Find Nearby Plumbers In Huntsville, Alabama

Professionalism is the strongest dimension, with the overwhelming majority of reviews praising technicians as courteous, prompt, and communicative — including frequent emergency and after-hours responsiveness. Experience scores well overall, with many reviewers noting technicians diagnosed and resolved issues quickly and knowledgeably, though a handful of negative reviews describe operator error, misdiagnosis, and work that had to be redone. Project completion is solid but meaningfully dragged down by several serious complaints: a drain snake left stuck in a pipe at the customer's expense, a $2,200 excavation job that failed to fix the problem, a frozen pipe repair left incomplete, and a toilet that began leaking again within seven months with only a 30-day warranty honored. Pricing is the weakest dimension by a significant margin, with multiple independent reviewers across different time periods explicitly describing quotes as grossly inflated, markups described as 4x fair market value, and one reviewer documenting a $3,200 water heater quote; these are partially offset by reviewers who found pricing fair or reasonable, but the volume and specificity of overcharging complaints is notable.

• FAKE REVIEW RISK — HIGH: A large cluster of reviews dated 2025-05-10 and 2025-06-05 through 2025-06-09 show highly repetitive patterns: extremely short text (e.g., 'Joe was great!', 'Sam was here he did great!', 'Ben L', 'Cullen great work', 'He's a legend.'), near-identical phrasing across multiple reviews, and many with zero specifics about the work performed. Several pairs of reviews appear to reference the same technician on the same date with suspiciously similar wording. These reviews inflate the review count significantly and should be treated with low confidence.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review praising Ryan for honesty and integrity ('PLUMBERS with HONESTY & INTEGRITY...') appears twice with identical text, dated 2022-08-04, submitted under what appear to be two separate entries.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SERIOUS AND RECURRING: At least 8 distinct reviews across multiple years (2018–2024) independently describe being quoted prices 2x–4x above market rate, being charged for unnecessary work, or feeling pressured into expensive services. This is not isolated and represents a systemic pattern.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES DOCUMENTED: At least 4 reviews describe work that was not completed correctly — a drain snake left stuck in a customer's pipe requiring jackhammering at customer expense, a $2,200 excavation that did not fix the problem, a frozen pipe repair left incomplete with dispatch hanging up on the customer, and a toilet repair that failed within 7 months covered by only a 30-day warranty.
• COMMISSION DECEPTION COMPLAINT: One reviewer explicitly states they were told technicians do not work on commission, then discovered job postings showing commission-based pay, and requested a refund for the $99 visit fee. This raises a trust and transparency concern.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2025 (within the past 12 months), which is positive for recency weighting. However, the high concentration of very short, generic 5-star reviews in this recent period raises the fake review concern noted above. Older reviews (2018–2022) tend to be more detailed and carry higher individual credibility.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Two reviews contained no text (one rated 4.0, one rated 5.0) and were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence of fake or incentivized short-form reviews inflating the count, a recurring and independently corroborated pattern of pricing complaints, and multiple documented workmanship failures — the true score for an unbiased customer pool may be meaningfully lower than 76.4.

Payless Plumbing has a strong base of positive feedback spanning many years, with customers frequently praising reasonable pricing, technical competence, and courteous staff. However, two detailed negative reviews — one from 2020 describing a multi-day no-show and dismissive office staff, and one from 2012 describing chronic lateness, double-booking, incomplete work, and pressure to pay before inspection — significantly weigh down the professionalism and project completion scores. The project completion dimension is the most penalized, as the 2012 review describes a job that took three days instead of four hours, required the customer to finish work themselves, and involved repeated scheduling failures. Pricing remains the strongest dimension, with multiple reviewers across different years independently noting fair and reasonable costs without hidden charges. The most recent reviews (2024) are positive and describe completed remodels with passed inspections, which is an encouraging sign of improvement.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of reviews are older than 1 year, with most dating from 2007–2020. Only three reviews are from 2022 or later, limiting confidence in current performance.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW WEIGHT: Two low-rated reviews (2.0 stars) contain substantial, specific, and credible detail describing scheduling failures, no-shows, dismissive office communication, and incomplete work. These are treated as high-credibility negative signals.
• POSSIBLE REVIEW CLUSTERING: Two 5-star reviews were posted on the same date (2024-05-21) within minutes of each other, both describing similar remodeling projects. While not conclusive, this pattern warrants mild suspicion of coordinated or prompted reviews.
• ONE REVIEW UNUSABLE: One review contained only the text 'unknown' with no usable content and was excluded from dimension scoring.
• OLDER REVIEWS: Several reviews date back to 2007–2014 and may not reflect current business practices or personnel. These were included but given reduced implicit weight in narrative interpretation.

This WW Score is based on 21 usable reviews spanning 17 years and carries moderate-to-high structural reliability due to mention volume, but consumers should note that the score is pulled down by two credible and detailed negative experiences, and that only three reviews post-date 2022, making it difficult to fully assess the contractor's current performance level.

Acme Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising responsiveness, professionalism, and technical competence across a large number of technicians including Anthony, Norval, Alejandro, Clay, and others. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — roughly 20-25 across the full dataset — raise serious concerns across all four dimensions: the owner (Ed) is repeatedly cited for rude behavior, threatening customers with lawsuits over billing disputes, and hanging up on clients; pricing transparency is a recurring problem with multiple reviewers describing hidden fees, undisclosed per-plumber hourly charges, and feeling overcharged; and project completion failures include abandoned jobs, missed callbacks, work left unfinished, and at least one instance of work done without required permits. The technician-level work is generally rated well, but owner/management conduct meaningfully drags down professionalism and pricing scores. Recency of reviews (2024-2025) shows continued strong positive feedback but also continued negative incidents, suggesting these issues are not fully resolved.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The 'Super Bowl Sunday' review featuring Norval Cunningham appears verbatim twice — once dated 2024-02-12 and once dated 2024-06-09. This is a likely duplicate submission and was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The billing dispute review describing charges of $678 vs. agreed $372 and threats of lawsuit appears nearly verbatim twice — once dated 2021-06-10 and once dated 2020-09-16. Counted only once for scoring.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A cluster of reviews dated exactly 2024-06-09 (approximately 20+ reviews) share the same date with no timestamps, many are very short and generic ('Professional service', 'Great friendly and fast service', 'Outstanding work'), and several are blank 5-star submissions. This pattern is consistent with a bulk review import or solicitation campaign. Confidence in this cluster is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 15-18 reviews contain no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• OWNER CONDUCT — RECURRING NEGATIVE PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews across different years (2011, 2014, 2017, 2020, 2021, 2024, 2025) describe the owner (Ed) as rude, threatening legal action over billing disputes, hanging up on customers, and failing to honor service commitments. This is a persistent and credible pattern.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY — RECURRING NEGATIVE PATTERN: At least 5 independent reviews describe undisclosed fees, surprise charges, or feeling significantly overcharged. One reviewer documented a $303 estimate that became $344.74 with an undisclosed service fee added. Another described being charged $678 when $372 was agreed. This materially reduces the pricing score.
• PROJECT COMPLETION — NEGATIVE INCIDENTS: At least 3 reviews describe work left unfinished, missed follow-up appointments with no notice, or jobs requiring a second plumber to correct Acme's work. One review describes work done without required permits.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive detail are from 2019-2025, which were weighted more heavily. Reviews from 2004-2013 were included but given reduced weight due to age and potential changes in company ownership or staffing over time.
• GEOGRAPHIC INCONSISTENCY: Some reviews reference Monterey/Salinas, CA locations while others reference Durham, NC. This may represent two different Acme Plumbing franchises or locations. Scores reflect the combined dataset as provided, but users should be aware the reviews may not all pertain to a single business entity.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (155 total, ~130 with usable data) spanning nearly two decades, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in direction, but the score should be interpreted cautiously due to: a cluster of same-day generic reviews suggesting possible solicitation, confirmed duplicate reviews, persistent owner-conduct complaints across many years, and possible geographic mixing of two different business locations.

Around the Clock Plumbing has a large and genuinely mixed review record. The majority of positive reviews praise individual technicians — particularly Filip, Marrele, Ken, Michael, Kasey, and others — for being professional, punctual, friendly, and skilled, which drives the professionalism and experience scores upward. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews (roughly 20–25% of the total) describes serious failures: no-shows, abandoned work, pipes left disconnected, rude owner interactions, dangerous installations (incorrect gas connectors, water damage from unchecked drain lines), and aggressive upselling — all of which significantly drag down the project completion and pricing scores. Pricing is a particular concern, with multiple reviewers citing charges they considered grossly excessive (e.g., $260 for a $16 flange, $18K–$22K quote vs. a $3K competitor job, $1,000 for a water line the customer ran themselves for $70). The project completion score reflects a pattern of incomplete work, callbacks not honored, and at least two cases of technician-caused damage that the company disputed or refused to remedy.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least three reviews appear to be near-identical copies of the same text about a tenant mobile home sewer clog (posted 2020-11-25, 2020-11-26, and 2021-06-10). These were counted as one unique incident to avoid inflating negative signals, but the duplication is suspicious and may indicate coordinated posting.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two identical 5-star reviews from 2021-01-08 (one with a timestamp, one without) describing the same December 30, 2020 service call. Counted once.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two identical 5-star reviews for Felipe installing two sinks (2024-09-12 and 2024-08-28). Counted once.
• 13 reviews contained no text whatsoever (blank body, rating only). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2006 to June 2025. The majority of substantive reviews are from 2017–2025. Older reviews (2006–2014) include some of the most severe complaints (abandoned work, damage disputes, abusive language from a technician). These were included but weighted conservatively given their age.
• PATTERN WARNING — GENERIC PRAISE: A subset of 5-star reviews from the 2025 cluster contain very brief, non-specific praise ('Great!', 'Excellent', 'Very professional job...', 'Kasey did a fantastic job.') with no detail. While not conclusively fake, these add limited evidentiary weight and were scored conservatively.
• SERIOUS COMPLAINT FLAGS: Multiple reviews describe the company owner (Phoenix Romero Booth) as rude or dismissive when customers called to complain. At least two reviews describe technician-caused property damage (water softener discharge not tested causing $6K+ damage; pipe broken during snaking leaving washer and dishwasher unusable) that the company denied responsibility for. One review describes a technician using profanity toward a customer. These are significant character-of-business concerns.
• UPSELLING PATTERN: At least four independent reviews across different years describe what they characterize as aggressive or deceptive upselling — inflated quotes, charges for unnecessary work, or prices far above market rate. This is a recurring and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (125 reviews) spanning 16 years, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in terms of volume, but the score should be interpreted cautiously because the company's performance appears highly variable depending on the technician assigned, the type of job, and whether a complaint arises — the gap between best-case and worst-case customer experiences is exceptionally wide.

Lee Company demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism from individual technicians, with many customers praising knowledgeable, friendly, and punctual service. However, the company is significantly hampered by persistent pricing concerns—customers frequently report overcharging, high service call fees, aggressive upselling, and lack of transparency in quotes. Project completion issues are notable, with multiple reports of no-shows, scheduling failures, poor follow-up, and incomplete work. While technician quality is generally high, systemic operational and business practice problems substantially undermine overall customer satisfaction.

• PRICING PATTERN: Extremely consistent complaints about overcharging, with customers reporting 2-3x markup on parts and labor compared to competitors. Multiple reviews cite specific examples of $79-$200+ service call fees just for estimates.
• SCHEDULING FAILURES: Recurring pattern of no-shows, cancellations without notice, rescheduling delays, and inability to meet appointment windows. At least 25+ reviews document this issue across multiple years.
• AGGRESSIVE SALES TACTICS: Multiple reviews describe high-pressure upselling, scare tactics (especially regarding HVAC safety), and technicians recommending unnecessary replacements. Some customers report technicians are commission-based.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Numerous complaints about inability to reach company, no callbacks despite promises, poor communication between departments, and unresolved issues left hanging for weeks/months.
• BILLING DISPUTES: Multiple reports of unauthorized charges, continued billing after cancellation, charges appearing months later, and refunds promised but never issued.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: While many technicians receive praise, there are reports of poor workmanship, incomplete jobs, and damage caused during service (e.g., broken pipes, flooded basements, damaged ductwork).
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Approximately 40-50 reviews from June 2025 are suspiciously clustered with identical 5-star ratings, minimal detail, and generic praise language ('great job,' 'very professional'). These appear concentrated in a narrow date range and lack specificity compared to detailed negative reviews. This suggests possible review manipulation, though not conclusive.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (June 2025) are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail, contrasting sharply with detailed critical reviews from 2024-2023. This temporal pattern is atypical and warrants skepticism.
• SYSTEMIC ISSUES: Company appears to have grown beyond operational capacity, with dispatch/scheduling, communication, and follow-up consistently failing despite individual technician competence.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be interpreted with caution: while technician expertise and professionalism are genuinely strong (HIGH confidence), the company's pricing practices, scheduling reliability, and follow-up are significantly problematic (HIGH confidence in negative findings). Customers should expect quality work but should be prepared for high costs, potential overcharging, scheduling difficulties, and communication challenges. The recent clustering of generic 5-star reviews raises questions about data integrity. This score reflects a company with excellent technical talent undermined by poor business operations and questionable pricing ethics.

Jackson Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally professional conduct, with many customers praising punctuality, politeness, and quality workmanship. However, the company is significantly hampered by serious and recurring communication failures—numerous customers report difficulty reaching the company, missed callbacks, no-shows, and unresponsiveness to voicemails. Project completion issues are also evident, with multiple reports of incomplete work, follow-up failures, and quality problems requiring additional repairs. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and reasonable, though some customers report inflated estimates. The stark contrast between positive recent reviews (mostly 5-star, June 2025) and numerous negative historical reviews (2013–2022) raises concerns about review authenticity and suggests potential operational inconsistencies.

• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: 40+ reviews from June 2–7, 2025 are nearly identical in structure (5-star, minimal detail, generic praise: 'prompt,' 'courteous,' 'professional,' 'great service'). Many contain no substantive information. This clustering and repetitive language is inconsistent with organic review distribution and suggests potential fake or incentivized reviews.
• CRITICAL COMMUNICATION FAILURE: At least 15 reviews explicitly report inability to reach the company, missed callbacks, no-shows, or unresponsiveness. This is a systemic issue spanning 2013–2022, indicating chronic operational dysfunction.
• SAFETY AND QUALITY CONCERNS: Multiple reviews report serious defects including gas leaks (2025-02-09), incomplete work requiring additional plumbers, drainage failures causing home flooding, and improper installations. One review documents $19,000 in water damage caused by failure to replace deteriorated gaskets.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE INCIDENTS: Several reviews describe unprofessional behavior including rudeness, anger, profanity, and confrontational attitudes from the owner/technicians (2022-01-28, 2021-10-21, 2019-04-09, 2019-03-03).
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Historical reviews (2013–2022) show a pattern of incomplete jobs, missed appointments, and poor follow-through. Recent reviews (2025) show uniformly positive ratings with minimal detail, creating a credibility gap.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Some customers report fair pricing; others report inflated estimates (e.g., $1,455 for a $300 water heater + 2 hours labor in 2013; $720 in unexplained 'code upgrades' in 2020).

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical score of 72.8 reflects mixed performance across dimensions, the data quality is compromised by a large cluster of potentially fake reviews from June 2025 that artificially inflate professionalism and project completion scores. The company exhibits a genuine pattern of communication failures and quality issues documented across multiple years (2013–2022), but recent reviews lack credibility. A more reliable assessment would exclude the suspicious June 2025 cluster and weight historical reviews more heavily, which would lower the overall score significantly. Prospective customers should prioritize the documented communication and follow-through failures over the recent 5-star reviews.