Find Nearby Plumbers In Birmingham, Alabama

Advanced Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising responsiveness, professionalism, and technical skill across a wide range of jobs including water line replacements, water heater installs, and full repiping projects. However, a meaningful cluster of 1-star reviews — spanning multiple years and locations — raises serious concerns: recurring complaints include overcharging with non-itemized bills, pressure tactics, failure to return calls, incomplete or incorrect work, refusal to warranty poor workmanship, and in several cases hostile responses from ownership when customers raised concerns. Pricing is a particular weak point, with multiple reviewers citing unexpected charges, minimum fees for minimal work, and quotes dramatically higher than competitors. Project completion is also mixed, with several reviews describing jobs that required multiple return visits to correct errors, or work that was abandoned entirely. The positive reviews are numerous and often detailed, but the volume and specificity of negative reviews — including from experienced professionals in construction and architecture — prevent a high overall score.

• 35 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Two reviews are near-identical duplicates with the same wording about being 'absolutely amazing' and 'super sharp on plumbing needs' posted under different dates (2022-09-23 and 2023-06-07). This may indicate a fake or recycled review.
• Two reviews are near-identical duplicates praising 'Eric and Jessica' and 'Fred' with nearly word-for-word identical text posted on different dates (2018-08-22 and 2019-06-08). This strongly suggests a fake or copy-pasted review and confidence in the positive review pool is reduced accordingly.
• The review corpus spans from 2010 to 2025 and appears to aggregate reviews from multiple businesses operating under the name 'Advanced Plumbing' across different states (Virginia, Florida, Oregon, Michigan, Missouri, California, Texas). Scores from geographically distinct businesses may not reflect a single contractor's performance.
• Several negative reviews describe the owner or staff becoming hostile, making harassing phone calls, or calling customers liars when complaints were raised — a significant red flag for business conduct.
• One negative reviewer with 50+ years of architectural experience describes deceptive practices including faulty leak detection, pressure to over-scope work, and an inadequate insurance report — this carries elevated credibility weight.
• A 2010 review describes a lawsuit over a billing dispute where the written estimate was $1,300 but the final bill was $4,300 — an extreme pricing discrepancy that was never resolved through mediation.
• Recency note: The majority of reviews with substantive text are from 2017–2025, with the most recent cluster from 2024–2025. Older reviews (pre-2016) were given reduced weight in scoring.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence that reviews may span multiple unrelated businesses sharing the same name, the presence of suspected duplicate/fake reviews, and a persistent pattern of serious complaints about billing practices, incomplete work, and hostile customer service responses that meaningfully offset the large volume of positive feedback.

American Plumbing Services has a large and genuinely mixed review record spanning over a decade. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by multiple credible negative reviews describing rude technicians, ignored callbacks, no-shows, and dismissive office staff — including serious allegations of dishonesty and attempted fraud — despite a strong majority of reviewers praising individual technicians by name for courtesy and communication. Pricing is a notable weak point: multiple reviewers explicitly called out a paid estimate fee ($45–$70), opaque lump-sum billing, and quotes that were dramatically higher than competitors, while a meaningful number of others praised affordability and fair pricing, creating a polarized picture. Project completion is moderately positive but undermined by several reviews describing abandoned work, missed appointments, unresolved callbacks, and a technician who installed a water softener cartridge without removing its shrink wrap. Experience scores are generally positive — many reviewers praised technical knowledge and problem-solving — but are offset by credible accounts of misdiagnosis, refused safety tests, and at least one allegation of deliberate dishonesty in diagnosing a leak.

• 6 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating (all 5-star). These have been excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several reviews appear to originate from different geographic markets (New Jersey water main work vs. DFW plumbing vs. California locations), suggesting this may be a shared business name or aggregated profile across multiple unrelated companies. Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may not reflect a single contractor.
• A cluster of 5-star reviews dated 2021-09-21 to 2021-09-22 (three reviews within one day) use very similar language praising affordability, promptness, and knowledge with no specific job details. These show possible fake review patterns and have been weighted conservatively.
• Multiple serious misconduct allegations are present: one reviewer alleges a technician fabricated evidence of a water leak (2020-02-22); another alleges a technician refused to perform a covered gas leak test leaving the household in a dangerous situation for 4 weeks (2020-01-10); another alleges theft of items from a garage (2019-12-16); and another alleges a technician made a comment about the homeowner's wealth to justify a charge (2021-07-29). These are not isolated complaints and materially reduce confidence in professionalism and integrity scores.
• A pattern of deteriorating service quality over time is noted by multiple long-term customers (reviews from 2015 and 2016) who explicitly state that quality declined as the company grew. More recent negative reviews (2019–2023) continue this trend.
• The review corpus spans from 2014 to 2025. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) represent the majority of the dataset and may not reflect current service quality. Recent reviews (2022–2025) are more mixed-to-positive but fewer in number.
• One review (2019-10-02) appears to be a misdirected review for an unrelated business ('AV Auto Electric') and was excluded from scoring.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be treated with caution given credible allegations of fraud, safety negligence, and theft, a likely multi-entity review pool spanning different geographic markets, and a documented pattern of service quality decline noted by repeat customers over time.

Eagle Service Company demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, responsive communication, and courteous technicians across multiple reviews. Project completion is generally solid, though one significant 2021 incident involving inadequate cleanup after sewage exposure and disputed charges raises concerns about follow-through and accountability. Pricing appears fair in most cases, but the extra $150 charge for a 10-minute follow-up visit and subsequent refusal to properly remediate damage suggests inconsistent pricing practices. Technical expertise is evident in quality workmanship, though the cleanup failure indicates gaps in job thoroughness.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 5 of 9 reviews are from 2015–2016 (8+ years old). Only 2 reviews from past 3 years. Recent data is limited.
• SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE INCIDENT: 2021 review (2.0 rating) documents serious professional failure—raw sewage left uncleaned, inadequate site protection, dismissive response to complaint, and disputed charges. This is not generic criticism; it is specific and credible.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Reviews from 2015–2016 show suspiciously generic praise ('top notch,' 'great job,' 'very professional') with minimal specific detail. However, the 2023 and 2021 reviews contain specific, detailed accounts (both positive and negative), suggesting older reviews may be less reliable.
• CONFIDENCE LIMITATION: Only 2 reviews from past 3 years limits ability to assess current performance. The 2021 incident is recent enough to be relevant but old enough that practices may have changed.

This WW Score of 82.3 should be treated with caution due to heavy reliance on older reviews (2015–2016) and limited recent data. The 2021 sewage cleanup failure is a serious red flag that significantly impacts trust, despite otherwise positive professionalism ratings. Current performance cannot be reliably assessed without more recent reviews.

Wayne Pickle Septic Tank and Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, politeness, and knowledgeable staff across multiple reviews. Pricing is reported as fair and competitive, though only one review explicitly addresses this dimension. Project completion shows mixed results: the detailed 2022 review highlights excellent workmanship and attention to detail, but a 2009 review documents significant problems with tank location and equipment failure requiring multiple service attempts. Technical expertise is evident in customer education and problem-solving, though the older failure case suggests inconsistency. The company's age (reviews span 2006–2022) and recency bias toward the highly detailed 2022 review support a moderate-to-good overall assessment.

• Three reviews contain minimal or no substantive content ('.' 'unknown' 'See above') and cannot be scored—these appear to be incomplete submissions or data entry errors.
• Review dates span 12 years (2006–2022) with significant gaps; most recent detailed review is from 2022, but older reviews (2009, 2012) are 10+ years old and may not reflect current operations.
• One 2009 review documents a significant service failure (repeated equipment issues, difficulty locating tanks), which contradicts the 2022 review's praise for superior workmanship. This suggests either improvement over time or inconsistent quality.
• The 2022 review is exceptionally detailed and positive with specific examples; while credible, it carries disproportionate weight due to limited recent data.

This WW Score should be treated with moderate caution. While the 2022 review provides strong evidence of current professionalism and quality, the small sample of scorable reviews (5 of 8), significant time gaps, and one documented service failure from 2009 limit confidence. The score reflects recent positive performance but may not fully account for historical inconsistency.

Tim's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous behavior across multiple reviews. Project completion is reliable with jobs finished on time and follow-through honored. Technical skill and workmanship quality are well-documented. However, pricing presents a significant concern: two detailed negative reviews explicitly describe overcharging, inflated estimates, and poor refund handling, which substantially lowers the pricing dimension despite positive comments from other customers about fair rates. The company's responsiveness and emergency availability are standout strengths, but pricing inconsistency and one documented case of poor customer service recovery are material weaknesses.

• PRICING VOLATILITY: Two detailed 1-star reviews (2015-05-25 and 2015-05-07) describe significant overcharging and pricing disputes, including a $1500 toilet installation estimate for work completed in 1.5 hours, and refund disputes. These contradict positive pricing comments in other reviews, suggesting inconsistent pricing practices or selective service quality.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are from 2012-2015 (8+ years old). Only 3 reviews are from 2017 or later. Current service quality cannot be reliably assessed from this dataset.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Several reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('very professional,' 'on time,' 'courteous,' 'excellent work') with minimal specific detail, though this is not conclusive of fake reviews given the consistency of actual complaints in negative reviews.
• UNVERIFIABLE REVIEWS: Three reviews contain only 'unknown' text with ratings, providing no usable data for scoring.

This score should be treated with caution due to significant recency bias (most data from 2012-2015), documented pricing disputes that contradict positive reviews, and limited recent feedback to assess current service standards. The MODERATE overall confidence reflects conflicting evidence on pricing practices and the age of most testimonials.

Jolly Heating and A/C demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with multiple reviews praising fast response times, knowledgeable technicians, and courteous staff. However, project completion is significantly undermined by two severe failures: a 3-week unresolved A/C replacement with repeated callbacks and a complex water heater installation marred by poor coordination, dishonesty about parts availability, and billing disputes. Pricing concerns are limited but notable, with one customer reporting resistance to estimate adjustments and disputes over material costs. The company's inconsistency—delivering excellent service in some cases while failing catastrophically in others—creates substantial reliability concerns.

• RECENCY BIAS: Four of eight reviews are older than 3 years (2015–2018). Only three reviews from 2021 onward; most recent negative reviews are from 2023 and 2021, suggesting potential ongoing issues.
• SEVERE PROJECT FAILURES: Two 1-star reviews document extended service failures (3+ weeks without resolution) and dishonest communication about parts availability and ordering. These are not minor complaints but fundamental breakdowns in project completion and integrity.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: One detailed review documents resistance to adjusting estimates, disputes over material costs, and billing arguments. This suggests potential pricing practices that lack transparency.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews (praising speed and expertise) and catastrophic 1-star reviews (same company, same services, opposite outcomes). This inconsistency raises questions about service quality variability or potential selection bias in positive reviews.

This score should be treated with caution. While professionalism and experience scores are supported by multiple mentions, the two severe project completion failures and documented pricing disputes significantly undermine overall trustworthiness. The company's inconsistent performance and the age of most positive reviews suggest that recent service quality may not match historical reputation. Prospective customers should request detailed references for complex projects and clarify pricing and timeline expectations in writing before engagement.