Find Nearby Plumbers In Savannah, Georgia

Thompson & Thompson exhibits significant inconsistency across service dimensions. While professionalism scores moderately (62/100) with many positive mentions of punctual, courteous technicians, this is heavily undermined by severe pricing concerns (35/100)—the company is repeatedly criticized for excessive charges, lack of transparency, refusal to itemize estimates, and misleading service fees. Project completion is problematic (58/100), with multiple reports of incomplete work, incorrect installations, and failures to address root causes on first visits. Experience/workmanship is mixed (65/100)—some technicians demonstrate strong skill, but others deliver substandard work. The company's reputation appears built on selective positive experiences with individual technicians rather than consistent organizational quality.

• PRICING RED FLAG: 13 of 21 reviews explicitly mention pricing concerns. Complaints include: $750 for two faucet installations (no work done), $1100 for shower valve with SharkBites, $500 for light/fan, $150 diagnostic fee with no work, $1275 estimate after failed $400 repair, $350-$535 toilet quotes vs. $315 competitor total, $720 for reseating toilets. Pattern suggests systematic overpricing.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: Multiple reviews report incomplete work, incorrect installations, and failure to identify root causes. Examples: washer/dryer installation done incorrectly by wrong contractor type; slow toilet issue requiring two visits and $1275 estimate; AC unit left unfixed for a week; toilet installation leaked immediately after completion.
• COMMUNICATION/PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: Two separate reviews (2024-03-26, 2023-09-26) report refusal to provide itemized estimates or look up customer information. Company policy appears to resist transparency.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: 2024-03-26 review documents three separate no-shows with four-hour waits and poor communication—suggests systemic scheduling/dispatch issues.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2021-2024 (recent), while some positive reviews are from 2019-2023. Recent trend shows more complaints, suggesting potential service degradation.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Reviews suggest quality depends heavily on individual technician assigned (Nick Wiggins, Tim Lewis, Felix, D praised; others criticized). Organizational consistency is poor.

This WW Score of 58.2 should be treated with MODERATE confidence but interpreted cautiously: while based on 21 reviews with substantial data across all dimensions, the company exhibits extreme polarization (5-star and 1-star ratings with little middle ground) and systematic complaints about pricing practices that suggest structural business model issues rather than isolated incidents. The score reflects genuine service quality problems, particularly in pricing transparency and project completion, that outweigh positive individual technician experiences.

McBride Plumbing shows significant weaknesses in pricing transparency and project completion reliability. While some staff members (Dianne, Brandon, Gary) are noted as polite and professional, the company has a troubling pattern of billing disputes, incomplete initial repairs, and lack of weekend availability. Pricing complaints appear consistently across multiple reviews, with rates of $150–$200/hour plus undisclosed assistant fees. Project completion is undermined by failed initial fixes, incomplete work, and poor follow-through on estimates. One very positive 2017 review contrasts sharply with recent negative experiences, suggesting possible service degradation over time.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2021–2024; the single 5-star review is from 2017 (7 years old). Recent trend is decidedly negative.
• BILLING DISPUTES: Multiple reviews (2024, 2020, 2022) explicitly mention billing problems, hidden charges, and lack of transparent quotes. This is a systemic issue.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Review from 2022-01-17 states 'none of what is on the invoice was actually done.' Review from 2020-08-03 describes initial repair failure requiring callback.
• POOR COMMUNICATION: 2022-05-17 review criticizes lack of quote provision; 2022-01-17 review notes rude collection staff.
• LIMITED WEEKEND/EMERGENCY SUPPORT: 2020-08-03 review notes company closed weekends, requiring emergency contact.
• POTENTIAL QUALITY DECLINE: Stark contrast between 2017 praise and 2021–2024 complaints suggests service quality may have deteriorated.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (7 reviews) and significant recency skew, but the consistency of billing and completion complaints across recent reviews (2021–2024) indicates genuine service issues. The company's overall reliability is LOW and trending downward.

This company shows mixed performance across a very small sample of reviews. Two positive reviews from 2020 praise efficiency, thoroughness, and staff performance (Tristan and Justin), suggesting solid workmanship and professionalism. However, a recent 1-star review (April 2024) makes serious allegations of deception and dishonest practices, describing the company as willing to 'swindle' and 'lie' to customers. The stark contradiction between the 2020 praise and the 2024 complaint raises concerns about either service degradation or potential reliability issues. With only 3 reviews total and conflicting signals, confidence in this score is inherently limited.

• CRITICAL: Extreme polarity detected — two 5-star reviews (2020) vs. one 1-star review (2024) with serious fraud allegations. No middle-ground reviews to triangulate.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Positive reviews are 4+ years old (2020); the most recent review (April 2024) is highly negative and alleges deceptive practices. This suggests possible service decline or change in operations.
• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews total. Scoring is unreliable and vulnerable to outliers.
• UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS: The 1-star review makes serious claims ('swindle,' 'lie') but provides no specific details, dates, or context. Cannot verify legitimacy without additional information.
• PROFESSIONALISM DIMENSION: Positive reviews mention staff by name and praise attitude/efficiency; negative review attacks honesty and integrity. These are contradictory signals on the same dimension.

This WW Score should be treated with extreme caution. With only 3 reviews, significant time gap between positive (2020) and negative (2024) feedback, and unsubstantiated but serious allegations in the most recent review, this score does not reliably represent current contractor performance. Additional recent reviews are essential before making a hiring decision.

Jenkins Plumbing receives a critically low WW Score of 38.2, driven primarily by severe deficiencies in project completion and professionalism. Across 26 mentions, project completion issues dominate: multiple no-shows, missed appointments, incomplete work requiring 4-6 callbacks, poor workmanship (failed PVC joints, improper installations, raw sewage backup), and refusal to honor warranty obligations. Professionalism scores poorly (42/100 across 22 mentions) with documented instances of rude staff, poor communication, ghosting customers, and aggressive driving behavior by company vehicles. While a handful of reviews praise individual technicians (Curtis, Rob, Joe, Benny) for courtesy and skill, these positive experiences are vastly outweighed by systemic failures in scheduling, follow-through, and quality control. Pricing feedback is limited (5 mentions) but mixed, with some noting reasonable rates while others report aggressive after-hours upselling tactics.

• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple empty reviews (5-star ratings with no text) on 2024-06-09 and 2023-06-10 suggest potential fake positive reviews inflating ratings without substantive feedback.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 2+ years old (pre-2023). Recent reviews (2024-2025) show continued problems with scheduling and professionalism, indicating systemic issues persist.
• SAFETY CONCERN: Multiple reviews document aggressive driving behavior by company vehicles (tailgating, speeding, weaving traffic, running people off road) across multiple years and locations—suggests cultural/management problem.
• QUALITY CONTROL FAILURE: Repeated pattern of poor workmanship (failed glue joints, improper installations, incomplete work) across different technicians and projects indicates inadequate training or supervision.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE BREAKDOWN: Documented instances of ghosting, no-shows without notice, refusal to service warranty work, and dismissive staff responses across multiple years.
• LEGAL RISK: At least 3 reviews mention intent to pursue legal action or contact Better Business Bureau due to defective work and property damage.

This WW Score of 38.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong negative indicator. The score is based on 51 reviews with substantial evidence across all four dimensions, particularly project completion (26 mentions) and professionalism (22 mentions). The pattern of failures is consistent across multiple years, different technicians, and different customer types, suggesting systemic organizational problems rather than isolated incidents. The few positive reviews appear genuine but are overwhelmed by documented failures in execution and customer care.

The review set is small and deeply divided, making any score highly tentative. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and tells a conflicted story: two reviews praise specific technicians and staff as courteous, friendly, and professional, while two others describe office and answering service staff as repeatedly rude, dismissive, and prone to hanging up on customers. Project completion is similarly mixed — one review highlights a full HVAC installation completed within 24 hours, another describes a broken compressor with no resolution after 10 days and no communication, and a third notes a job that could not be completed on the day of service. Experience scores modestly above the midpoint only because one review explicitly praised technical knowledge and workmanship, while the compressor failure within one year of installation raises a meaningful quality concern. Pricing was not mentioned in any review and cannot be scored.

• Very small sample size of only 4 reviews — WW Score should not be treated as statistically reliable.
• Two of the four reviews are from August 2024 and describe serious service failures; the most positive reviews are from February 2024 and November 2024, suggesting inconsistent service quality over time rather than a clear trend.
• The 1-star review regarding the broken compressor describes a potentially serious workmanship or equipment quality issue — a unit failing within 1 year of installation is a significant red flag for the Experience dimension.
• No pricing information was provided in any review; the Pricing dimension cannot be evaluated at all.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the small sample size limits confidence in all scores.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews with sharply conflicting signals across professionalism and project completion, making it LOW reliability — treat this score as a preliminary indicator only and seek additional reviews before making a hiring decision.

This contractor has a deeply mixed and very small review set. The single positive review praises same-day responsiveness, professionalism, knowledge, and fair pricing for a shower faucet repair. However, two reviews from the same day in May 2024 describe a serious conduct incident unrelated to plumbing work — a company van operator left a stranded motorist without assistance and responded with scripture rather than an apology. While these two negative reviews do not directly address plumbing workmanship, they speak strongly to character, attitude, and professionalism, which are core components of the Professionalism dimension. The professionalism score is significantly dragged down by these incidents, and the overall WW Score reflects the high uncertainty of a three-review dataset with a major conduct flag.

• VERY LOW REVIEW COUNT: Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is statistically unreliable and should be treated with extreme caution.
• CONDUCT INCIDENT FLAG: Two reviews (2024-05-15) describe the same real-world incident involving a company van operator behaving rudely and unhelpfully toward a stranded motorist. This is a significant character and professionalism concern.
• REVIEW CONFLICT: One 5-star review praises professionalism while two 1-star reviews describe unprofessional and dismissive behavior — the dataset is internally contradictory.
• RECENCY NOTE: All three reviews are from 2024, so recency weighting does not differentiate them. The two negative reviews are more recent than the positive one.
• NO PATTERN OF FAKE REVIEWS DETECTED: Reviews appear authentic — they contain specific details, distinct writing styles, and genuine emotional responses.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should not be considered reliable — a minimum of 8–10 reviews with usable data across all dimensions would be needed before this score can be meaningfully trusted.