same toilet installation incident with 'Mark'. This may indicate a duplicate submission or copy-paste error. Only one instance was counted in scoring.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews span from 2012 to 2023. The most recent reviews (2022-2023) still contain significant negative feedback regarding communication and incomplete work, suggesting no meaningful improvement in service quality over time.
• FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years allege that the company misrepresented findings to home warranty companies in order to have claims denied, collected deductibles without performing work, and fabricated customer statements. This is a serious and recurring pattern that significantly undermines trust in this contractor.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Two reviews contained no text (only a rating of 1.0 and 5.0 respectively). These were excluded from dimensional scoring as they provide no usable evidence.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews (75 total, 73 usable) spanning over a decade, with HIGH confidence across all four scored dimensions, making this one of the most reliable assessments possible — the score of approximately 24/100 should be treated as a strong and well-evidenced signal that this contractor poses significant risk to consumers.

Perez Enterprises receives overwhelmingly negative reviews across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most critically damaged dimension. The vast majority of reviewers describe rude, hostile, and dismissive behavior from both office staff (multiple named individuals including Lynn, Melissa, Faith, and Rick) and field technicians, with installers described as angry, aggressive, and condescending in customers' own homes. Project completion is severely undermined by a persistent pattern of no-shows, last-minute cancellations, failure to obtain promised permits, unexpected additional charges added after work was agreed upon or completed, and jobs abandoned mid-process. Pricing transparency is a notable concern, with multiple reviewers describing hidden charges, quotes that excluded the actual product, and post-completion billing surprises. The small number of positive reviews (approximately 9 out of 52) do highlight that when things go right — typically on straightforward water heater replacements — the work can be competent and timely, which prevents the experience score from bottoming out entirely.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN — MODERATE: The positive reviews are heavily concentrated on simple water heater installs and share a noticeably similar structure (quick scheduling, friendly tech, good price). While not conclusively fake, they stand in stark contrast to the volume and specificity of negative reviews and should be weighted cautiously.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews span 2014–2024, with a strong and consistent pattern of negative feedback across the entire decade. There is no evidence of meaningful improvement over time. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) continue to reflect the same core complaints as reviews from 2015–2019.
• PERMIT FAILURE: At least two independent reviews (March 2024) explicitly describe Perez Enterprises failing to file or pay for city permits after collecting fees from customers, causing customers to lose unpaid work days. This is a potential legal and regulatory compliance issue.
• SAFETY CONCERN: One review (March 2023) describes a water heater being installed with incorrect wiring that caused internal scorching and a tripped circuit breaker within 24 hours. The company allegedly refused to replace the damaged unit and did not return calls. This represents a documented safety hazard.
• UNQUALIFIED TECHNICIAN: One review (March 2024) describes a technician arriving for a gas appliance install who then admitted he was not qualified to work on gas products. This is a serious competency and safety flag.
• PATTERN OF ABANDONED WORK: Multiple reviews across different years describe technicians arriving, spending only minutes on-site, declaring the job impossible or requiring rescheduling, and leaving — with several reviewers later confirming the job was in fact feasible (e.g., dishwasher fit fine, shut-off valve was present).
• PATTERN OF POST-AGREEMENT PRICE INCREASES: At least 6 reviews independently describe being charged additional fees after a price was agreed upon, sometimes after work was already completed and paid for. This is a systemic pricing integrity issue.
• OFFICE STAFF CONDUCT: Multiple reviews name specific staff members (Lynn, Melissa, Faith) as rude, dismissive, or prone to talking over and hanging up on customers. This is not isolated to one employee and suggests a cultural or management problem.

This WW Score of 24.1 is based on 52 reviews spanning a decade with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, and should be considered a reliable and conservative reflection of this contractor's consistent performance record — the score is not an anomaly but a pattern.

AUL Plumbing's review record is overwhelmingly negative, with professionalism and project completion scores near the floor due to a pervasive, well-documented pattern of no-shows, missed appointments, unreturned calls, full voicemail boxes, and outright ghosting of customers across multiple years. At least two reviewers allege the contractor fraudulently charged service fees without completing work and lied to warranty companies about job status, which further collapses both the professionalism and project completion scores. The only positive signals come from a small cluster of older reviews (2014–2017) praising responsiveness, fair pricing, and clean workmanship, but these are vastly outnumbered and outweighed by the volume and consistency of negative experiences spanning 2018–2023. Experience receives a moderate but middling score because one reviewer explicitly noted a lack of skill for the required job type, while a handful of older reviews praised technical ability — the net result is uncertain competence at best.

• PATTERN OF FRAUD ALLEGED: Multiple reviewers independently allege the contractor charged service fees, reported jobs as complete to warranty companies, and then abandoned work — this is a serious integrity flag beyond mere poor service.
• THREATENING BEHAVIOR DOCUMENTED: At least two reviewers report receiving threats of slander/defamation lawsuits from the contractor after posting negative reviews, which is a significant red flag for business conduct.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The overwhelming majority of negative reviews span 2018–2023, indicating the poor performance pattern is sustained and not isolated to an early period. The positive reviews are almost entirely from 2014–2017 and should be weighted less heavily.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW AWARENESS: The contractor's positive reviews are few, older, and stylistically distinct from the negative ones. One negative reviewer explicitly prefaces their review with 'THIS IS NOT A FAKE REVIEW,' and another states 'Any good reviews you see on here are suspect.' While the positive reviews cannot be confirmed as fake, their isolation in time and contrast with the dominant pattern warrants caution.
• WARRANTY COMPANY CONTEXT: Nearly all reviews — both positive and negative — originate from customers assigned through home warranty companies, not direct-hire customers. This limits generalizability but also means the contractor had repeated opportunities to perform and consistently failed.
• VOLUME OF NO-SHOWS: Across 26 reviews, no-shows or abandoned appointments are mentioned in at least 18 separate reviews, making this the single most consistent data point in the entire review set.

This WW Score is based on 26 reviews spanning approximately 9 years with strong mention counts across key dimensions, and the score of 18.7 should be considered highly reliable as a reflection of this contractor's documented performance — the consistency and specificity of negative experiences across independent reviewers over multiple years leaves very little ambiguity.

TCP Plumbing and Drains exhibits severe and consistent deficiencies across nearly all operational dimensions. Nine reviews explicitly document professionalism failures including non-responsive phone lines, missed appointments (multiple reschedules without follow-through), dishonesty with customers and warranty companies, and unprofessional behavior (hanging up on customers, laughing at clients). Project completion is critically compromised with 10 mentions of abandoned work, no-shows, failure to honor callbacks, and incomplete repairs requiring re-work by competitors. Technical experience shows concerning gaps, with technicians unable to diagnose leak sources, refusing standard copper plumbing work, and performing incorrect installations causing secondary property damage. Only 2 positive reviews (both from 2020, both mentioning Jason) provide counterweight, citing good pricing and professional service on emergency repairs. The stark polarity and volume of detailed negative accounts (9 of 11 reviews are 1-star) suggests systemic operational breakdown rather than isolated incidents.

• CRITICAL: Extreme review polarity — 9 of 11 reviews are 1-star with detailed, specific complaints; only 2 are 5-star. This is not typical distribution and suggests either severe service degradation over time or fundamental business dysfunction.
• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews reference the same technician 'Jason' — positive reviews praise him specifically, while negative reviews cite him for dishonesty, incomplete diagnostics, and misrepresentation to warranty companies. This suggests inconsistent quality or potential accountability issues.
• RECENCY CONCERN: All negative reviews cluster between May 2021 and December 2021 (9 reviews). The 2 positive reviews are from November-December 2020. This temporal pattern indicates possible service collapse or management change around early 2021.
• CREDIBILITY ISSUE: Multiple negative reviewers reference video/camera evidence of technician dishonesty and misrepresentation to warranty companies. These are not vague complaints but documented allegations of fraud.
• OPERATIONAL RED FLAG: Consistent reports across 5+ reviews of non-responsive phone lines, full voicemail, and inability to reach the company. This suggests systemic communication breakdown.
• WARRANTY COMPANY CONFLICTS: Multiple reviews document the company making false claims to home warranty companies (improper installation, refusing coverage) that were later contradicted by the company's own technician or other contractors. This raises serious ethical concerns.

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to extreme data polarity and temporal clustering of negative reviews suggesting potential business failure or severe operational collapse. The 2 positive reviews from 2020 are heavily outweighed by 9 detailed, specific negative accounts from 2021 documenting systemic failures in communication, honesty, and project completion. Any reliance on this company should be considered extremely high-risk. The volume and specificity of negative feedback (with documented evidence cited) indicates this is not a trustworthy contractor.

Insufficient data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 3 reviews analyzed, with significant recency issues (oldest review from 2015, middle review from 2020). The reviews present conflicting signals: one highly positive experience with Ben regarding HVAC work quality and pricing, but two negative reviews citing no-shows, poor scheduling communication, and project abandonment. The contractor demonstrates critical failures in professionalism (multiple no-shows, poor dispatcher communication) and project completion (3 consecutive no-shows, 48-hour delays without contact). Pricing feedback is mixed and limited. Technical skill appears adequate based on the single positive review, but reliability concerns dominate.

• CRITICAL: Severe recency bias — 2 of 3 reviews are 3+ years old (2015, 2020). Only 1 review from recent period (2021). Historical data may not reflect current operations.
• CONFLICTING SIGNALS: One 5-star review praising quality and pricing vs. two reviews citing no-shows and poor communication. Suggests inconsistent service delivery or possible operational changes over time.
• PROJECT ABANDONMENT: Review 1 explicitly documents 3 consecutive no-shows and referral to competitor — clear failure on project completion.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: Review 3 documents vague dispatcher communication ('someone will call when on the way') and 48-hour delay without contact.
• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews is below minimum threshold for reliable scoring. Recommend collecting additional recent reviews before making business decisions.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=3) and severe recency bias (67% of reviews older than 3 years). The data suggests serious operational issues with scheduling and follow-through, but the single positive review and age of negative reviews prevent confident assessment of current performance. Do not rely on this score for decision-making without additional recent reviews.

Both reviews are highly positive 5-star ratings with explicit praise across all four dimensions. Review 1 emphasizes owner oversight, team professionalism, on-time and on-budget completion, and quality workmanship. Review 2 highlights quick response, quality work, reasonable pricing, and pleasant service experience. However, with only 2 reviews total, the sample size is too small to calculate a reliable WW Score. All dimension scores are based on LIMITED evidence (2 mentions each), and the overall confidence cannot exceed the minimum threshold required for score calculation.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Both reviews are 5-star ratings with suspiciously generic, enthusiastic language and no specific criticisms or realistic concerns. Review 1 uses phrases like 'absolutely exceptional,' 'seamless,' 'exceeded expectations,' and 'couldn't be happier.' Review 2 uses 'outstanding job,' 'most pleasant experience,' and 'highly recommended.' The uniformly perfect tone and absence of any minor complaints or realistic trade-offs is atypical of genuine customer feedback.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review 2 is from November 2023 (over 12 months old). Only 1 of 2 reviews is recent (October 2024).

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (only 2 reviews). Additionally, the uniformly perfect 5-star ratings with generic praise language raise concerns about review authenticity. Any scoring at this sample size would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.