Find Nearby Plumbers In Montgomery, Alabama

This contractor receives a critically low WW Score of 32.8, driven by severe deficiencies across all dimensions. Pricing is the most damaging factor, with five reviews documenting overcharging, hidden fees, misrepresentation of costs, and deliberate installation of faulty parts to generate repeat service calls. Project completion is equally problematic—multiple reviews describe incomplete diagnostics, repeated failures to identify root causes (leaks), and work that required expensive corrections by competitors. Professionalism shows mixed signals: one positive mention of politeness and knowledge, but countered by rudeness, dishonesty, and apparent indifference to customer concerns. The single positive 5-star review (July 2024) is outweighed by five 1-star reviews spanning 2018–2024, indicating a persistent pattern rather than isolated incidents.

• PATTERN OF DECEPTIVE PRACTICES: Multiple reviews (2019, 2018, 2017) describe technicians knowingly installing faulty parts or failing to diagnose problems correctly, then charging for repeat service calls. This suggests deliberate business model exploitation.
• SYSTEMATIC OVERCHARGING: Reviews document quotes 2–3x higher than competitors for identical work, and charges that exceed stated estimates by $189–$1,500+.
• DIAGNOSTIC INCOMPETENCE OR FRAUD: Repeated failure to identify leaks before adding refrigerant, then charging again when the leak causes failure. One review explicitly states the technician 'looked at the outside unit countless times' yet missed a leak.
• RECENCY: Most negative reviews are 5–7 years old (2017–2019), but the most recent review (October 2024) describes the same pattern (faulty valve, repeated failures, dishonest pricing), indicating the problem persists.
• SINGLE POSITIVE REVIEW: The July 2024 5-star review is generic, mentions only one technician (Timothy), and does not contradict the pattern of systemic issues described in other reviews. Insufficient to offset the weight of evidence.

This WW Score is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. Six reviews with consistent, specific, and corroborated allegations of overcharging, deceptive practices, and incomplete work spanning six years provide strong evidence of systemic failure. The single positive review does not materially challenge the pattern.

The review set is extremely small (3 reviews) and spans multiple years, limiting reliability significantly. The most detailed and recent review (June 2021) describes a serious failure: a trench was dug without supplies on hand, work was abandoned for 7+ days, and repeated promises to return were broken — a severe project completion and professionalism failure. The positive reviews are vague and generic, offering little specific evidence of quality. One review references combined licensing and experience, which provides modest support for the experience dimension, but without corroboration it carries low weight. Pricing was not mentioned in any review.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as highly unreliable and indicative only.
• The two 5-star reviews are generic and lack specific detail, raising mild concern about authenticity or usefulness as evidence.
• The most detailed review is a 1-star account describing abandoned work, broken promises, and poor communication — this is a significant red flag for project completion and professionalism.
• Review dates range from 2019 to 2021 — all reviews are older than 3 years and none fall within the past 12 months, reducing recency relevance.
• Pricing dimension has zero data — this dimension was entirely excluded from the WW Score calculation.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all older than 3 years, with limited specificity in positive reviews and one detailed negative account describing abandoned work — the score should be treated with very low confidence and is insufficient to make a reliable hiring decision.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews. While one recent review (2024) praises quick responsiveness, it reveals a critical failure in project completion—the company started work on a gas line repair but abandoned it mid-job due to self-imposed limitations, leaving the customer with unpaid charges and an unfinished problem. An older review (2020) documents poor communication and cancellation without notice. A third positive review (2019) credits the technician 'Hadley' with prompt service and complete work. The mixed signals, combined with documented project abandonment and communication failures, warrant a conservative score. The company demonstrates some technical capability but serious gaps in follow-through and professional accountability.

• CRITICAL: Review from 2024-05-28 documents project abandonment—company accepted payment for work but refused to complete the job, citing physical limitations of staff rather than technical inability. This is a major red flag for project completion reliability.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two of three reviews are from 2019–2020 (4–5 years old). Only one recent review (2024) provides current performance data.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between the positive 2019 review and the 2024 negative experience suggests either deterioration in service quality or inconsistent performance across jobs.
• COMMUNICATION ISSUE: 2020 review explicitly documents non-responsiveness and cancellation without notification, indicating potential systemic communication problems.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited review volume (n=3) and significant recency gaps. The 2024 review provides the most current and credible data point, revealing serious project completion and accountability issues that substantially undermine confidence in this contractor's reliability.

Bass Plumbing's review corpus is dominated by deeply negative experiences across all four dimensions, with professionalism and project completion being the most critically damaged. The overwhelming majority of reviewers describe technicians who were rude, dismissive, and unwilling to perform work, combined with an office staff that routinely failed to return calls, missed appointments without notice, and provided no accountability. Project completion is the single worst-performing dimension: dozens of reviews describe jobs that were never finished, claims that were never submitted to warranty companies, no-shows on scheduled appointments, and customers who ultimately had to hire other plumbers at their own expense. Experience scores marginally higher only because a small but consistent cluster of positive reviews — primarily involving technicians named Raymond, Jeff, and Eddie — describe genuinely skilled and knowledgeable work, but these are vastly outnumbered by accounts of misdiagnosis, shoddy installations, and work done without proper permits or code compliance. Pricing received a slightly higher score due to a handful of reviews praising fair or reasonable rates, but this is offset by accounts of unexpected charges, bait-and-switch upselling, and a $560 charge for heating a crawlspace without resolving the underlying problem.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review beginning 'DO NOT USE this company. If I could give Bass Plumbing a negative score...' (kitchen sink/dishwasher leak) appears verbatim on two different dates (2024-08-13 and 2024-07-22). This was counted once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review beginning 'Never, Ever Use them! I am a real estate agent...' appears verbatim on two different dates (2024-06-09 and 2024-05-30). This was counted once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The toilet flange review beginning 'I hired Bass Plumbing to do a few tasks for a bathroom renovation...' appears verbatim on two different dates (2021-06-10 and 2020-12-05). This was counted once for scoring purposes.
• POTENTIAL FAKE OR IRRELEVANT REVIEW: The review dated 2022-06-10 ('Great food and service, more like family') appears to be for a restaurant, not a plumbing company, and was excluded from scoring.
• POTENTIAL FAKE OR IRRELEVANT REVIEW: The review dated 2015-06-04 contains only 'unknown' with a 5-star rating and was excluded from scoring as it contains no usable data.
• POSITIVE REVIEW PATTERN: A disproportionate number of positive reviews are generic (e.g., 'Fast and efficient', 'Professional and courteous', 'Good and knowledgeable techs. Can't go wrong') with no specific details, names, or job descriptions. These may be inflated or solicited reviews and were scored conservatively.
• RECENCY NOTE: The negative review pattern is consistent and persistent across all date ranges from 2012 through 2025, indicating this is not an isolated period of poor performance but a systemic and long-standing operational failure.
• SYSTEMIC PATTERN — WARRANTY FRAUD RISK: A large number of reviews across multiple years describe the company accepting home warranty service fees, performing minimal or no work, failing to submit required reports to warranty companies, and then becoming unreachable. This pattern is consistent enough to suggest a deliberate business practice rather than isolated incompetence.
• RETALIATION FLAG: One reviewer (2024-08-27) explicitly states that after leaving a negative review, his wife received a call from Bass Plumbing that made her feel 'uncomfortable and upset.' This is a serious flag regarding the company's response to criticism.
• GEOGRAPHIC INCONSISTENCY: Some reviews appear to reference a Bass Plumbing in Albany/Schenectady, NY area while the majority reference Fayetteville, NC. It is possible these are two different companies sharing a name. Scores reflect the aggregate of all reviews as provided.

This WW Score of 28.4 is based on a very large sample of 117 usable reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH confidence — the score accurately reflects a company with severe, systemic, and well-documented failures in professionalism, follow-through, and workmanship, and should be treated as a strong warning against engaging this contractor.

The review set is very small (3 reviews) and spans nearly a decade, making reliable conclusions difficult. Two of the three reviews are strongly negative, citing unexplained charges, poor communication, and overpriced estimates that a customer resolved themselves for $30. The single positive review praises punctuality and speed but lacks specific detail, which limits its weight. Pricing is the most consistently criticized dimension, with two reviewers explicitly calling out excessive or unexplained costs. The one positive review prevents a complete collapse of the professionalism and project completion scores, but the overall picture is concerning.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is statistically unreliable and should be treated with significant caution.
• Reviews span from 2013 to 2020 — the most recent review is over 4 years old; no data exists for recent performance.
• The single 5-star review (2018) is generic in nature with no specific details about pricing, technician names, or job scope — possible padding review, confidence reduced.
• Two of three reviews are 1-star with specific, credible complaints about pricing transparency and professionalism, which significantly outweighs the single vague positive review.
• Unexplained $8.00 material charge and a $312.00 bill for basic fixture installs flagged as a potential transparency issue.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, two of which are negative and all of which are more than 4 years old, making it a LOW-reliability signal that should not be used as a definitive assessment of current contractor quality.

All three reviews describe failed service outcomes where the core problem was left unresolved or the situation was made worse. Professionalism is severely undermined by one crew arriving without notice, cutting holes in walls and ceilings, then leaving without completing work and charging a visit fee, and another technician failing to follow up in a timely manner. Pricing scores are very low because customers paid $89, $219, and over $300 respectively and received little to no resolution, representing extremely poor value. Project completion is the most damning dimension — in all three cases the job was either abandoned, left in a worse state than before, or the root problem remained unsolved after the visit. Technical experience also scores poorly, as technicians demonstrated an inability to diagnose or fix the issues presented, including a failure to access a crawl space and an inability to service a Rheem tankless water heater.

• All three reviews are negative (1-star or near 1-star), which may reflect a selection bias if only dissatisfied customers left reviews — however, the specificity and detail in each review lend credibility to the complaints.
• The most recent review is from March 2022, meaning all reviews are older than 12 months relative to a typical current analysis window. Recency weighting is reduced accordingly.
• One review dates to 2017, which is over 7 years old and may not reflect current business practices. It has been included but carries the least recency weight.
• No positive reviews were provided for analysis. The WW Score reflects only the data available and should not be interpreted as a complete picture of this contractor's performance without a broader review sample.

This score is based on only 3 reviews, all negative, spanning a wide date range (2017–2022), which severely limits reliability — treat this score as a preliminary warning signal rather than a definitive assessment, and seek additional recent reviews before drawing firm conclusions.