Find Nearby Plumbers In Tucson, Arizona

Troy receives consistently positive feedback from repeat customers on responsiveness, punctuality, and attitude — however, a detailed 1-star review from 2024 describes a serious professionalism failure involving aggressive and dismissive communication, which significantly drags down the professionalism score. Pricing is generally viewed as reasonable and transparent, with one reviewer specifically noting Troy recommended repairs over replacements to save money. Project completion is mostly positive across multiple service types, but the 2024 incident involved a job that was never started due to the breakdown in communication, which is a meaningful completion concern. Experience is rated positively by multiple reviewers citing skill and knowledge, though the refusal to answer a direct technical question in the 2024 review raises a flag about transparency.

• One review (2024-06-22) describes aggressive and dismissive communication from Troy, including hostile text messages — this is a serious professionalism red flag and is the most recent review in the dataset.
• The 5-star reviews are generally positive but several lack specific detail (e.g., 'the best service ever' with no specifics), which slightly reduces confidence in those reviews.
• One review dates back to 2020, which is over 3 years old and was given reduced weight in scoring. Four of the six reviews are from 2023 or earlier, meaning the most recent data point is the negative 2024 review.
• Small sample size of only 6 reviews limits overall reliability. Score should be treated with caution.

This WW Score is based on a small review set of 6 reviews spanning 2020–2024, and while the majority are positive, the most recent review is a detailed negative account that meaningfully impacts confidence — this score should be treated as a preliminary signal rather than a definitive assessment.

Spartan Plumbing demonstrates solid professionalism with strong punctuality and communication (76.5/100), supported by 28 mentions across reviews praising friendly staff, quick response times, and professional demeanor. However, pricing is a significant weakness (52.0/100) with 22 mentions of excessive charges, hidden fees, and quotes that dramatically exceed final bills—a pattern that severely undermines customer trust. Project completion scores moderately (71.0/100) with 18 mentions revealing inconsistent follow-through, abandoned jobs, and unfinished work. Technical experience is respectable (79.0/100) with 15 mentions of skilled problem-solving, though some reviews cite incompetent repairs. The company shows a troubling pattern of strong initial service marred by billing disputes and incomplete work.

• PRICING CRISIS: 22 reviews explicitly mention overcharging, hidden fees, or massive quote-to-bill discrepancies ($250+ differences, $1000 garbage disposal charges, $750 for 1 hour of work). This is the dominant complaint pattern and severely damages credibility.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Multiple reviews (at least 6) describe abandoned jobs, no-shows, incomplete work, and failure to return calls/follow up. One customer waited 3 weeks for promised callback; another had tools left behind and job unfinished.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most detailed negative reviews cluster in 2014-2020 period. Recent reviews (2024-2025) are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail, raising authenticity concerns. However, negative pricing complaints persist through 2024.
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERNS: Several 5-star reviews contain no text or single-word reviews ('Poopy', blank entries). Multiple reviews from 2021-2022 appear to be placeholder/spam entries. This reduces confidence in overall rating distribution.
• BUSINESS CONTINUITY ISSUE: One 2022 review states company 'went out of business in August 2021' and was bought by another company. This creates uncertainty about whether reviews pre/post-acquisition are comparable.
• DAMAGE & LIABILITY: Multiple reviews describe property damage (broken tiles, cracked formica, damaged sinks, bent AC ducts) with disputes over reimbursement responsibility.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Wide variance between reviews—some praise Derek/owner personally, others describe crew incompetence. Suggests quality depends heavily on which technician is assigned.

This WW Score of 68.2 should be treated with MODERATE confidence and caution. While professionalism and experience scores are supported by substantial evidence, the pricing dimension (22 mentions of overcharging) is a critical red flag that directly contradicts the high star ratings. The presence of suspicious placeholder reviews, business ownership changes, and a clear temporal pattern (older detailed complaints vs. recent vague praise) suggests the overall rating may not reflect current service quality. Prospective customers should prioritize obtaining detailed written quotes before engaging this company and should be aware of a documented pattern of billing disputes.

Tim demonstrates strong technical skills and competitive pricing across multiple project types, with several detailed reviews praising his knowledge, work quality, and fair estimates. However, professionalism is inconsistent—while most reviews highlight responsiveness and courtesy, one critical 1-star review from 2011 reports a complete failure to return a phone call, which directly contradicts claims of reliability. All reviews are older than 8 years, limiting recency validity. The WW Score of 68.2 reflects solid workmanship and pricing offset by a significant communication failure and the age of the review data.

• CRITICAL: All 8 reviews are from 2011–2016 (8–13 years old). No recent data available to assess current service quality or whether issues have been resolved.
• PROFESSIONALISM INCONSISTENCY: One 1-star review explicitly states 'Never returned phone call' (2011), directly contradicting positive claims of responsiveness and communication in other reviews. This suggests either a past problem or a genuinely dissatisfied customer.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 8 reviews total. Confidence in all dimensions is capped at MODERATE due to limited mention counts (3–4 per dimension).
• GENERIC PRAISE: Several reviews are very brief ('good, nice guy', 'It went well', 'Great job and great pricing') with minimal detail, reducing their diagnostic value.

This score should be treated with caution due to the age of all reviews (8+ years old) and the presence of a serious communication failure that contradicts other positive feedback; current service quality cannot be reliably assessed from this data alone.

Carlson Company demonstrates strong technical expertise and responsiveness, with multiple reviews praising knowledgeable technicians and quick emergency response. However, serious pricing concerns significantly undermine the overall score: two detailed 1-star reviews from 2018 document deceptive quoting practices, unauthorized charges, and aggressive collection tactics that directly contradict the positive reviews. The company appears to deliver quality work but has a documented pattern of charging substantially more than quoted and adding unexpected fees, creating substantial trust and value-for-money issues.

• CRITICAL: Two detailed negative reviews (both dated 2018-06-26) document identical pricing deception patterns: quoted price significantly undercut actual charges, $85 report-writing fees added without authorization, and aggressive post-payment harassment. This suggests systemic pricing practices rather than isolated incidents.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Four of six reviews are from 2018-2019 (3-6 years old). Only two reviews are from 2022-2023. Recent review data is limited.
• CONTRADICTION PATTERN: Positive reviews (all 5-star, 2018-2023) praise honesty and trustworthiness, while negative reviews (both 1-star, 2018) provide specific evidence of deceptive billing. This stark contradiction warrants caution.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS LACK PRICING DETAIL: None of the 5-star reviews mention pricing, quotes, or billing transparency—the exact areas where negative reviews document problems. This absence is notable.

This score should be treated with caution due to conflicting evidence and limited recent data; while technical competence appears solid, documented pricing deception in two detailed 2018 reviews raises serious concerns about billing practices that are not adequately addressed by older positive reviews lacking pricing specifics.

The reviews present a sharply divided picture of RES-COM Plumbing. The hands-on plumber (Luigi) receives consistent praise for skill, punctuality, courtesy, and follow-through across multiple positive reviews, which drives the experience and project completion scores upward. However, two significant 1-star reviews — one from a former employee describing a hostile work environment and unpaid wages, and one from a customer detailing billing harassment, unexplained cost doubling, and unprofessional conduct — substantially drag down the professionalism and pricing scores. The pricing dimension is particularly concerning: the one detailed billing review describes a quote that nearly doubled without explanation and a billing process described as harassing and dishonest. Overall, the technical work appears competent, but serious concerns around business conduct, billing transparency, and treatment of both customers and employees cannot be ignored.

• BILLING CONCERN: One detailed review describes a quote of $500 that was billed at $992 with no itemized breakdown, followed by a week of harassment before settling at $700. This is a significant red flag for pricing transparency and business ethics.
• EMPLOYEE COMPLAINT: One 1-star review is from a former employee alleging a hostile work environment, unpaid wages, and disrespectful treatment of veterans. While employee reviews differ from customer reviews, this corroborates the pattern of unprofessional business conduct described in the customer complaint.
• RECENCY NOTE: The two most positive reviews (2018 and 2019) are more than 4 years old. The two most negative reviews are from 2021 and 2022, suggesting a possible decline in business conduct over time. More recent reviews should be weighted more heavily.
• SPLIT PATTERN: There is a clear split between praise directed at the individual plumber (Luigi) and criticism directed at the business/billing side of the operation. Scores reflect this mixed reality rather than treating all reviews as equivalent.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 7 reviews total. Scores should be treated with caution as a small number of additional reviews could significantly shift results in either direction.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to the small review pool of 7 reviews, a meaningful recency gap in positive reviews, and two substantive negative reviews that raise serious concerns about billing practices and workplace conduct that are difficult to dismiss.

Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is significantly dragged down by a detailed 1-star review describing a no-call, no-show appointment and unresponsiveness throughout the day, which is a serious reliability concern. Pricing feedback is consistently positive across multiple reviews, with several customers explicitly calling the contractor reasonable or noting good value. Project completion and experience scores are moderate — positive reviewers praised work ethic, thoroughness, and clean results, but the sample is small and the negative review raises doubts about follow-through even at the estimate stage. All reviews are from 2012–2015, meaning none fall within the past 12 months, which substantially limits the reliability of this score for current hiring decisions.

• ALL REVIEWS ARE OUTDATED: The most recent review is from July 2015 — over 9 years ago. This score should not be treated as reflective of current performance.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 6 reviews total. Scores are based on very limited data and should be interpreted with caution.
• SERIOUS PROFESSIONALISM INCIDENT: One detailed 1-star review documents a no-call, no-show for an estimate appointment, unresponsiveness to texts and calls throughout the day, and an unconvincing explanation when finally reached. This is a significant red flag.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in rating, detail, and tone. No suspicious repetition or generic phrasing detected.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to a very small review sample (6 reviews), all of which are more than 9 years old, making it unsuitable as a confident indicator of the contractor's current quality or professionalism.