Find Nearby Plumbers In Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia

LAV Plumbing shows strong technical competence and project completion capability, with consistent praise for workmanship quality and timely job delivery across multiple reviews. However, professionalism scores are significantly dragged down by a recent (2023) complaint detailing rude customer service, undisclosed charges, and poor communication follow-up from office staff. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and transparent, though one review noted costs slightly above market. The stark contrast between older positive reviews (2012–2015) and the recent negative experience suggests potential service quality degradation or inconsistency in customer interactions.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Three reviews from 2015 contain only 'unknown' or '.' as text with perfect 5.0 ratings and timestamps at midnight (00:00:00). These appear to be placeholder or fraudulent entries and reduce confidence in the overall dataset.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 8+ years old (2012–2015). The most recent substantive review (2023) is highly negative, describing rude behavior, undisclosed charges, and communication failures. This suggests potential service degradation over time.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contradiction between glowing older reviews praising 'Kristin' and 'Lu' versus 2023 review describing 'Kristin' as 'very rude and nasty.' This may indicate staff turnover, management changes, or deteriorating service standards.
• UNDISCLOSED CHARGES: 2023 review explicitly states a $225 diagnostic fee was not disclosed upfront, contradicting the 'transparent pricing' claims in older reviews.

This score should be treated with caution. While technical competence appears solid based on 8+ year-old reviews, the recent negative experience raises serious questions about current service quality and customer treatment. The presence of fake reviews further undermines dataset integrity. Recommend treating this as MODERATE confidence at best, and strongly suggest verifying current service standards before engaging.

Dependable Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with responsive communication and courteous technicians consistently praised across reviews. Technical expertise and workmanship quality are solid, with many customers reporting problems solved correctly on first visit. However, project completion reliability is significantly undermined by multiple documented instances of no-shows, missed callbacks, and failure to honor scheduled appointments—a critical weakness for a company named 'Dependable.' Pricing is generally fair and transparent when work is completed, but inconsistent follow-through on commitments creates substantial trust issues that drag down the overall score.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2014–2017 (7+ years old). Recent reviews (2018–2024) show a stark pattern: 5 five-star reviews but 4 one-star reviews citing no-shows, unresponsiveness, and poor callbacks. This suggests service quality has deteriorated significantly.
• CRITICAL PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2018, 2019, 2021) explicitly report scheduled appointments with no-shows and unreturned calls. One 2021 review states the owner 'ghosted' the customer after initial good service. This directly contradicts the company name and undermines credibility.
• OPERATIONAL INCONSISTENCY: Reviews mention the owner/Robert personally handling jobs, but also reference Chris, Dave, Jesse, and Christopher. Inconsistent staffing or unclear delegation may explain variable service quality.
• CONTACT ISSUE: One 2024 review notes 'all contact numbers are no longer in service,' suggesting possible business instability or transition.
• QUALITY VARIANCE: Two older reviews (2011, 2015) describe significant errors (drilling through hardwood floors, charging for technician mistakes) that were not resolved satisfactorily, indicating occasional lapses in problem-solving and accountability.

This score should be treated with caution. While historical data shows strong professionalism and expertise, the recent pattern of no-shows and unresponsiveness (2018–2021) combined with apparent business contact issues (2024) suggests the company may no longer operate reliably or may be in transition. The WW Score reflects mixed historical performance, but current trustworthiness is questionable based on recent evidence.

The majority of reviews praise professionalism, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting courteous, polite, and professional behavior from named technicians across several visits. Project completion scores well overall, with most jobs resolved on the first visit and one notable callback handled responsibly at no charge — however, a 1-star review from 2022 describes unfinished work and a referral company that ghosted the customer after payment, which meaningfully drags down the project completion score. Pricing is mentioned positively in three reviews, with customers noting fair and reasonable rates and no upselling, though the limited mention count keeps confidence moderate. Experience is consistently supported across reviews, with customers describing knowledgeable, skilled technicians who diagnosed and resolved problems effectively. The single negative review is a significant outlier but cannot be ignored given its specificity and seriousness.

• One review (2022-03-23, 1-star) describes unfinished work, lack of a referral in place after wall cutting, and a ghosted referral company after payment — this is a serious project completion concern and was weighted accordingly.
• Several reviews are significantly dated (2016–2020), which reduces their relevance to current service quality. Only 3 of 11 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024), and only 4 are from the past 3 years.
• Most positive reviews are highly specific with named technicians and detailed accounts, which reduces fake review suspicion. However, the volume of older reviews limits confidence in current performance.
• The HVAC review (2020-06-11) references HVAC services and a technician named Chong Kim — this may not be relevant to plumbing-specific scoring but was included as it reflects general service quality and professionalism.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability: professionalism, project completion, and experience are supported by a reasonable number of mentions, but the recency of most reviews is poor, one serious negative review flags a project completion failure, and the small total review count limits statistical confidence.

Hardy Plumbing shows a mixed performance profile with significant strengths in professionalism and technical expertise, but notable weaknesses in project completion and pricing transparency. The company demonstrates strong punctuality and communication in positive reviews, with many customers praising the owner Bruce's friendliness and knowledge. However, a substantial number of negative reviews document serious issues including incomplete work, failure to honor callbacks, unexpected service charges, and poor follow-through on scheduled appointments. Pricing concerns appear frequently, with customers reporting surprise charges and fees not disclosed upfront. The data suggests inconsistent service quality and reliability.

• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple reviews with identical or near-identical lengthy narratives (e.g., the shower leak story appears twice verbatim on 2024-06-09 and 2023-10-11). This suggests possible review manipulation.
• SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE CLUSTER: 20+ one-star reviews document serious issues including no-shows, incomplete work, billing disputes, poor communication, and refusal to honor warranties. These are detailed and specific, not generic complaints.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Stark contrast between glowing reviews praising 'Bruce' and harsh reviews describing unprofessional behavior, suggesting either multiple service providers with vastly different standards or significant operational inconsistency.
• BILLING DISPUTES: Multiple reviews (2022, 2020, 2019, 2018) report unexpected charges, service fees not disclosed upfront, and aggressive collection practices for disputed bills.
• CALLBACK FAILURES: Numerous reviews document failure to return calls, no-shows on scheduled appointments, and lack of accountability when commitments are broken.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) are predominantly 5-star with generic praise or identical narratives, while detailed negative reviews span 2010-2022. This temporal pattern warrants caution.
• EMPTY/MINIMAL REVIEWS: Several reviews contain only punctuation marks or 'unknown' text, suggesting data quality issues.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE confidence and caution. While the score of 72.8 reflects the mixed data, the presence of suspected fake reviews, significant billing/callback disputes, and a stark polarization between glowing and severely negative reviews suggests the true performance may be less reliable than the score indicates. The company appears to have serious operational and customer service issues that are not fully captured by the numerical score alone.

Yohe Plumbing shows strong technical capability and generally fair pricing, with many customers praising responsiveness and workmanship quality. However, significant project completion issues emerge across multiple reviews, including missed appointments, incomplete work, and poor follow-through on callbacks. Professionalism is inconsistent—while many technicians are described as friendly and courteous, several reviews document unprofessional behavior, communication failures, and lack of accountability. The company demonstrates capability but reliability concerns prevent a higher score.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (at least 6) document serious project completion failures: missed appointments without proper rescheduling, incomplete work left unfinished, technicians departing without notifying customers, and failure to follow up on promised callbacks. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Several reviews indicate office staff failed to return calls, lost appointment information, or provided contradictory information. One customer was charged $95 for a diagnostic but then quoted $6,500 sight-unseen by a supervisor who refused to visit.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: At least 3 reviews document poor workmanship or incomplete repairs (leaking pipe left worse than before, garbage disposal not fixed on first visit, AC unit improperly sized to handler causing damage).
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: While most reviews praise fair pricing, one detailed review documents a $3,900 quote for a one-day job with $500 in materials, suggesting selective pricing practices or unwillingness to work with certain customers.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: Multiple empty reviews (5-star with no text) and several generic 5-star reviews with minimal detail (e.g., 'Great company') suggest possible review padding. However, detailed negative reviews appear authentic and specific, reducing overall fake review concern.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews cluster around June 2024 and May 2025, with several older reviews (2018-2020) showing similar complaint patterns. This suggests ongoing systemic issues rather than past problems.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Same company receives both 'phenomenal' and 'inept' reviews for similar services, indicating high variability in technician quality and accountability.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While the company demonstrates technical competence and reasonable pricing, multiple documented failures in project completion and communication represent serious red flags. The score reflects a company with strong individual technicians but weak operational systems and accountability. Customers should expect variable service quality and should verify all commitments in writing before proceeding.

The Plumbing Experts demonstrates solid professionalism and project completion capabilities, with multiple reviews praising responsiveness, friendliness, and quality workmanship. However, pricing is a significant weakness, with two detailed complaints about lack of phone estimates, surprise charges, and quotes substantially higher than competitors. The company shows strong technical skill and follow-through on jobs, but the pricing concerns and communication gaps around cost transparency materially drag down the overall score. Most recent positive reviews are from 2021 or earlier, with the most recent data point being undated.

• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: Two separate reviews (2022 and 2018) explicitly criticize the company for refusing phone estimates and presenting unexpectedly high quotes on-site. This pattern suggests a systemic pricing communication problem.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 3+ years old (2017-2021). Only one review is from 2022, and one is undated. Limited recent data reduces confidence in current performance.
• EMOTIONAL LANGUAGE IN NEGATIVE REVIEWS: The 2018 review contains strong language ('jerks,' 'con artist') and describes a bait-and-switch scenario ($125 upfront, then $399 additional charge). This is credible but emotionally charged.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS LACK SPECIFICITY ON PRICING: The positive reviews mention 'fair pricing' and 'reasonable pricing' but provide no details. The negative reviews are far more specific about pricing problems, creating an asymmetry in evidence quality.

This score should be treated with moderate caution. While professionalism and completion scores are supported by multiple mentions, the pricing dimension is based on only 4 mentions with conflicting signals, and most data is older than 2 years. The company's current pricing practices and communication transparency remain uncertain.