Find Nearby Plumbers In Savannah, Georgia

The review set is small and heavily mixed, making any score low-confidence. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and paints a divided picture: one reviewer praised a punctual, polite, hard-working crew, while another explicitly called out late arrival, audible cussing and grumbling on the job, and the owner responding antagonistically to negative reviews online. Pricing received conflicting signals — one reviewer found A-Team significantly cheaper than a competitor, while another felt a $200 quote for a drain issue that a $10 bottle of Drain-O resolved was questionable value. Project completion is a clear weak point, with one reviewer stating the job was not finished and required a callback, and trash being left behind; only the 5-star reviewer reported a clean, complete job. Experience is also uncertain, with one reviewer questioning whether the diagnosis they received was accurate given the simple self-fix that resolved the issue.

• Very small sample size (3 reviews) — WW Score should be treated as highly provisional and not representative of consistent performance.
• Two of the three reviews are dated 2015 or earlier, making all data over 9 years old. Current performance may differ significantly.
• The owner publicly challenged the integrity of a reviewer (Review 1), which is itself a professionalism concern and may have suppressed further honest reviews.
• Review 1 notes that another reviewer (Gretchen H., not included in this set) had a similar negative experience, suggesting a possible pattern of incomplete work and trash left behind.
• The sole 5-star review (2013) uses notably enthusiastic language and lacks specific technical detail, though it does include some concrete specifics (pricing comparison, arrival time) that reduce — but do not eliminate — concern about its authenticity.
• No reviews are from the past 12 months. All data is stale and reliability is significantly reduced as a result.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all more than 9 years old, with two strongly negative and one strongly positive, making it a low-reliability signal that should not be used as a confident indicator of current contractor quality.

Hutson Plumbing receives consistently poor ratings across multiple dimensions. Pricing is a critical weakness, with customers reporting charges of $400–$430 for diagnostic work alone, significantly above market rates, and allegations of unnecessary upselling (septic tank pumping when only line clogging existed). Professionalism is severely compromised by unresponsiveness, no-shows, and rude office staff. Project completion shows serious gaps: incomplete cleanup, yard destruction, and inability to reach the company post-service. Only experience shows modest strength, with one customer noting good technical work, but this is heavily outweighed by systemic failures in execution and customer care.

• SEVERE PRICING COMPLAINTS: Five of eight reviews explicitly mention overcharging or unfair pricing. Multiple customers report being quoted $400+ for one hour of diagnostic work, with one customer finding identical work done by a competitor for $500 total (including 3 hours of labor and cleanup).
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: Two reviews specifically criticize office staff rudeness and communication failures. One customer reports no-show and unresponsiveness; another reports inability to reach company after service completion despite multiple attempts.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: One review documents severe property damage (destroyed yard, scattered sharp debris, holes) with no follow-up or remediation. Another reports incomplete cleanup (muddy carpet, dirty bathroom/tub left behind).
• REPUTATION PATTERN: One review explicitly states 'I was told by at least 15 people in the last week that Hutsons overcharge n take advantage of people.' This suggests systemic reputation damage in the local community.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2018–2024, with only one positive review (2023-04-10) standing out as anomalous. The 2023 positive review uses generic language ('great job,' 'very polite,' 'very reasonable') with no specific details, while all negative reviews contain extensive specific complaints. This pattern suggests the positive review may be an outlier or unrepresentative of typical customer experience.
• ETHICAL CONCERN: One customer notes the company displays Bible verses but does not practice ethical business practices, suggesting a values-integrity gap.

This WW Score of 38.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted. It is based on eight reviews with consistent, detailed, and specific complaints across all major dimensions. The overwhelming majority of reviews (7 of 8) are 1-star ratings with substantive evidence of overcharging, poor communication, incomplete work, and property damage. The single 5-star review lacks specificity and appears inconsistent with the broader pattern. This company presents significant risk to customers.

The review corpus for Canady's is dominated by deeply negative experiences across all four scored dimensions, with the positive reviews concentrated primarily in 2015–2018 and representing a clear minority. Professionalism scores are dragged down severely by repeated complaints about unresponsive management, technicians alleged to be impaired, dismissive phone staff, and broken promises of callbacks — with only a handful of older reviews praising individual technicians by name. Pricing is one of the worst-performing dimensions, with numerous reviewers explicitly describing quotes 2–2.5x market rate, hidden fees, misleading service call charges, and pressure to purchase unnecessary replacements. Project completion is critically low, with multiple reviews describing abandoned jobs, incorrect installations causing tens of thousands in property damage, parts ordered incorrectly, no-shows after scheduling, and warranty disputes where the company refused to honor commitments. Experience scores reflect a pattern of misdiagnosis, improper installations, incomplete inspections, and at least two cases where a competitor found and fixed problems Canady's missed or caused — though a small number of older reviews do praise individual technicians as thorough and knowledgeable.

• Strong recency skew toward negative reviews: the majority of 5-star positive reviews are dated 2015–2018, while reviews from 2019 onward are overwhelmingly 1-star. This suggests a significant and sustained decline in service quality over time.
• The positive reviews, while not appearing fake, are largely older than 5 years and should be weighted minimally under recency rules. They do not reflect current service levels.
• Multiple independent reviewers describe structurally similar patterns — misleading diagnostic fees, pressure to replace rather than repair, and management that never returns calls — suggesting systemic operational issues rather than isolated incidents.
• At least two reviews (2024-08-02 and 2020-12-16) describe major property damage from incorrect installations, with the company allegedly refusing to accept responsibility in both cases.
• A 2023-10-26 review alleges a technician arrived impaired. This is an unverified but serious professionalism flag.
• A 2024-04-20 review describes a technician damaging equipment during a service visit and the company allegedly falsifying the service report to show satisfactory completion — a significant integrity concern.
• The 2022-09-29 review describes overcharging, incomplete work, and a supervisor who never followed up despite multiple escalations through quality control — indicating systemic management failure.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews are specific, varied in detail, and include named technicians and specific dollar amounts, lending credibility to both positive and negative accounts.

This WW Score of 34.2 is based on 36 reviews with strong mention counts across all four dimensions and should be considered highly reliable as a reflection of current service quality — the overwhelming volume of detailed, specific negative reviews from 2019 through 2024 provides a consistent and credible picture of a company with serious systemic issues in professionalism, pricing transparency, project completion, and technical competence.

This contractor's review set is heavily dominated by three detailed, highly negative reviews that describe serious failures across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is undermined by repeated accounts of poor communication, no-shows, dismissive staff, and dishonest billing practices. Pricing is a major concern, with multiple reviewers citing unexplained charges, lack of itemized invoices, and invoices sent to collections without resolution. Project completion is critically low, as multiple jobs were either never completed, abandoned without notice, or dragged on for months without resolution. The two positive reviews are brief, generic, and lack specific detail, which limits their ability to meaningfully offset the detailed negative accounts.

• SUSPECTED GENERIC REVIEWS: The two 5-star reviews ('Definitely my go to plumbing company...' and 'Don't bother looking any further than Consolidated...') contain no specific job details, no names, no descriptions of work performed, and use boilerplate praise language. These are consistent with patterns of low-credibility or potentially fake positive reviews and have been weighted accordingly.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent review is from June 2022. Three of the five reviews are from 2020 or earlier, with one dating back to 2016. The score may not reflect current business performance.
• BILLING MISCONDUCT PATTERN: Three independent reviewers describe a consistent pattern of opaque invoicing, unexpected charges, failure to send itemized bills, and aggressive or dismissive responses when billing was questioned. One reviewer was sent to collections. This is a significant red flag.
• NO-SHOW AND ABANDONMENT PATTERN: At least two reviewers describe being stood up with no communication, and one describes a job that was never completed despite months of follow-up.
• COLLECTIONS AGENCY INVOLVEMENT: One reviewer reports being contacted by a collections agency over a disputed invoice for work that was never successfully completed, which is a serious professionalism and ethics concern.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning 6 years, with two suspected low-credibility positive reviews and three highly detailed negative reviews; the score should be treated as LIMITED in reliability but directionally meaningful given the specificity and consistency of the negative accounts.

The reviews paint a predominantly negative picture of RNR Home Improvements across nearly all dimensions. Professionalism is severely undermined by multiple accounts of ignored emails, unreturned phone calls, and verbal assurances that were never honored. Project completion is a major concern, with one reviewer describing a bathroom renovation riddled with unfinished and shoddy work, and another describing a roof inspection that was never actually performed. Workmanship quality is similarly poor based on explicit descriptions of chipped tiles, improperly grouted drains, loose faucets, and painter damage. The sole positive review from December 2022 describes a genuinely good experience with a full kitchen renovation, which prevents the scores from bottoming out entirely, but it is outweighed by three detailed negative accounts.

• Only 4 reviews total — scores carry LOW statistical reliability and should be interpreted with caution.
• Three of four reviews are 1-star with specific, detailed complaints; one is 5-star with positive specifics. The single positive review is not suspicious on its own but does not offset the weight of three detailed negative experiences.
• Two reviews explicitly name owners Rickey Greer and Will Hudson as sources of miscommunication and unmet promises, suggesting a pattern at the leadership level rather than isolated crew issues.
• The roof inspection review (Oct 2024) is the most recent and describes a contractor who showed up but failed to perform the agreed service, which is a serious project completion failure.
• The pricing dimension score is based on only 2 mentions — one written estimate was provided (neutral/positive signal) but the follow-up communication failure makes the overall value proposition questionable. Score treated conservatively.
• No reviews are older than 3 years; the most recent is from October 2024. Recency weighting does not significantly alter the picture as the negative pattern is consistent across the review window.

With only 4 reviews and 3 of them being detailed 1-star accounts describing specific failures in communication, workmanship, and follow-through, this WW Score of 32.1 should be treated as a meaningful warning signal, though it cannot be considered statistically definitive due to the small sample size.

The overwhelming majority of reviews describe a contractor who repeatedly failed to show up to scheduled appointments, did not communicate cancellations, had a perpetually full voicemail, and in one case accepted payment and then abandoned the job for 23 days. Five of seven reviews are 1-star and document consistent no-call/no-show behavior across multiple appointment dates, which drives the professionalism and project completion scores to near-zero. The two positive reviews — one praising skilled sink installation and fair pricing, one praising fast Sunday service — provide limited counterbalance given the volume and severity of the negative accounts. Pricing received a moderate score only because two reviewers explicitly praised affordability and value, though one negative reviewer noted paying an $85 service fee with no work ever completed. The experience score is conservative and LIMITED-confidence, based solely on one detailed positive review describing quality workmanship.

• SEVERE RELIABILITY CONCERN: Five of seven reviews document identical behavioral patterns — no-call/no-show, full voicemail, unresponsive texts — suggesting a systemic and ongoing pattern of abandonment rather than isolated incidents.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2023) are negative, indicating the problematic behavior has not improved over time. The two positive reviews are from 2021 and 2022, making them less representative of current performance.
• PAYMENT ABANDONMENT: One reviewer explicitly states they paid an $85 service fee and the contractor never returned or responded for 23 days, which constitutes a serious consumer protection concern.
• MULTIPLE APPOINTMENT FAILURES: Several reviewers report the contractor accepted and missed not just one but multiple rescheduled appointments, indicating a pattern beyond simple scheduling errors.
• The two positive reviews are brief and lack the specificity of the negative reviews; while they do not appear fake, they are significantly outweighed by the detailed, corroborated negative accounts.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall confidence due to a sufficient number of reviews with usable data, but the score itself is highly reliable as a warning signal — the negative pattern is consistent, multi-year, and corroborated across independent reviewers; this contractor should be approached with extreme caution.