Find Nearby Plumbers In Tucson, Arizona

The review set for Agile Plumbing is deeply divided, with three strongly negative reviews (1-star) detailing serious concerns across nearly every dimension, and four positive reviews that are either older, less detailed, or somewhat generic. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension and carries the most damaging evidence: one review describes a heated verbal altercation with a tenant, an unprofessional receptionist, and failure to communicate water shutoff schedules; another cites a plumber not wearing shoe covers and removing a COVID mask; a third describes poor follow-through and communication over multiple days. Project completion is similarly troubled, with multiple reviews citing incomplete work, abandoned jobs, unexpected delays, and a refusal to complete warranty-covered repairs without additional charges. Pricing drew explicit complaints about mid-job price changes and inflated parts costs, though two positive reviews mention fair or good pricing. Experience scores are mixed — some reviewers praised Michael's diagnostic approach and problem-solving, while others said they had to give the plumber pointers and that unnecessary work was recommended.

• Two of the four positive reviews (2016 dates) are over 8 years old and carry significantly reduced weight under recency rules.
• The 2016-05-19 5-star review ('They do a great job. Very professional and do no gouge customers. Got it done fast and a good deal.') is extremely generic with no specific details, raising mild concern about authenticity.
• The 2021-05-04 5-star review is also brief and vague ('He knows plumbing all types. Costco uses him also.'), offering little verifiable detail.
• Three of the four negative reviews are from 2020–2021, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time relative to the older positive reviews.
• Mid-job price change flagged in one review as a potential deceptive pricing practice — this is a serious consumer concern and weighted accordingly.
• One review explicitly describes a verbal altercation between the plumber/company and a tenant, which is a significant professionalism red flag.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: the negative reviews are highly detailed and specific, lending them strong credibility, while the positive reviews are older and less substantive, limiting their counterbalancing effect — consumers should treat this score as a meaningful warning signal.

Arico Plumbing's review corpus is heavily dominated by negative experiences across all four scored dimensions, with the most damaging patterns appearing in pricing and project completion. Multiple reviewers independently describe bait-and-switch pricing tactics — being quoted one price and billed double — and at least two reviews describe being left with worse conditions after a service call than before it (unusable drains, incomplete snaking, abandoned AC installs). Professionalism scores are dragged down by repeated accounts of technicians arriving late or not at all, managers failing to return calls, and staff laughing at customer complaints. Experience scores reflect a mixed but mostly negative picture: several reviews describe technicians who could not diagnose basic problems, installed parts incorrectly, or recommended expensive replacements that were unnecessary. A minority of positive reviews do exist and describe genuinely skilled, punctual, and fairly priced service, preventing scores from bottoming out entirely.

• BAIT-AND-SWITCH PRICING PATTERN: At least three independent reviews (2023-08-22, 2023-08-16, 2021-07-05) describe being quoted one price and billed significantly more, with one reviewer noting office staff laughed when they complained. This is a systemic pattern, not an isolated incident.
• ABANDONED OR INCOMPLETE WORK: Multiple reviews describe technicians leaving customers in worse conditions than before the service call — including a home left with no usable toilets or drains (2016-06-03), no AC after installation (2012-06-27), and a faucet repair that was never completed (2011-07-19).
• SHODDY WORKMANSHIP WITH APPARENT INTENT: The most recent 1-star review (2024-10-17) describes a plumber installing a washer assembly upside down and without a required spring, with the reviewer alleging the technician knew the homeowners would be away for months — suggesting deliberate concealment of a faulty repair. Arico did not deny the error but refused any refund.
• MANAGEMENT UNRESPONSIVENESS: At least four reviews explicitly state that managers or owners failed to return calls after complaints were escalated (2016-06-03, 2015-03-03, 2013-07-14, 2012-06-27).
• UNNECESSARY UPSELLING PATTERN: Multiple reviews across different years describe technicians recommending full system replacements (AC units, ductwork) that were later found to be unnecessary by other contractors. One review (2016-01-19) states the manager confirmed this upselling is standard company policy.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024, 2023) are among the most negative and describe pricing fraud and unresolved workmanship failures. The majority of positive reviews are from 2017 or earlier, suggesting possible decline in service quality over time. Recent reviews should be weighted more heavily.
• NO FAKE REVIEW FLAG: While positive reviews are outnumbered roughly 3-to-1, the positive reviews contain specific names, job details, and varied language. They do not appear fabricated, but their age and minority status limit their impact on the overall score.

This WW Score is based on 37 reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH overall confidence due to volume and consistency of negative patterns across all four dimensions; however, prospective customers should note that the most recent reviews (2023–2024) are uniformly negative and describe conduct that may constitute consumer fraud, which suggests the current state of this business may be worse than even this low score reflects.

This contractor's review profile is deeply polarized, with a cluster of detailed, credible negative reviews describing serious misconduct including fraudulent billing, abandoned work, poor workmanship, regulatory citations from the Registrar of Contractors, and dishonest communication. These negative reviews are specific, corroborated by third-party processes (BBB, ROC), and span multiple years, lending them significant weight. The positive reviews, while present, are largely generic, brief, and several lack dates entirely, raising concerns about their authenticity. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly describing unfinished work, months-long delays, and jobs left in worse condition than when started. Pricing received the lowest score due to multiple credible accounts of hidden charges, inflated billing, and refusal to provide transparent cost updates.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: Four of the five-star reviews have no date and use nearly identical generic phrasing ('great experience', 'very professional', 'on time', 'will recommend'). They contain no specific job details, names, or circumstances, which is a strong indicator of inauthentic reviews. These were scored conservatively.
• REGULATORY ACTION CONFIRMED: One detailed review documents a formal Registrar of Contractors (ROC) citation issued to Alpha Builder after an inspection confirmed deficient work. This is a significant credibility flag against the contractor.
• PATTERN OF ABANDONED WORK: At least three independent reviewers explicitly describe work being left incomplete for months, with the contractor becoming unresponsive after partial payment.
• FRAUDULENT BILLING ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviewers allege inflated or fabricated invoices, including one claim of a $40,000 bill for running fans with no demolition or repair work performed.
• INSURANCE FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: One reviewer alleges the contractor fabricated water damage claims to inflate an insurance payout, resulting in the reviewer's kitchen being torn apart and left unrepaired.
• OWNER RESPONSE PATTERN: Multiple negative reviewers note that the owner (Jason) responds to negative reviews by calling all complainants liars, which is consistent across reviews and suggests a pattern of deflection rather than accountability.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent negative review is from October 2024, indicating ongoing issues are not historical only. Several undated positive reviews cannot be assessed for recency.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the high volume of detailed, corroborated negative reviews offset by a cluster of suspicious undated generic positive reviews; the negative reviews are substantially more credible and should be weighted heavily by any prospective customer.

Advantage Air Mechanical's review corpus is heavily bifurcated: a cluster of strongly positive reviews from roughly 2013–2014 and 2017–2024 praising specific technicians (Matthew, Andrew, Josh, Darryl, James) for punctuality, clear communication, and solid workmanship, contrasted against an overwhelming volume of 1-star reviews citing chronic no-shows, unreturned calls, multi-week repair delays in extreme Arizona heat, and repeated failed repair attempts. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with dozens of reviewers describing jobs abandoned mid-repair, wrong parts installed, units left open to the elements, and technicians who lacked the correct tools or knowledge. Professionalism scores are dragged sharply downward by pervasive reports of rude office staff, technicians who smoked near a pregnant woman, walked uninvited through a customer's home, and a pattern of management (owner Kevin Bedient named repeatedly) never returning calls. Pricing and experience receive slightly higher scores because a meaningful minority of reviewers explicitly praised fair pricing and knowledgeable technicians, but even the experience dimension is undermined by multiple accounts of misdiagnosis, incorrect valve installation that destroyed a unit, and stop-leak band-aids applied to systems still under manufacturer warranty. The recency trend is modestly positive — the most recent reviews (2024) are uniformly 5-star — but the sheer volume of documented failures across the full history prevents a high score.

• RECENCY SPLIT: Reviews from 2014–2017 are overwhelmingly 1-star and describe systemic operational failures. Reviews from 2018 onward trend more positive, suggesting possible management or staffing changes, but the historical record is severe and voluminous.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW CONCERN (MINOR): The three most recent 5-star reviews (Oct 2024, Jul 2024, Feb 2024) are specific and detailed with named technicians and plausible scenarios; they do not appear fabricated. However, several older 5-star reviews (Jun 2019 x2) are very brief, generic, and posted on the same date, which is a mild flag.
• OWNER NON-RESPONSIVENESS PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years explicitly name owner 'Kevin Bedient' as refusing to return calls, which is a significant governance and accountability red flag.
• HOME WARRANTY CONTEXT: A large proportion of negative reviews involve customers assigned via American Home Shield (AHS) or 2-10 Home Warranty. Some positive reviewers acknowledge this context may inflate complaints. However, the contractor's own scheduling, communication, and repair quality failures are independently documented and cannot be attributed solely to warranty company policies.
• INSTALLATION NEGLIGENCE DOCUMENTED: At least two reviews describe serious installation errors — a wrong valve installation that caused total unit failure (1-star, 2019) and a roof system replacement that left the roof open to monsoon rain (1-star, 2017). These represent safety and liability concerns beyond ordinary poor service.
• SCORE RELIABILITY NOTE: The WW Score of 38.7 is based on a large, high-confidence dataset. The recent positive reviews (2024) are genuine signals of possible improvement but are insufficient in volume to offset the documented historical pattern.

This WW Score of 38.7 is based on 65 reviews with high mention counts across all four dimensions and should be considered a reliable reflection of this contractor's overall performance history, though customers should weigh the possibility of operational improvement suggested by the most recent 2024 reviews against the extensive documented failures spanning 2012–2019.

This contractor's reviews are dominated by severe and repeated pricing complaints, with numerous customers reporting charges they describe as grossly excessive, hidden, or predatory — including charging elderly customers hundreds of dollars for simple repairs and providing estimates many times higher than competitors. Professionalism is mixed: individual plumbers are sometimes praised for courtesy and punctuality, but the company-level behavior (defensive owner responses, unresponsive management, a road-rage incident by an employee) drags the score down significantly. Project completion is a serious concern, with multiple reviews describing incomplete diagnoses, improperly performed repairs, abandoned follow-through, and work that failed to resolve the original problem. Technical experience is similarly split — a handful of reviewers praise knowledgeable plumbers, while several others describe misdiagnoses, unnecessary upselling, and repairs that had to be redone by other contractors. The overall picture is of a company with some capable individual technicians undermined by systemic pricing and quality control failures.

• Two reviews (dated 2015-03-06 and 2015-02-24) are near-identical in text and content, suggesting a duplicate submission or copied review. These were counted as one unique data point for scoring purposes.
• One review (dated 2016-06-13) contains only the word 'unknown' with a 5-star rating and provides no usable data — excluded from scoring.
• A significant portion of positive reviews are vague or generic (e.g., 'Yes job got done.', 'Quick and courteous, nice job!') with little specific detail, which limits their evidentiary weight.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months; only 4 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024). Recent reviews continue to reflect the same pricing and completion concerns seen historically.
• Multiple reviews explicitly describe the company targeting elderly or vulnerable customers with inflated estimates, which is a serious ethical flag beyond normal pricing complaints.
• Owner/management responses to negative reviews were described by multiple reviewers as defensive and dismissive, suggesting a systemic customer service issue at the company level.

This WW Score is based on 37 usable reviews spanning approximately 10 years, with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions due to strong mention counts; however, the preponderance of older reviews and the small number of recent data points mean current performance may differ, and the score should be treated as a reliable historical signal rather than a guaranteed reflection of present-day service quality.

The review set is extremely small (3 reviews) and spans a very wide date range — one review is from 2007, making it nearly 18 years old and of very limited relevance. The two recent reviews (2024) are both negative: one describes a complete communication breakdown with no callbacks over a week, and the other describes being charged for a water alarm that was never delivered — a serious integrity and project completion concern. The single positive review is from 2007 and, while detailed and credible, cannot meaningfully offset recent negative experiences. Project completion is particularly penalized due to the undelivered charged item, which suggests a billing integrity issue.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score reliability is very low and should be treated as indicative only.
• The sole positive review is dated 2007 — over 17 years old — and was given significantly reduced weight per recency rules.
• One review explicitly states a charge was made for a water alarm that was never installed or provided, which is a serious project completion and billing integrity flag.
• One review describes a complete failure to respond to repeated phone calls, texts, and emails over more than a week — a significant professionalism and responsiveness concern.
• The positive 2007 review notes the contractor may not be licensed — this is a material risk flag for consumers.
• No fake review patterns detected; reviews appear authentic and varied in tone, detail, and rating.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews with a 17-year date spread and should be considered highly unreliable — prospective customers should seek additional recent references before making a hiring decision.