Find Nearby Plumbers In Fort Lauderdale, Florida

The reviews for this contractor paint a predominantly negative picture across nearly all dimensions. Professionalism is severely damaged by multiple accounts of unanswered calls, a manager shouting at and hanging up on a customer, and a 12-hour non-response to a plumbing emergency advertised as 24/7 service. Project completion is similarly poor, with reviews describing incomplete repairs, parts never ordered, follow-through failures, and one account of extensive damage to a home caused by improperly secured work costing the customer $25,000–$30,000. Pricing received a slightly higher score due to one positive mention of inexpensive service, but is offset by a complaint about a $110 charge for a one-minute visit that yielded no resolution. The two positive reviews do highlight some genuine capability and timeliness, but they are outnumbered and outweighed by the volume and severity of the negative accounts.

• Five of seven reviews are 1-star; the two 5-star reviews are brief and lack specific detail, which may indicate they are outliers or not fully representative of consistent service quality.
• Most reviews are dated between 2014 and 2021, with the most recent being September 2021. No reviews from the past 12 months are present, so current service quality cannot be assessed.
• One review describes serious property damage ($25,000–$30,000) allegedly caused by improper workmanship, with the company refusing to honor the quality of their work — this is a significant red flag.
• Multiple reviews independently describe the same pattern: no callback, failure to follow through on parts ordering, and unresolved service calls — suggesting a systemic operational problem rather than isolated incidents.
• The two positive reviews are generic in nature ('very nice,' 'solved the problem') with limited specifics, while the negative reviews contain detailed, credible accounts with names, dates, and dollar amounts — lending the negative reviews higher credibility.

This WW Score is based on a small sample of 7 reviews spanning 2014–2021 with no recent data, but the consistency and specificity of the negative reviews across multiple dimensions lend moderate reliability to the low score produced.

This contractor's review profile is dominated by severe, credible complaints filed in 2024, including multiple allegations of theft, fraud, abandoned work, and deliberate evasion of clients after collecting payment. At least three reviewers report filing police reports, and a pattern of blocking client numbers, missing appointments, and renaming the business to escape negative reviews is documented across multiple independent accounts. The three positive reviews (all from March–April 2024) are generic in nature and predate or coincide with the wave of serious fraud allegations, significantly undermining their credibility. Project completion and professionalism scores are near-floor due to the volume and severity of abandonment and deception complaints, with only marginal credit given for the small number of positive interactions described.

• FRAUD ALERT: Multiple reviewers (at least 3) explicitly state they filed police reports for theft of funds ranging from $4,000 to $6,000+. This is an extreme red flag.
• PATTERN OF ABANDONMENT: At least 5 reviews describe the contractor collecting payment and then becoming unreachable, blocking phone numbers, or failing to return to complete work.
• BUSINESS RENAME DETECTED: One reviewer explicitly states the business was renamed from 'Remodel and Restoration Pros' after accumulating negative reviews on Yelp, suggesting deliberate reputation manipulation.
• REVIEW MANIPULATION SUSPECTED: One reviewer states the contractor pressured them to remove negative Yelp reviews and photos as a condition of partial work completion, indicating active interference with honest review records.
• POSSIBLE FAKE POSITIVE REVIEWS: The three 5-star reviews are brief, lack specific detail, and cluster in a narrow date range (March 22 – April 3, 2024) immediately before the surge of 1-star fraud complaints. Their authenticity is questionable.
• RECENCY NOTE: All 10 reviews are from 2024, making them highly relevant. The negative reviews are more recent (May–July 2024) than the positive ones (March–April 2024), suggesting a deteriorating or consistently fraudulent pattern.
• MISREPRESENTATION OF SKILLS: One reviewer explicitly states the contractor lied about his plumbing knowledge, and another describes a faucet replacement done incorrectly with no follow-through on promised correction.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall confidence due to sufficient review volume, but the score itself should be treated as a serious warning — the evidence of fraud, theft, and systematic client abandonment is credible, consistent, and corroborated across multiple independent reviewers; this contractor should not be hired.

With only 3 reviews available, reliable scoring is not possible. However, the data shows severe and consistent problems: two reviews (2024 and 2021) report critical failures in professionalism (no-shows, poor communication, blocking customers) and project completion (incomplete work, refusal to finish, bait-and-switch pricing). One older 2022 review praised professionalism and workmanship, but this is heavily outweighed by recent negative experiences. The pricing dimension shows evidence of significant overcharges and quote misrepresentation. The contractor exhibits patterns of unreliability and poor follow-through.

• CRITICAL: Two of three reviews report severe service failures including no-shows, incomplete work, and refusal to complete jobs after payment.
• CRITICAL: Evidence of potential bait-and-switch pricing — customer quoted $2,780 but charged $4,300 with work still incomplete.
• CRITICAL: Recent review (2024) reports being blocked by contractor after complaint, suggesting avoidance of accountability.
• One positive review is from 2022 (over 2 years old); two negative reviews are from 2024 and 2021, showing ongoing problems.
• Sample size is extremely small (n=3) — results are not statistically reliable and should not be used for major decisions.

This score should NOT be trusted for decision-making. With only 3 reviews and severe contradictions, the data is insufficient to produce a reliable WW Score. The recent negative reviews suggest serious operational problems, but the small sample size prevents confident generalization.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. Both reviews are recent (2024) and mention professionalism (same-day service, politeness, honesty), fair pricing, and quality workmanship. However, with only 2 reviews total, the sample size is too small to calculate a reliable WW Score. All dimensions are mentioned but with minimal evidence. A WW Score requires at least 3 reviews to be considered statistically meaningful.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 2 reviews provided. WW Score calculation requires minimum 3 reviews for reliability.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Both reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('highly recommend Felix', 'honest and fair priced', 'prompt service'). Generic praise structure without specific technical details.
• ALL 5-STAR RATINGS: Both reviews are perfect 5.0 ratings with no critical feedback or specific problem-solving examples.
• LIMITED SPECIFICITY: Reviews lack detailed descriptions of actual work performed, materials used, or specific challenges overcome.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2). Do not rely on any scoring until at least 3 additional reviews are collected. Current data suggests positive sentiment but is too limited and shows suspicious uniformity to be trustworthy.

Both reviews are positive and describe responsive, professional service, with one reviewer specifically praising fast arrival during an emergency and another highlighting that the contractor did everything promised. Pricing was mentioned favorably in one review, including a reference to a satisfaction guarantee. Project completion is supported by both reviews indicating the work was carried out as expected, though neither provides specific technical detail. Experience as a standalone dimension — covering skill level, workmanship quality, and problem-solving depth — was not explicitly addressed in either review, so no score could be assigned. All dimension scores carry very low confidence due to the minimal review count.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are dated 2010–2011, making them over 13 years old. These scores should be treated as highly outdated and not reflective of current service quality.
• Reviews are brief and lack specific technical detail, limiting the ability to score experience and workmanship with any confidence.
• With only 2 reviews, fake review detection is inconclusive, but the generic praise in Review 1 ('one of the best experiences') with no specifics warrants mild caution.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both over a decade old, making it insufficient to reliably assess this contractor's current quality — treat any inferred scores as low-confidence placeholders only.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. While both reviews are positive and mention professionalism, project completion, and experience favorably, the sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions about overall contractor performance.

• Critical: Only 2 reviews provided — minimum 3 required for reliable scoring
• Both reviews are from 2018 (5+ years old) — no recent performance data available
• Limited mention counts across all dimensions (1–2 mentions each) — confidence is constrained
• Insufficient data to detect patterns or validate consistency

This analysis cannot produce a valid WW Score due to insufficient review volume. A minimum of 3 reviews is required; only 2 were provided. Additionally, both reviews are significantly outdated (2018), providing no insight into current performance or recent service quality.