Find Nearby Plumbers In Fort Lauderdale, Florida

Terry's Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism, with consistently positive feedback on workmanship quality and honest diagnostics. However, the company is significantly hampered by persistent pricing concerns—many customers report overcharges, hidden fees, credit card surcharges, and quotes that far exceed market rates. Project completion shows mixed results with several reports of incomplete work, delayed callbacks, and follow-up issues. While the owner Terry and many individual technicians earn high praise for integrity and responsiveness, operational inconsistencies and aggressive pricing strategies create substantial customer dissatisfaction that offsets technical competence.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews dated 2025-05-10 and 2025-05-07 contain near-identical phrasing and suspiciously generic praise with minimal specifics. Multiple reviews use identical language ('very professional,' 'very friendly,' '100% satisfied') suggesting potential review manipulation. These 16 reviews (8 pairs) appear duplicated across two dates.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE PERVASIVE: 89 mentions of pricing issues reveal systematic overcharging pattern—customers report $500+ for simple faucet installations, $350 for 5-minute snake jobs, $249 per toilet for basic repairs, and unexplained credit card surcharges (15% in some cases). This is the single largest source of negative feedback.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Multiple reports of incomplete work, abandoned jobs, and failure to follow up on promised callbacks. One customer waited 2.5 months for promised follow-up work that never materialized. Another paid $525 for diagnostic work that yielded wrong diagnosis.
• INCONSISTENT STAFF PERFORMANCE: Wide variance in technician quality and attitude. Some reviews praise specific technicians (Rick, Jose, Derek, Wade) while others report rude, dismissive, or arrogant behavior from unnamed plumbers. One customer reported a plumber yelling at elderly father.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWNS: Multiple instances of no-shows, no-calls, missed appointment windows, and failure to return calls. One customer waited 4 hours past appointment window; another had plumber show up 1.5 hours late.
• WARRANTY AND GUARANTEE ISSUES: Company refuses to honor failed repairs beyond 30 days despite customer claims work was defective. One customer's repair failed after 36 days; company refused callback without additional service fee.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent reviews (May 2025) show suspicious clustering and duplication. Older reviews (2018-2022) show more balanced mix of positive and negative feedback, suggesting recent review activity may not be fully authentic.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while the score reflects genuine technical competence and professionalism (supported by 156+ mentions), the pervasive and consistent pricing complaints (89 mentions) and project completion failures (118 mentions) indicate systematic business practice issues that significantly undermine trustworthiness. The suspicious clustering of identical reviews in May 2025 further reduces confidence in the overall rating. Customers should expect quality workmanship but should obtain detailed written estimates and clarify all fees upfront before engaging this company.

Sam Jolley's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with technicians consistently praised for punctuality, knowledge, and courteous behavior. However, the company is severely hampered by widespread pricing complaints—numerous customers report charges 2-6 times higher than competitors for identical work, with many feeling exploited. Project completion is generally solid, though some callbacks and scheduling issues are documented. The stark disconnect between service quality and pricing creates a company that excels operationally but fails on value proposition, resulting in a moderate overall WW Score of 72.8.

• CRITICAL PRICING PATTERN: 35 reviews explicitly mention pricing concerns. Recurring theme of charges 2-6x market rate (e.g., $383 for drain snake vs. $100-150 elsewhere; $1,800 toilet install vs. $300-400 market rate; $4,400 quote vs. $700 competitor). This is the single largest driver of negative sentiment.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: Reviews dated 2025-05-10 (8 reviews all same date, all 5-star, generic praise with minimal specifics) appear clustered and potentially inauthentic. However, these are offset by detailed negative reviews with specific dollar amounts and dates, suggesting overall review authenticity.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reviews cite unresponsive management, unreturned calls, and poor follow-up (e.g., manager never called back; finance company unable to reach owner; email concerns ignored).
• INCOMPLETE/FAILED WORK: Several reviews document incomplete repairs (clog not fixed, water heater not working, backflow device repeatedly leaking, inspection failures on shower conversion).
• SCHEDULING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple complaints about missed appointments, rescheduling without notice, and long delays despite premium pricing claims.
• OWNER/MANAGEMENT CONDUCT: Multiple reviews describe rude, aggressive, or dismissive behavior from owner and management staff (yelling on phone, hanging up, confrontational attitude, refusing to take responsibility).

This WW Score of 72.8 is highly reliable (HIGH confidence across all dimensions with 35-58 mentions each), but the score masks a critical bifurcation: the company delivers professional, skilled work consistently, yet systematically overcharges customers by 2-6x market rates, creating justified customer dissatisfaction that outweighs operational excellence. The score reflects this paradox accurately.

Roto-Rooter scores very strongly on professionalism and technician experience, with hundreds of reviews praising individual technicians by name for being courteous, knowledgeable, communicative, and thorough. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs resolved same-day or within a short timeframe, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, broken promises on follow-up visits, and warranty disputes. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension across the entire review set — dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges as 'outrageous,' 'ridiculous,' 'a scam,' or triple the price of competitors, with specific dollar amounts cited ranging from $315 for 4 minutes of work to $8,700 for a water heater installation. Several reviews also describe deceptive pricing practices, including quotes that changed after work began, failure to disclose service fees upfront, and pressure tactics targeting vulnerable customers including seniors and non-English speakers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., multiple identical reviews for 'Gio,' 'Gabriel,' 'Daniel,' 'Gus,' 'Giovanni,' and others). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate a review solicitation system that caused customers to submit the same review twice, or potential manipulation. Confidence in raw review count is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 150-200 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (almost all 5-star). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from scoring but inflate the total count.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SEVERE AND SPECIFIC: Negative pricing reviews are not vague — they cite specific dollar amounts, compare to competitor prices, and describe practices such as quoting after work begins, refusing to honor coupons, and charging elderly or non-English-speaking customers without disclosure. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe technicians failing to arrive within promised windows, no-call-no-shows, and dispatch communication failures. This is a recurring pattern affecting the project completion score.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Several reviews describe Roto-Rooter refusing to honor stated warranties, including a 6-month guarantee and a 30-day guarantee, with customers being charged again for the same recurring issue.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: A small but notable number of reviews describe active harm caused by technicians — flooding a kitchen, improperly setting a toilet, changing the wrong pipe, leaving sewage handprints, and damaging property with no accountability.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians quoting extremely high prices and then reducing them when customers push back, suggesting initial quotes are inflated as a negotiating tactic rather than honest pricing.
• RECENCY: All reviews are dated between approximately May 7, 2025 and June 9, 2025 — all within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is fully applied.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review set and carries HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews inflating volume, a strong and consistent pattern of severe pricing complaints that meaningfully suppresses the score, and documented instances of incomplete work and warranty non-compliance that suggest the positive technician-level experience does not always translate to a satisfactory overall customer outcome.

This aggregated review set covers multiple businesses operating under the 'American Plumbing' name across different regions, which significantly complicates scoring. The majority of reviews are strongly positive, praising responsive technicians, professional conduct, and quality workmanship — with many named employees (Seth, Josh, Matt, Charlie, Felix, Luis, Zeke, and others) receiving repeated commendation. However, a substantial minority of negative reviews — roughly 15-20% of substantive reviews — describe serious issues including rude staff, no-shows, billing disputes, price gouging, incomplete work, and failed inspections, which meaningfully drag down all four dimensions. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple credible complaints about bait-and-switch quotes, unexplained charges, and prices significantly above competitors, though many other reviewers found pricing fair or even below-market. Project completion scores moderately well overall but is penalized by recurring complaints about jobs left unfinished, callbacks not honored, and work failing inspection.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to span multiple distinct businesses operating under the 'American Plumbing' name across different U.S. regions (California, Florida, Texas, Louisiana, Ohio, etc.). Scores reflect an aggregate that may not represent any single business accurately.
• FAKE REVIEW CLUSTER DETECTED: A cluster of 1-star reviews dated 2022-06-07 with no review text (approximately 8-10 blank 1-star reviews) and several with near-identical short phrases ('Unprofessional', 'Very unprofessional', 'Very unprofessional and disrespectful') posted on the same date strongly suggests a coordinated negative review attack. These were noted but their impact was moderated given the pattern.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED FROM SCORING: Approximately 25-30 reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from approximately 2006 to June 2025. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) are heavily weighted and show a predominantly positive trend, though the detailed negative review from June 2025 regarding permit failures and unprofessional conduct is significant.
• REPEATED REVIEW DETECTED: The review praising Matt and Richard of American Plumbing Laguna Beach appears to be posted twice with slightly different dates (2025-04-10 and 2025-04-07). Only counted once.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE CREDIBLE AND SPECIFIC: Multiple negative pricing reviews include specific dollar amounts, named employees, and detailed circumstances, lending them high credibility. These are not generic complaints and meaningfully reduce the pricing score.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: Multiple independent reviews across different years describe missed appointments without notification, which is a recurring operational pattern that reduces the professionalism and project completion scores.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its reliability as a guide to any single business is LIMITED because the reviews demonstrably cover multiple distinct companies sharing the 'American Plumbing' name; prospective customers should seek reviews specific to their local branch before making a hiring decision.

Paris Plumbing has a long and mixed review history spanning roughly 15 years. The majority of positive reviews praise punctuality, friendliness, and technical competence — particularly from named technicians like Gene, Tim, Lee, and Chris — which drives a moderate-to-good professionalism and experience score. However, a persistent and credible pattern of negative reviews significantly drags down all dimensions: multiple reviewers report being overcharged for minimal work, receiving no itemized billing, being sent to collections, and experiencing rude or dismissive office staff (particularly Jennifer and Stephanie). Project completion is notably impacted by several reviews describing incomplete or misdiagnosed work, failed callbacks, and jobs that required a second plumber to actually resolve. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple independent reviewers citing a high flat-fee minimum, charges for time not spent solving problems, and a 30-day warranty policy that left customers paying multiple times for the same issue. The company appears to have undergone ownership changes (new management noted around late 2023), and more recent reviews trend more positively, but the volume of detailed negative reviews across many years prevents a high score.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two reviews are near-identical word-for-word copies — one dated 2024-06-09 and one dated 2022-10-14 (the long negative review about shower controller and $600 in charges), and similarly the 'BEWARE OF THESE PEOPLE' review appears twice (2023-06-10 and 2022-10-13). These duplicates were counted only once each for scoring purposes.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Eight reviews contain no text (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The company reportedly changed ownership around November 2023. Reviews from 2024-2025 trend more positively, suggesting possible operational improvement under new management. Older negative reviews (2013-2016 era) may reflect a prior ownership culture but are still relevant given the volume and specificity of complaints.
• OFFICE STAFF PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2013, 2015, 2016, 2020) specifically name office staff (Jennifer, Stephanie, Michelle) as rude, dismissive, or having hung up on customers. This is a credible recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: At least four independent reviews explicitly describe being charged without prior disclosure of fees, charged for cancelled appointments, or charged for work not completed. This is a significant and recurring pricing integrity issue.
• POSSIBLE GEOGRAPHIC OUTLIER: One review references 'Detroit' and a plumber named 'Gary,' which does not match the Seattle-based Paris Plumbing profile. This review may be misattributed and was excluded from scoring.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW: No strong evidence of coordinated fake positive reviews. Positive reviews contain specific names, job details, and varied language. However, a cluster of 5-star reviews all dated '2022-06-10' with no text or minimal text warrants mild caution.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning 15+ years with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; however, the score should be interpreted with awareness that the company has changed ownership and recent performance may differ meaningfully from the historical average reflected here.

Need A Plumber scores well on professionalism, project completion, and technical experience, with dozens of reviews praising punctuality, responsiveness, courteous technicians, and jobs completed efficiently and thoroughly. The office manager Shelly (also referenced as Sherry/Meghan across different eras) is repeatedly cited as a standout in communication and scheduling. However, the pricing dimension is a significant drag on the overall score: six separate reviews explicitly describe billing practices as deceptive or unreasonable, including undisclosed fees, inflated labor hours, no itemized breakdowns, and charges perceived as grossly disproportionate to the work performed. These pricing complaints are spread across multiple years and multiple reviewers, suggesting a systemic pattern rather than isolated incidents. The WW Score reflects a company with strong field execution but a meaningful and recurring trust problem around billing transparency.

• PRICING PATTERN WARNING: At least 6 reviews across different years (2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025) independently describe billing as deceptive, overpriced, or non-transparent. Specific complaints include: undisclosed $125 estimate fees, charging in 30-minute blocks without disclosure, billing for drive time or phone call time, refusing to itemize labor vs. materials, and quoting one price then charging another. This is a consistent and credible pattern.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN (MINOR): Five reviews contain no text at all — only a 5-star rating (dates: 2025-03-11, 2025-01-10, 2024-06-09 x2, 2024-06-09). These provide zero usable data and were excluded from scoring. Their presence slightly inflates the raw star average.
• ONE REVIEW APPEARS TO BE FOR A DIFFERENT COMPANY: The review dated 2016-12-06 references 'Joe at Perfect Plumbing & Rooter' and appears to have been posted to the wrong business profile. It was excluded from scoring.
• ONE REVIEW IS FROM 2001 AND CONTAINS NO USABLE INFORMATION beyond a single sentence. It was excluded from scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of substantive reviews are from 2024-2025, which is positive for recency weighting. Several older reviews (2015-2018) were included but given reduced implicit weight. The billing complaints span both old and recent reviews, reinforcing that the pricing issue has not been resolved over time.
• INTEGRITY FLAG: One reviewer (2020) explicitly states the company asked them to write a positive review in exchange for resolving their complaint. This is a serious ethical concern and was factored into the pricing score reduction.

This WW Score is based on 62 reviews with usable content spanning approximately 14 years, with strong recency in 2024-2025, and carries HIGH overall confidence — the professionalism, completion, and experience scores are well-supported, but the pricing score reflects a documented and recurring billing transparency problem that prospective customers should treat as a material risk.