Find Nearby Plumbers In Decatur, Alabama

This contractor demonstrates strong professionalism across all three reviews, with consistent praise for friendliness, efficiency, responsiveness, and cleanup. Project completion is solid with same-day/rapid service and successful job execution noted in all reviews. Pricing appears fair and transparent based on two explicit mentions of reasonable labor costs and fair pricing. Experience is supported by references to multiple successful projects and technical competence, though fewer explicit skill mentions. The primary limitation is the small sample size (3 reviews) and significant age disparity, with one review from 2006 and another from 2017.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Only 1 of 3 reviews is from the past 12 months (Feb 2023). Two reviews are from 2017 and 2006, limiting current relevance.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews analyzed. Scores should be treated as preliminary and updated as more recent data becomes available.
• LIMITED PRICING DATA: Only 2 mentions of pricing across 3 reviews. Confidence in pricing dimension is constrained.

This WW Score should be treated as preliminary due to the small sample size (3 reviews) and significant recency issues. The most recent review is from early 2023, but two older reviews (2006, 2017) carry less weight in assessing current performance. Recommend collecting additional recent reviews before making high-confidence decisions.

A-Plumber scores well on professionalism, with multiple reviewers citing punctuality, clear communication, and courteous behavior — including same-day scheduling and arrival notifications. Project completion is generally strong, with jobs described as finished correctly and thoroughly, though one 2018 review raises a serious concern about a $700 charge for what the customer described as a 20-minute repair involving a single fitting and a bag of lime. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while several reviewers praised reasonable or fair rates, that one detailed complaint of perceived price gouging significantly pulls the score down and cannot be ignored. Experience scores moderately well, supported by specific mentions of technical diagnosis, expert-level knowledge, and helpful guidance on fixtures, though the sample is small. Overall confidence is tempered by the small review pool, the wide date range spanning over a decade, and one significant negative pricing incident.

• One review (2018-12-18, 1-star) contains a detailed and specific allegation of price gouging — $700 charged for approximately 20 minutes of work involving one fitting and a bag of lime. This is a credible negative signal and has been weighted accordingly in the pricing dimension.
• Review date range spans from 2012 to 2024 — over 12 years. Two reviews are from 2021 and earlier, and one is from 2012. These older reviews carry reduced weight under recency rules. The 2012 review in particular should be treated as largely unreliable for current assessment.
• Several 5-star reviews use somewhat generic praise ('great job,' 'excellent service,' 'quality work') with limited specifics. While not conclusive evidence of fake reviews, a few entries lack the detail needed to fully validate their claims. Confidence is slightly reduced for those reviews.
• Total review count is low (9 reviews). While the WW Score can be calculated, findings should be treated as preliminary. More reviews would significantly improve reliability.

This WW Score is based on a small and temporally scattered review set spanning over a decade, which limits its reliability — the score reflects a reasonable directional signal but should not be treated as a definitive assessment of current service quality.

After deduplication, only 6 unique reviews remain, as all 12 submitted reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on the same dates. The substantive content is thin overall, with most reviews offering only generic praise. The one detailed review describing a bathroom remodel and copper-to-PEX replacement provides the most credible signal across professionalism, project completion, experience, and pricing. Scores are held conservative across all dimensions due to the low volume of unique, credible data and the heavy duplication pattern detected.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW ALERT: All 12 reviews appear to be duplicates of 6 unique reviews, each submitted twice on the same date with identical text and ratings. This is a strong indicator of review manipulation or a platform ingestion error.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: Multiple reviews use identical phrasing posted on the same date (e.g., 'These guys do great work. Highly recommend them!' x2, 'Great, friendly and prompt service!' x2, 'PNM plumbing did a good job' x2, 'Very kind and did a really good job' x2, 'Honest, knowledgeable and fair pricing' x2). This pattern is consistent with artificially inflated review counts.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: After deduplication, only 6 unique reviews exist. This is below the threshold for high-confidence scoring.
• GENERIC CONTENT: Most unique reviews lack specific detail about the work performed, making it difficult to assess dimensions independently. Only one review provides actionable specifics.
• RECENCY NOTE: All reviews are dated April–May 2023, meaning all data is over 12 months old at time of analysis. No recent reviews are available to confirm current service quality.

This WW Score should be treated with LOW trust — the review set is heavily duplicated, likely artificially inflated, and based on only 6 unique reviews with minimal substantive detail, making any score derived from this data unreliable for consumer decision-making.

Burns Plumbing earns solid marks for professionalism and responsiveness, with multiple reviewers specifically praising punctuality, clear communication, and quick turnaround — including an emergency same-day response. Pricing is consistently described as fair and competitive across several reviews. However, project completion is meaningfully dragged down by a serious 1-star review from 2017 in which a water heater installation was left with an active gas leak, representing a significant workmanship and safety failure. Experience scores are moderate: most reviewers describe competent work, but the gas leak incident raises real concerns about quality control on technical jobs. The overall score is tempered by the small review pool and the age of most reviews.

• Only 7 total reviews — this is a very small sample size and the WW Score should be treated with caution.
• 5 of 7 reviews are older than 1 year; 4 of 7 are more than 5 years old (dating back to 2008, 2013, 2014, 2017, 2018). Only 2 reviews are from the past 12–24 months. The score may not reflect current service quality.
• The 2017 gas leak review (1-star) is a serious safety flag — an unchecked gas coupling after a water heater installation is a critical workmanship failure. This was weighted heavily against project completion and experience scores.
• Several older reviews (2008, 2013, 2014) are extremely brief and generic with no specific detail, reducing their evidentiary value. These were included but treated conservatively.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the sparse detail in older reviews limits their usefulness.

This WW Score is based on only 7 reviews, the majority of which are over 5 years old, making it a LOW-reliability snapshot that should not be used as a definitive assessment of current service quality without more recent data.

Phil's Handy Service shows genuine technical competence when jobs are accepted, with two reviewers explicitly praising the quality and cleanliness of the work performed. However, professionalism is a mixed picture: one reviewer praised timely and courteous service, while another flagged a meaningful communication failure around pricing transparency, and a third had a notably negative experience with the customer-facing contact person who was described as brusque and dismissive. Pricing received a moderate signal — one reviewer praised competitive pricing while another felt blindsided by an undisclosed service call fee, suggesting inconsistent transparency. Project completion scores are reasonable but limited to only two reviews where work was actually carried out. Overall, the score reflects real strengths in workmanship tempered by recurring communication and customer service concerns.

• Very small sample size (3 reviews only) — WW Score should be treated as highly provisional and not representative of consistent performance.
• The 1-star reviewer alleges that after posting their negative review, they received a suspicious bogus review of their own business, which may suggest retaliatory review behavior. This is a serious integrity flag.
• Two of the three reviews are from 2022 or earlier, with only one review from the past 12 months (2023). Recency of data is limited.
• The negative review was not about Phil's direct workmanship but about a customer-facing staff member, suggesting a potential systemic customer service issue beyond the owner's individual performance.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews with limited recency and a potential review integrity concern, and should be considered highly unreliable as a basis for hiring decisions without significantly more review data.

Lovelace Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across all dimensions. While technical skill and workmanship are generally praised (78/100), the company is severely hampered by poor pricing practices, unprofessional communication, and unreliable project completion. Multiple recent reviews (2024-2019) document price gouging, bait-and-switch billing, and rude customer service from management (particularly 'Tab'). Project completion issues include missed appointments, no-shows, and incomplete work requiring callbacks. Professionalism is undermined by late arrivals, poor communication, and dismissive responses to customer concerns. The company appears to have deteriorated significantly over time, with older reviews (2011-2017) more positive than recent ones (2019-2025).

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews cluster in 2024, 2019, and 2016, suggesting systemic problems that persist or have worsened. Recent 2025 review is positive but isolated.
• MANAGEMENT ISSUE: Multiple reviews specifically name 'Tab' or 'Tabatha' as rude, dismissive, and unwilling to resolve disputes. This suggests a management/culture problem rather than isolated incidents.
• PRICING PATTERN: At least 6 reviews document price gouging, hidden charges, bait-and-switch tactics, and excessive markups. This is a consistent pattern, not isolated complaints.
• RELIABILITY PATTERN: Multiple reviews document missed appointments, no-shows, and failure to follow up. One customer reported being told 'nobody remembers talking to you.'
• INCOMPLETE WORK: At least 2 reviews document work done incorrectly requiring callbacks (hot/cold lines reversed, missed jets).
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 7 reviews contain no text (only ratings), making them unusable for dimension scoring. These are excluded from analysis.
• BBB COMPLAINT: One detailed 2024 review documents BBB complaint that resulted in loss of A+ rating. Lovelace refused to settle even with BBB mediation.
• MILITARY CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews from military customers expressing disappointment with lack of respect/loyalty, suggesting tone-deaf customer service.

This WW Score of 54.8 should be treated with MODERATE confidence but interpreted as a warning signal. The company demonstrates genuine technical competence but is severely compromised by consistent pricing misconduct, poor management communication, and unreliable project execution. Recent reviews (2024-2019) are substantially more negative than older reviews (2017 and earlier), indicating deterioration. The score reflects real, documented problems across multiple customers and time periods, not isolated complaints. Consumers should approach with significant caution.