Find Nearby Plumbers In Frederick, Maryland

United Air Temp demonstrates significant inconsistency across service dimensions. While professionalism scores reasonably well (72.5) with many technicians praised for politeness and courtesy, the company is severely hampered by poor pricing practices (45.0), with extensive evidence of aggressive upselling, inflated quotes, and hidden charges. Project completion is particularly weak (58.0), with numerous reports of incomplete repairs, multiple callbacks for the same issue, extended delays, and failure to honor commitments. Technical experience is moderate (68.5), with skilled technicians offset by incompetent diagnostics and poor problem-solving. The company's reliance on home warranty referrals and documented patterns of warranty manipulation significantly undermine trust.

• CRITICAL: Strong pattern of aggressive upselling and inflated pricing. Multiple reviews document quotes 2-3x higher than competitors for identical work. Evidence of deliberate overcharging for refrigerant and parts.
• CRITICAL: Systematic project completion failures. Extensive documentation of: incomplete repairs requiring multiple visits (4-9+ visits for single issues), extended delays (2-3+ weeks for simple parts), failure to follow through on callbacks, and work marked complete when unfinished.
• CRITICAL: Warranty manipulation pattern. Multiple reviews from AHS (American Home Shield) customers report technicians blocking warranty claims, refusing to complete covered work, and pressuring customers into expensive upgrades not covered by warranty.
• CRITICAL: Documented intentional sabotage. One detailed review with video evidence shows technician deliberately releasing refrigerant from system while 'packing equipment' to force customer into expensive repair.
• HIGH CONCERN: Inconsistent technician quality. Same company produces both 5-star and 1-star reviews for identical service types, suggesting poor training, quality control, or deliberate inconsistency based on customer perceived wealth.
• HIGH CONCERN: Poor communication and responsiveness. Multiple reports of unanswered phones, unreturned calls, no-shows, and inability to reach management or supervisors.
• HIGH CONCERN: Diagnostic dishonesty. Repeated pattern of technicians claiming systems are 'unsafe' or 'about to fail' without proper testing (CO2 tests not performed, leak tests not disclosed), then refusing to complete warranty work unless customer purchases new system.
• MODERATE CONCERN: Recent reviews (2025) show both exceptional 5-star praise and severe 1-star complaints within same timeframe, suggesting either fake positive reviews or extreme service variability.
• MODERATE CONCERN: Multiple reviews note company ignores negative feedback while responding to positive reviews, raising credibility questions about review authenticity.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent reviews (June 2025) are predominantly positive (5-star), contrasting sharply with 2022-2024 period which shows predominantly negative reviews. This shift warrants skepticism regarding recent review authenticity or potential review manipulation.

This WW Score of 62.8 should be treated with CAUTION despite HIGH confidence in data volume. While the score reflects genuine patterns in 150 reviews, the company exhibits such severe and documented problems in pricing, project completion, and warranty manipulation that the score may understate actual risk. The recent surge in 5-star reviews (June 2025) contradicts the company's documented history and should not be weighted equally with verified complaints spanning 15+ years. Customers should prioritize the extensive evidence of incomplete work, inflated pricing, and warranty abuse over the overall score.

Michael and Son Services presents a deeply split picture: a large portion of reviewers praise individual technicians as knowledgeable, professional, courteous, and punctual, which drives the professionalism and experience scores into moderate-positive territory. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension, with dozens of explicit complaints about astronomical rates, hidden fees, bait-and-switch diagnostic charges, and quotes that far exceed market rates — this dimension scores very low. Project completion is also significantly undermined by recurring reports of no-shows, abandoned work, jobs declared complete that were not, multi-month delays, and failure to follow through on callbacks or complaints. The gap between individual technician quality and systemic operational failures (scheduling, pricing transparency, management responsiveness) is the defining characteristic of this contractor's review profile.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A large block of reviews dated 2025-06-06 through 2025-06-08 appear to be exact duplicates of one another (identical text, identical ratings, consecutive dates). This strongly suggests artificial review inflation or a platform ingestion error. Duplicate entries were identified and counted only once per unique review text for scoring purposes.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: Several reviews with no date and 5-star ratings contain very generic praise with no specifics (e.g., 'Very knowledgeable', 'Great work all around!', 'Always professional, always thorough!'). These may be solicited or fabricated reviews and were weighted conservatively.
• ONE REVIEW APPEARS TO BE FOR A DIFFERENT COMPANY: A review mentioning 'We Serve LLC' appears to have been posted in error and does not relate to Michael and Son Services. It was excluded from scoring.
• MANAGEMENT RESPONSIVENESS IS A SYSTEMIC FAILURE: Multiple independent reviewers across different years explicitly state that management never returned calls, complaints were ignored, and supervisors were dismissive. This is a pattern, not an isolated incident.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE PERVASIVE AND CONSISTENT: Overpricing complaints span from 2018 through 2025 across plumbing, electrical, and HVAC services. Multiple reviewers cite specific dollar amounts that appear to be 2x–5x market rate. This is not a recency issue — it is a structural business practice.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES ARE DOCUMENTED ACROSS MULTIPLE SERVICE TYPES: Abandoned restoration work, incomplete plumbing repairs declared finished, HVAC installations with missing hookups, and remodeling jobs lasting months beyond expectation are all explicitly documented.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2024–2025 and are therefore treated as current and fully weighted. A smaller number of reviews date to 2018–2022 and were given slightly reduced weight but remain consistent with recent patterns.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews (232 total, 189 with usable data) spanning multiple years and service types, giving it HIGH overall confidence; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate review entries that inflate total count, and the wide variance between individual technician performance and systemic company-level failures in pricing and project completion.

This contractor has a deeply polarized review profile: a strong cohort of highly satisfied customers praise punctuality, technical expertise, fair pricing, and thorough job completion, while a significant minority of negative reviews describe serious failures including no-shows, unanswered calls, abandoned jobs, and alleged price gouging or outright scams. Professionalism is the most damaged dimension, with multiple reviews citing broken appointments, no callbacks, and unprofessional conduct — pulling the score well below what the positive reviews alone would suggest. Pricing is similarly split, with some customers reporting excellent value and others describing inflated or deceptive quotes. Project completion scores moderately, buoyed by several reviews praising thorough follow-through on complex jobs, but undermined by at least two explicit accounts of work left unfinished or guarantees not honored. Experience scores highest among the four dimensions, as the positive reviews frequently cite impressive technical knowledge and problem-solving, though two reviews directly questioned competence.

• MULTIPLE CONTRACTOR IDENTITIES: Reviews reference at least four different named individuals — Armando, John, Adam, Carlos, and Joe — suggesting this may be an aggregated profile spanning more than one business or trading name. Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may not reflect a single contractor.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS: At least three reviews allege fraudulent or predatory behavior, including charging an elderly woman $800 for a 20-minute job without proper authorization, fabricating a need for sewer replacement, and rushing a distressed customer into signing an inflated contract. These are not mere dissatisfaction complaints — they describe potential contractor fraud.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least four separate reviews describe scheduled appointments where the contractor failed to appear and did not call, spanning multiple years. This is a recurring and systemic reliability issue.
• SAFETY CONCERN: One reviewer reported that the technician left a gas line open after a failed repair attempt and did not follow up adequately despite the danger. This is a significant safety flag.
• WIDE DATE RANGE: Reviews span from 2006 to 2024, an 18-year window. Only a small number of reviews are from the past 12 months (2024). The most recent reviews (2024) are mixed — one very positive, one negative about pricing. Older reviews carry reduced reliability for assessing current performance.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW CONCERN (MINOR): Several 5-star reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Good!', 'Great service great price') with no specific detail. These contribute minimal signal and were weighted conservatively.
• COUPON BAIT-AND-SWITCH ALLEGATION: One reviewer explicitly describes a coupon offer that was not honored, with the contractor failing to show up after confirming the coupon would be accepted — consistent with a bait-and-switch pattern.

The WW Score of 62.1 is based on a high volume of reviews and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its representation of the review set, but the extreme polarization of the review pool, multiple contractor identities, serious fraud and safety allegations, and an 18-year date range mean this score should be treated as a warning-flagged baseline rather than a straightforward endorsement — prospective customers should independently verify licensing, read recent reviews carefully, and obtain written quotes before engaging.

Augustine Plumbing has a clearly mixed record across these 10 reviews. On the positive side, multiple reviewers praised individual technicians (Sean, Mark, Steve, Troy) for punctuality, courtesy, and professionalism, and pricing was described as fair or competitive in several reviews. However, three significant negative reviews — spanning installation failures, unresponsiveness, and outright rude behavior from the owner and office staff — meaningfully drag down scores in professionalism and project completion. The project completion dimension is particularly penalized because two reviews describe serious installation defects (busted pipes, drywall damage, ongoing plumbing failures in a 7-year-old home) and one review describes the company being completely unresponsive to a callback request. The experience dimension is similarly split: field technicians are praised for skill and problem-solving, but the installation quality complaints suggest inconsistency at a workmanship level.

• Three reviews (1-star) describe serious quality and conduct failures including installation defects causing property damage, owner rudeness, and unresponsiveness to callbacks — these are not minor complaints and carry significant weight.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months; only one review (July 2024) falls within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is limited and the score may not reflect current performance.
• The single most recent review (2024) is positive, but one data point is insufficient to confirm improvement in service quality over time.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in detail, tone, rating, and specificity, suggesting authentic submissions.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability: the sample size of 10 reviews is small, most reviews are over 3 years old, and the presence of three detailed negative reviews introduces meaningful uncertainty about consistent service quality.

Shary's Plumbing shows a deeply polarized customer base with strong positive experiences alongside serious complaints. Professionalism scores moderately well (72.5) with consistent praise for politeness and responsiveness, but multiple reviews cite scheduling failures and unprofessional office staff behavior. Pricing is the weakest dimension (52.0), with numerous complaints about hidden charges, inflated hourly rates, surprise fees for helpers, and lack of transparency—several customers felt deceived about costs. Project completion (71.0) reflects mixed results: many jobs are completed well and promptly, but several reviews document incomplete diagnoses, failed repairs requiring callbacks, and refusals to warranty work. Experience (76.5) is strong when technicians like Carl, Josh, and Matt are involved, but undermined by quality control issues including code violations and substandard workmanship. The company's performance appears highly dependent on which technician is assigned.

• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CRISIS: At least 8 reviews explicitly cite deceptive or surprise pricing practices, including undisclosed hourly rates, hidden gas charges, unexpected helper fees, and charges for work not performed. This is the most consistent complaint pattern.
• QUALITY CONTROL INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews (2018-2019 era) document serious workmanship failures including improper pipe repairs, code violations, and failed diagnoses. Later reviews (2021+) show improved quality, suggesting possible management changes.
• SCHEDULING AND FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: At least 5 reviews document missed appointments, rescheduling without notice, failure to show up, and broken promises to call back from the owner.
• CALLBACK AND WARRANTY ISSUES: Multiple reviews report refusal to warranty work or return for free follow-ups after incomplete repairs, forcing customers to hire competitors.
• EMPTY/GENERIC REVIEWS: 4 reviews contain only 5-star ratings with no text (dates: 2024-06-09 x2, 2022-06-10, 2020-06-10, 2018-06-11). These provide no usable data and suggest possible review manipulation.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews cluster in 2014-2019 period; most positive reviews cluster in 2021-2025. This suggests either genuine improvement or changing customer base. Weight recent reviews more heavily.
• INDIVIDUAL TECHNICIAN DEPENDENCY: Reviews frequently praise specific technicians (Carl, Josh, Matt, Troy, Sean, T.J., Frank) by name, suggesting quality is highly variable by assignment rather than company-wide standard.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 50 usable reviews, the extreme polarization (many 1-star and 5-star with few middle ratings), consistent pricing complaints, and evidence of scheduling failures indicate this company has serious operational and customer service issues despite pockets of excellent technical work. The score of 68.2 reflects a company in transition or with inconsistent execution. Customers should obtain detailed written estimates, confirm all fees upfront, and consider requesting specific technicians known for quality.

Johnson & Johnson Heating and Air shows significant inconsistency across reviews. Professionalism scores are dragged down by multiple reports of rude technicians, poor communication, and misleading sales practices, though many positive reviews praise punctuality and courtesy. Pricing is a major weakness, with multiple customers reporting markups of 1.5–2.0x market rates, hidden fees, and aggressive upselling tactics. Project completion is generally solid when work is performed, but several reviews document unresolved issues and poor follow-through on callbacks. Technical experience is strong when properly applied, but multiple reviews indicate misdiagnosis, unnecessary part replacements, and failure to identify root causes on first visits. The company's inconsistency—excellent service in some cases, poor service in others—suggests quality depends heavily on which technician is assigned.

• PRICING RED FLAG: Five separate reviews explicitly mention overpricing (1.5–2.0x market rates), hidden fees, aggressive upselling, and misleading 'free estimate' claims. This is a consistent pattern, not isolated complaints.
• PROFESSIONALISM INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reports of rude, dismissive technicians (Howard, unnamed sales rep) contrasting sharply with praise for others (Jason, Todd White, Will). Quality appears highly dependent on individual technician assignment.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: At least three reviews document technicians failing to identify root causes (refrigerant leak, thermostat issue, coil failure) on initial visits, leading to unnecessary parts replacement and wasted customer money.
• SERIOUS SECURITY BREACH: One 2018 review documents a critical data privacy failure where personal information (address, phone, email, router info, smart home access) was left on a replaced thermostat and installed in another customer's home. Company did not admit wrongdoing; customer filed suit.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reviews report technicians avoiding direct answers, not honoring verbal agreements, and failing to return callback promises (Nicole never called back per 2024 review).
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews are from 2017–2023, but two significant complaints appear in 2024 (June and September), suggesting ongoing issues with pricing transparency and customer service.
• REVIEW DATE DISTRIBUTION: 8 reviews from 2024–2021 (recent), 10 reviews from 2020 and earlier (older). Recent reviews show mixed quality with persistent pricing complaints.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE confidence due to high internal inconsistency and a clear pattern of pricing and communication complaints that contradict positive reviews. The company appears to deliver solid technical work and professionalism in some cases but systematically overcharges, upsells aggressively, and employs inconsistent customer service practices. Customers should obtain multiple quotes and get all agreements in writing before engaging this company.