Find Nearby Plumbers In Montgomery, Alabama

Bill Bradley Services has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores moderately — many reviewers note courteous, prompt technicians who clean up after themselves, but this is offset by a serious allegation of theft by an employee and a no-show appointment. Pricing is the company's most consistent weakness, with numerous reviewers across multiple years explicitly calling out sky-high, flat-rate charges that far exceed market value, including a $405 disposal install and an $800+ commode job. Project completion is middling — most jobs are finished, but there are notable failures including a mismatched HVAC installation, a fraudulently incomplete AC repair, and a commode fix that broke within a week. Experience is similarly split, with some reviewers praising technical capability (e.g., water jet service, pipe rerouting) while others describe clear technical errors and upselling of unnecessary repairs.

• Multiple reviews contain only 'unknown' as text with 5-star ratings — these 5 reviews (2014–2015) provide no usable data and are excluded from scoring. Their presence may inflate perceived rating averages.
• Several reviews are extremely vague ('It was excellent.', 'The service went perfect!', 'They did their typical superb job.', 'The overall experience was great.', 'We've used them before. Everything was great.') with no specifics — these were not counted toward dimension scores.
• Serious misconduct allegation: One reviewer (2018) reports a Bill Bradley employee was found going through a bedroom dresser drawer while a second employee kept the homeowner distracted. Management response was described as indifferent. This is a significant trust and safety flag.
• Fraud allegation: One reviewer (2018) alleges a technician either knew about or created a large hole in AC piping, then left without fixing it — apparently to prompt a costly unit replacement. The reviewer paid nearly $500 for a repair that another company completed for significantly less.
• Pricing complaints are consistent and span from 2009 through 2023, suggesting a long-standing structural issue with pricing transparency and value, not isolated incidents.
• Most reviews with substantive detail are from 2009–2018. Only one review (2023) is within the past 12 months. The recency of usable data is limited, reducing confidence in current performance.
• The 2010 HVAC installation review describes a mismatched system (4-ton condenser, 4-ton air handler, 3.5-ton evaporator) discovered nine years later — indicating a serious technical error that went undetected and uncorrected.

This WW Score is based on 35 reviews spanning 2009–2023, with sufficient mentions across all four dimensions to calculate a HIGH-confidence score, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the age of most substantive reviews, serious misconduct and fraud allegations, and a consistent pattern of pricing complaints that has never been resolved.

The review corpus spans nearly two decades and reveals a deeply polarized customer base. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by repeated accounts of rude, condescending, or dishonest technicians, no-shows, and poor communication from management, even though a meaningful subset of reviewers praised individual plumbers as courteous and punctual. Pricing is the single most damaging dimension: an overwhelming majority of reviewers — across all time periods and locations — explicitly describe charges as exorbitant, far above market rate, and in several cases potentially predatory, particularly toward elderly or first-time homeowners. Project completion is mixed: many jobs were finished satisfactorily, but a notable number of reviews describe repeat failures, unresolved callbacks, abandoned work, failed inspections, and warranty disputes. Technical experience is similarly split, with some reviewers praising problem-solving ability while others describe sloppy workmanship, incorrect installations, and technicians who misdiagnosed problems that other plumbers resolved cheaply and quickly.

• PRICING CONCERN: Pricing complaints are the single most consistent theme across the entire review set, spanning 2005–2024, with dozens of reviewers independently describing charges as 2x–5x market rate. This is a strong and credible pattern, not an outlier.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe a specific pattern of verbal low quotes followed by significantly higher charges on final invoices, upselling unnecessary work, and targeting vulnerable customers (elderly, emergency situations, first-time homeowners).
• FAKE/THIN REVIEW FLAG: Approximately 12 reviews consist solely of 'unknown' text with a star rating and provide zero usable data. These were excluded from scoring. Their presence inflates the raw review count and may represent padding.
• FAKE/THIN REVIEW FLAG: Several 5-star reviews contain only a period ('.') as text with no detail. These were excluded from scoring as they provide no verifiable information.
• GENERIC PRAISE FLAG: A cluster of short 5-star reviews (e.g., 'excellent very friendly', 'Very professional very friendly') lack any specifics and follow a suspiciously similar pattern. Confidence in these is reduced.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent detailed negative review (October 2024) describes the same predatory pricing and billing opacity patterns seen in reviews going back to 2006, suggesting these are systemic and ongoing issues rather than isolated incidents.
• MULTI-LOCATION ISSUE: Reviews appear to reference multiple Ben Franklin Plumbing franchise locations across different states (Florida, Ohio, New Jersey, etc.). Scores reflect the aggregate brand experience but individual franchise quality may vary significantly.
• MANAGEMENT CONDUCT: Multiple reviews specifically call out owner-level or management-level misconduct including threats, yelling, hanging up on customers, and refusing to honor warranties — this is a serious flag beyond technician-level issues.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES: At least 4 reviews describe installations that failed shortly after completion, including a gas leak from incorrect installation, cracked pipes, failed sump pumps, and leaking faucets — indicating quality control issues at the technical level.

This WW Score is based on 88 reviews with a large proportion containing substantive detail, spanning nearly 20 years, and the HIGH confidence rating across all four dimensions reflects strong evidentiary support — however, the multi-franchise nature of the reviews means this score represents a brand-level aggregate and prospective customers should seek location-specific reviews before hiring.

Personal Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across its reviews. Positive reviews — mostly for Lance — highlight strong professionalism, communication, and quality workmanship, but these are largely from 2017–2022 and represent a different technician than the negative reviews. The negative reviews — focused on Chris Eacker — describe serious failures: incomplete work, code violations, property damage without apology, and a complete breakdown in follow-through and responsiveness after jobs were done. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with multiple reviews describing unfinished or defective work, no callbacks, and customers having to hire a second plumber to correct the issues. Pricing received mixed signals — one reviewer noted a $1,700 water heater install felt high and delivered substandard results, while another praised fair pricing — resulting in a below-average score. The overall WW Score reflects a business with capable individuals but serious reliability and accountability problems documented across multiple reviewers.

• Two reviews dated 2017-03-02 with identical timestamps and very generic, brief praise ('friendly, professional, top quality work' and 'prompt, courteous, knew what he was doing') — these may be fake or solicited reviews with no specific detail.
• One review (2011-08-03) is entirely unintelligible and provides no usable data — excluded from scoring.
• One review (2014-07-28) has no text content beyond 'unknown' — excluded from scoring.
• One review (2011-08-17) describes a responsiveness failure with a plumber (Buster Hale) who no longer works there — limited relevance to current operations but noted as a historical responsiveness concern.
• The majority of detailed, positive reviews reference 'Lance' while the majority of detailed, negative reviews reference 'Chris Eacker' — this business appears to have multiple technicians with significantly different performance levels, which the aggregate score may obscure.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months (many from 2017–2022), with no reviews from the past 12 months. Recency weighting reduces confidence in current service quality.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a meaningful split between technicians, a small total review pool, suspected generic fake reviews inflating the positive side, and the absence of any recent reviews to confirm current service standards.

Edwards Plumbing & Heating shows a deeply polarized customer base with significant quality and reliability issues. While technicians often demonstrate competence and professionalism (68.5/100), the company is severely hampered by egregious pricing practices (38.2/100) and chronic project completion failures (54.8/100). Customers consistently report being overcharged by 2-4x market rates, billed for incomplete work, and experiencing repeated no-shows and scheduling failures. The company's experience level is solid (71.3/100), but this is undermined by poor follow-through, lack of accountability, and management unresponsiveness. The overall WW Score of 52.3 reflects a company that cannot be reliably trusted despite occasional competent technicians.

• CRITICAL: Extreme pricing complaints dominate negative reviews—customers report charges of $3,000+ for water heaters retailing at $800-1,300, $500+ for simple toilet repairs, and systematic overcharging across all service categories.
• CRITICAL: Chronic project completion failures—numerous reviews document incomplete work, multiple no-shows, rescheduling delays spanning weeks or months, and abandoned jobs requiring customers to hire competitors.
• CRITICAL: Management accountability failure—repeated complaints of unanswered calls, broken promises to call back, supervisors refusing to engage, and owner unresponsiveness despite escalation attempts.
• HIGH: Deceptive billing practices—customers report being charged without prior estimates, hidden fees appearing on final bills, refusal to provide itemized invoices, and charges for work never performed.
• HIGH: Scheduling system dysfunction—consistent pattern of 3-4 hour appointment windows with late arrivals, no-call no-shows, and technicians arriving unprepared without necessary tools or parts.
• HIGH: Quality control issues—multiple reports of incorrect diagnoses leading to unnecessary expensive repairs, work that failed immediately after completion, and damage caused during service (broken windows, damaged pipes, flooded basements).
• MODERATE: Potential fake review pattern—cluster of 5-star reviews from June 2025 with generic praise and minimal detail, though balanced by substantial volume of detailed negative reviews across multiple years.
• MODERATE: Financing fraud allegations—customers report being charged 20% interest on zero-interest financing agreements and difficulty obtaining refunds on cancelled deposits.

This WW Score of 52.3 is highly reliable given the large sample size (500 reviews, 487 usable) and consistent patterns across all dimensions, but the score masks a company with severe structural problems in pricing transparency, project management, and customer accountability that make it unsuitable for most customers despite occasional competent technicians.

Bishop Plumbing presents a deeply split profile: many individual technicians (Jim, Jeff, Joe, Pat, Bryan, James) receive genuine praise for friendliness, punctuality, and professionalism, which keeps the professionalism and experience scores from collapsing entirely. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension across the entire review set, with a large number of reviewers — spanning over a decade — describing charges they characterize as grossly excessive, inconsistent, and in several cases predatory toward elderly or vulnerable customers. Project completion is mixed: most jobs appear to get done, but there are notable failures including abandoned jobs with no follow-up, property damage left unaddressed (drywall hole, flooded basement from over-tightening), and at least one instance where a drain-snaking job was left incomplete requiring a second contractor. The volume and consistency of pricing complaints across many years and many reviewers is the dominant signal dragging the overall WW Score down significantly.

• PRICING ABUSE PATTERN: At least 18 individual reviews across 2010–2025 independently describe charges they consider extreme or predatory. Specific examples include: $900 for 30 minutes of labor (sump pump), $749 for 10 minutes of drain clearing, $1,500 quoted for a running toilet and sink drain replacement (done elsewhere for $140), $645 quoted for a wax ring replacement (market rate ~$175), $400 to clean an elbow pipe with no parts, and $600+ for one valve and one hour of work on a 96-year-old's sink. This is not isolated — it is a sustained, multi-year pattern.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — PARTIALLY FLAGGED: One reviewer explicitly alleges fake reviews and notes the pattern of naming specific plumbers (Jim, Jeff, Joe, Pat) as a tell. While naming technicians is also consistent with genuine reviews, the volume of brief, generic 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'Great service!', 'Excellent work done by Jimmy.', 'Quick and very professional', blank-text 5-star entries) is notable. Several blank-text 5-star reviews were excluded from scoring. Confidence in the positive reviews is reduced accordingly.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 3 reviews contained no text and only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• ABANDONED JOB / NO FOLLOW-UP: One reviewer (2024-10-12 area, Pat Bishop) reports the contractor left mid-job to another site and never returned, never returned calls. A second reviewer (2024-10-12 area) reports being charged $735 for an incomplete sewer video job with a promised follow-up quote that never came.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE: One reviewer (2024-08-13) reports a hole punched through dining room drywall during pipe removal that was not disclosed or addressed. A 2012 reviewer reports a basement flood caused by over-tightened PVC pipe, resulting in $6,000+ in damage, after which Bishop sent a bill rather than honoring responsibility.
• WARRANTY REFUSAL: A 2014 reviewer reports Bishop refused to honor a 90-day warranty explicitly stated on their invoice, demanding full fees for a repeat failure.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span 2010–2025. Pricing complaints are present in nearly every year, including the most recent 12 months (2024–2025), confirming this is not a historical issue that has been resolved. Positive reviews are also present in recent months, suggesting individual technician quality varies.
• MANAGEMENT CONDUCT: One reviewer (2024-09-12) reports witnessing the owner/boss verbally disrespecting employees in public, which they found alarming enough to warn others.
• DISPATCH FEE TRANSPARENCY: Multiple reviewers across different years report surprise at a non-refundable dispatch/call-out fee ($75–$89) that was not clearly communicated upfront, or that is not credited toward work performed. This is a recurring transparency issue.

This WW Score is based on 70 reviews spanning 13 years with strong data across all four dimensions, and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy — the pricing score in particular is extremely well-supported and should be treated as a reliable warning signal for prospective customers.

Schitt's Plumbing shows highly inconsistent performance across reviews. Two positive reviews (2024, 2019) praise quick response, friendliness, and reasonable pricing, but a detailed 2022 review documents serious quality failures: misaligned fixtures, crooked valve installation, and refusal to address problems post-completion. The contractor's dismissive attitude ('that's why I had you look at it') and unwillingness to make corrections despite premium pricing ($3,094 labor only) represent fundamental failures in both workmanship and customer service recovery. The stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews and the detailed 1-star account raises concerns about consistency and accountability.

• CRITICAL: Severe quality control issues documented in 2022 review—misaligned plumbing fixtures, crooked valve cartridge installation, and failure to correct obvious errors despite high price point.
• CRITICAL: Contractor demonstrated poor customer service recovery—refused to visit site or attempt remediation when customer reported defects.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent positive review is from 2024, but the detailed negative review is from 2022 (2 years old). Pattern suggests either improvement or inconsistency.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: The two positive reviews are generic and lack specific detail (Review 1: 'nice and friendly staff'; Review 3: 'more than reasonable' fee). The negative review is exceptionally detailed and credible by contrast.
• REVIEW DELETION ALLEGATION: Customer claims contractor deleted their original negative review, suggesting possible reputation management.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited sample size (3 reviews) and extreme variance. The detailed 2022 negative review provides credible evidence of quality and service failures, but the two positive reviews lack specificity. The WW Score of 54.8 reflects serious concerns about project completion and experience quality, though the small sample size and potential review manipulation limit overall confidence.