Find Nearby Plumbers In Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia

This contractor presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by two serious incidents: a broken promise to return for an emergency repair (2024) and a no-show after a confirmed appointment, both of which offset the genuine friendliness and courtesy noted in several positive reviews. Pricing is a notable weak point, with three reviews explicitly calling out charges as unfair, predatory, or paid for work that produced no results — including a $300 charge for a leak that was never found and a $335 charge for a 5-minute sink removal. Project completion is similarly inconsistent: while some jobs were completed efficiently and thoroughly, at least three reviews describe incomplete work, unresolved issues, or outright failure to return and finish the job. Experience scores reflect a similar split — skilled, thorough work is documented in several reviews, but a 21-year-old finding a leak in under an hour that this company missed entirely, and a repair that was not tested before charging, are serious competency red flags.

• Three of the four negative reviews describe payment taken for incomplete or ineffective work with no refund or follow-through — this is a pattern of concern, not isolated incidents.
• The most recent two reviews (July and August 2024) are both 1-star and describe serious failures in professionalism and pricing. This recency is weighted heavily and suggests possible decline in service quality.
• The 2018 negative review describes a promised refund that was never honored and calls going unanswered — a pattern that reappears in the 2024 reviews, suggesting this may be a systemic issue rather than a one-off.
• Several positive reviews are older than 2 years (2019–2022), and the most recent data points are negative. Consumers should treat older positive reviews with caution given the more recent trend.
• Multiple plumbers and staff members are named across reviews (Josh, Dalton, Austin, Bruno, Trit), suggesting this is a multi-technician operation. Quality appears highly inconsistent depending on which technician is assigned.
• No suspected fake reviews detected — reviews contain specific details, named individuals, and varied writing styles consistent with genuine customer experiences.

This WW Score is based on 10 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions and carries MODERATE overall reliability — the mention counts are sufficient for confidence, but the wide time span of reviews (2018–2024) and the sharp contrast between older positive and newer negative reviews means the score may not fully reflect current service quality; the 2024 reviews should be weighted most heavily by prospective customers.

WPC Plumbing demonstrates strong technical skill and responsiveness in emergency situations, as evidenced by rapid response times and complex work completion (full house re-piping in 18 hours). However, the business is severely hampered by inconsistent follow-through on callbacks and poor communication during project completion phases. The most recent review (September 2024) documents multiple no-shows and unresponsive communication after initial work, resulting in a 1-star rating that directly contradicts earlier 4-5 star reviews. This pattern suggests reliability issues that undermine otherwise competent technical work.

• CRITICAL: Severe reliability and callback issue documented in most recent review (Sept 2024) — customer had to hire another plumber to complete work after multiple no-shows and communication failures
• Conflicting review pattern: Earlier reviews (2023) praise professionalism and speed; most recent review (2024) documents systematic failure to honor commitments and respond to texts
• Communication problems mentioned in 2 of 3 reviews — suggests systemic issue rather than isolated incident
• Limited review sample (n=3) with significant recency gap — most recent review is substantially more negative than older reviews
• Project completion dimension scored conservatively due to explicit documentation of abandoned callback work

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size and conflicting patterns, but the most recent detailed negative review documenting specific no-shows and communication failures carries significant weight and suggests current operational problems that may not be reflected in older reviews.

This contractor receives a critically low WW Score of 32.8, driven primarily by severe and consistent pricing complaints across 14 reviews spanning 2011–2024. Customers repeatedly report being charged 2–10x market rates for basic plumbing work (e.g., $780 for a flange replacement, $700 for a garbage disposal, $214 for 30 minutes of drain rodding). While professionalism and project completion show moderate scores (52 and 48 respectively), with some positive notes on responsiveness and friendliness, these strengths are overwhelmed by systematic overcharging, lack of transparency in quotes, and failure to stand behind warranty work. Experience is rated moderately (65) due to mixed evidence of technical competence, but poor diagnostic work and incomplete repairs undermine this dimension.

• SEVERE PRICING PATTERN: 14 of 20 reviews (70%) explicitly cite excessive charges. This is not isolated—it is systemic and spans 13 years (2011–2024). Customers consistently report being charged 2–10x what competitors charge for identical work.
• LACK OF TRANSPARENCY: Multiple reviews report surprise charges, undisclosed service fees ($59 quote fee, $65 service call fee), and vague billing with no itemization. Customers were not informed of charges upfront.
• WARRANTY & FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Multiple reviews document incomplete repairs requiring callbacks (water heater thermostat, pilot light issues, toilet repair). One long-term customer (15–20 years) reports the company refused to warranty a water line repair that failed twice at the same location.
• DIAGNOSTIC FAILURES: Several reviews indicate plumbers missed root causes (thermocouple issue diagnosed as pilot light problem, toilet flapper issue unresolved). A $10 part was missed and customer charged $175 for re-lighting.
• COMPANY TRANSITION: Reviews reference transition to 'Ravinia Plumbing' and mention of 'Tom Mahoney' leaving to start separate business, suggesting possible organizational instability.
• RECENCY: Most damaging reviews are from 2012–2015, but the most recent 5-star review (2024-08-23) is extremely brief and generic ('Great service... you can't go wrong with CJ!!'), lacking specifics. This contrasts sharply with detailed negative reviews. The 2024 review may indicate improved service or could be a planted review.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS PATTERN: The 4 positive reviews (5.0, 4.0, 5.0, 4.0) are notably brief and generic, while negative reviews are detailed and specific. This asymmetry is typical of reputation management or fake review patterns.
• CUSTOMER TRUST EROSION: Multiple reviews explicitly state loss of trust despite long-term relationships. One 15–20 year customer terminated service due to warranty refusal and poor maintenance.

This WW Score of 32.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 20 reviews with consistent, detailed, and specific evidence across all dimensions. The pricing dimension alone (18/100 with HIGH confidence from 14 mentions) is sufficiently damaging to warrant extreme caution. The systematic nature of overcharging across 13 years, combined with documented warranty failures and diagnostic errors, indicates this is not a matter of isolated complaints but a business model issue. The recent positive review lacks credibility given the pattern of generic praise versus detailed criticism elsewhere.

This contractor has a deeply mixed record across only 5 reviews, with 4 of the 5 being negative. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and scores poorly overall, with multiple reviewers citing arrogance, poor communication, and in one case a refusal to work in normal field conditions. Pricing is a consistent and serious concern — three separate reviewers explicitly describe being overcharged, receiving no itemized bill, and feeling deceived by advertised flat-rate pricing that was not honored in practice. Project completion is mixed: one reviewer was left without water for days, another had a worker who appeared unqualified and needed remote guidance, while the single positive review describes a completed job done well. Experience scores modestly above average only because one reviewer praised the contractor's knowledge of tankless systems, but another noted the worker sent to do the job appeared to lack independent competence.

• Only 5 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and low-reliability.
• 4 out of 5 reviews are negative (1–2 stars), suggesting a pattern of dissatisfaction rather than isolated incidents.
• All negative reviews are from 2015–2017 and the single positive review is from 2019 — recency is limited across the board; no reviews from the past 12 months relative to a current evaluation.
• Pricing complaints are consistent across multiple independent reviewers, suggesting a systemic issue with billing transparency and fairness rather than a one-off dispute.
• One reviewer noted a worker was remotely supervised via photos during the job, raising a workmanship quality concern.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details, varied language, and include both positive and negative experiences.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews, all of which are more than 5 years old, making it LOW reliability — the score reflects a historically troubled record but cannot be considered a current or confident assessment of this contractor's performance.

Budget Sewer Service has a deeply mixed and largely negative review profile across the 7 reviews analyzed. Professionalism is significantly dragged down by a detailed account of an aggressive, unresponsive technician and an owner who dismissed the customer's complaint, though two reviews do note polite and helpful staff. Project completion is similarly troubled — multiple reviews describe incomplete work, damage caused during service (a cracked septic tank cover), failure to follow Georgia code for septic pumping, and a technician who left without finishing the job. Experience scores low due to a detailed account of a technician failing to open both tank covers as required by code, misdiagnosing a drain field issue, and providing inaccurate information about the company's own service capabilities. Pricing received a moderate score as one review praised a clear upfront quote, but another describes being asked for additional charges after damage was caused by the technician. The most recent reviews are from 2021–2022, with the majority of negative detail coming from that period, suggesting these issues are not isolated to older service history.

• Most reviews are from 2017–2022; no reviews from the past 12 months are present, reducing confidence in current service quality.
• The 1-star review from 2018 is exceptionally detailed and includes a documented update with photographic evidence and a competitor's findings — this is treated as high-credibility negative feedback.
• The business owner responded to a negative review by calling the customer a time-waster and claiming they were hard to reach, which corroborates the customer's complaint about dismissive management behavior.
• Two 5-star reviews (2017 and 2021) are relatively brief and lack specific detail, though they are not identical in phrasing and are not flagged as definitively fake — they are simply low-information positives.
• The 5-star review from 2019 is older than 5 years and carries reduced weight under recency rules.
• Only 7 total reviews were available; this is a very small sample and the WW Score should be treated with caution.

This WW Score is based on only 7 reviews spanning 2017–2022 with no recent data, and the negative reviews contain significantly more verifiable detail than the positive ones, making the score directionally reliable but statistically limited — treat with caution.

ARK Plumbing's review corpus is dominated by deeply negative experiences, particularly among customers assigned through home warranty companies. Professionalism is the most-cited dimension and is catastrophically poor: dozens of reviewers explicitly describe the phone receptionist and owner (Elana) as rude, argumentative, dismissive, and in one case using profane language toward a customer. Project completion is similarly alarming, with numerous accounts of jobs left unfinished, leaks not repaired after multiple visits, open walls and pipes abandoned, and work that caused additional damage. Pricing drew consistent complaints of hidden charges, inflated out-of-pocket fees, and suspected fraudulent reporting to warranty companies to extract extra payments. Experience scores marginally higher due to a subset of positive reviews praising specific technicians (Jason, Sal, Juan, Derek, Andrew), but is undermined by multiple accounts of incorrect diagnoses, improper installations, and work that had to be redone by other companies. The positive reviews, while genuine in some cases, are vastly outnumbered and do not offset the overwhelming pattern of failure across all four dimensions.

• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A cluster of 5-star reviews dated 2023-06-09 with identical dates, very short and generic text (e.g., 'Amazing customer service', 'ARK was super nice to me', 'Best plumbing company in town'), and no specific details are consistent with coordinated or incentivized review activity. These reviews were scored conservatively.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: Several 5-star reviews from 2014–2017 contain text such as 'unknown', '.', or 'see above' with no usable content. These appear to be placeholder or imported reviews and were excluded from scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two pairs of near-identical 1-star reviews were found (e.g., the 'worst, rude, unprofessional' review appears twice with dates 2024-06-08 and 2024-03-22; the 'Worst service I've ever had' review appears twice with dates 2024-03-18 and 2024-03-18). These were counted as single mentions to avoid double-weighting.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTE: The majority of detailed, substantive reviews are from 2022–2025. Reviews from 2008–2017 are largely positive but many lack detail or contain placeholder text. The recent trend is strongly negative and was weighted more heavily.
• ETHICAL CONCERN — FRAUDULENT REPORTING: Multiple independent reviewers allege that ARK Plumbing submitted false or inflated reports to home warranty companies (misclassifying repairs as 'modifications', reporting non-existent issues, or claiming work was complete when it was not). This pattern across many unrelated reviewers suggests a systemic business practice rather than isolated incidents.
• OWNER CONDUCT WARNING: Multiple reviewers specifically name the owner 'Elana' as the source of rude, threatening, or abusive behavior, including one reviewer alleging the owner said 'F_CK OFF' and another reporting the owner threatened legal action in response to a review. This is a significant red flag for business integrity.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: A high volume of reviews describe technicians leaving jobs unfinished, abandoning open walls or pipes, or failing to fix the stated problem across multiple return visits. This is a systemic project completion failure, not isolated incidents.

This WW Score of 28.4 is based on a large volume of detailed, specific reviews spanning multiple years and is assessed with HIGH confidence; the score accurately reflects a contractor with severe and consistent deficiencies across all four measured dimensions, and prospective customers should treat this score as a strong warning against engagement.