Find Nearby Plumbers In Anderson, Indiana

Cunningham Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture. Positive reviews praise punctuality, responsiveness, clear communication, and solid workmanship across multiple job types including water heaters, toilets, and faucets. However, two recent 2024 reviews raise serious red flags: a no-show appointment, failure to provide legally required 24-hour notice before entry, rude behavior toward customers, and hanging up on a client attempting to voice concerns. These negative incidents are recent and specific, which significantly drags down professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing and experience scores are more favorable but are partially based on older reviews dating back to 2012–2015, which limits their current reliability.

• TWO SERIOUS NEGATIVE REVIEWS (June 2024): Both describe unprofessional conduct including a no-show, failure to provide 24-hour notice before entry, rudeness, and hanging up on a customer. These are specific, credible, and recent — they carry significant weight.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Three of the five positive reviews are from 2012, 2013, and 2015 — over 9 years old. These are given reduced weight as they may not reflect current service quality.
• ONLY 2 REVIEWS FROM THE PAST 12 MONTHS (mid-2023 to mid-2024): One is positive (May 2023), two are strongly negative (June 2024). The most recent trend is negative.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 7 total reviews limits statistical reliability across all dimensions.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in detail, tone, rating, and specificity, suggesting authentic submissions.

This WW Score should be treated with caution: while the sample covers multiple dimensions, the small total review count, the heavy age of positive reviews, and two credible and specific recent negative reviews mean the score may not reliably represent current service quality.

B&C Plumbing shows genuine strengths in courtesy and respect for the customer's home — multiple reviewers specifically noted the technician removing his shoes, and communication was generally praised. However, the record is meaningfully mixed: one reviewer experienced a faulty faucet installation that failed within three years, and another had serious difficulty getting the contractor to return after full payment and was left covering a re-inspection fee. Pricing is similarly inconsistent — one reviewer benefited from a discount and cost savings, while another found that the lowest bid ultimately cost more than a higher competing quote due to incomplete follow-through. The small review pool (5 reviews) spanning nearly a decade limits confidence significantly, and the two 1-star reviews carry substantial weight given the total sample size.

• Very small sample size of only 5 reviews — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• Reviews span approximately 8 years (2012–2020); the most recent review is from January 2020, meaning all reviews are older than 4 years. No recent data is available to reflect current performance.
• Two reviews (2012 and 2017) are significantly dated and may not reflect current business practices, but they document serious issues including incomplete work and a failed installation.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details, varied language, and include both positive and negative experiences, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to a very small and aging review pool; the score reflects a genuinely mixed track record but should not be treated as a stable or definitive assessment without more recent and numerous reviews.

The reviews paint a deeply concerning picture of this contractor. Three of four reviews are 1-star and describe repeated failures to show up during scheduled windows, unauthorized entry into a customer's home, and doors left improperly sealed — allowing air, water, bugs, and dirt inside. The one positive review praises a sink and dishwasher installation as reasonable and well-done, but it is a single data point against a pattern of serious complaints. Project completion is the most heavily weighted dimension and scores extremely low, as multiple reviewers describe abandoned callbacks, unresolved defects, and broken promises spanning months. Professionalism scores are similarly poor, with documented no-shows across multiple scheduled windows, deceptive communication, and at minimum one instance of entering a home without permission.

• 3 out of 4 reviews are 1-star with specific, detailed complaints — this is a strong negative signal and not a review manipulation pattern.
• The single 5-star review is brief and lacks the specificity of the negative reviews; it cannot meaningfully offset the documented pattern of failures.
• Two separate reviewers (2018 and 2019) independently describe the same defect — improperly sealed door bottoms — suggesting a recurring workmanship issue, not an isolated incident.
• One reviewer explicitly documents the contractor entering their home on a day they stated they would not be available, which is a serious professional and legal concern.
• The contractor reportedly told a customer he has 'too much work to keep to a schedule,' suggesting a systemic capacity or reliability problem.
• Review dates range from 2018 to 2019; all reviews are older than 5 years. No recent data is available to assess whether performance has improved.

With only 4 reviews, all over 5 years old, and a strong skew toward detailed negative experiences, this WW Score should be treated as LIMITED in reliability — but the consistency and specificity of the complaints across multiple reviewers lend credibility to the low score.

All three reviews are uniformly negative with ratings of 1.0 star, describing severe failures across professionalism, pricing transparency, and project completion. Common themes include no-shows or late arrivals, poor communication and unresponsiveness to callbacks, incomplete work requiring multiple visits, unexpected price increases, and damage to property without accountability. While the sample size is small (3 reviews), the consistency and specificity of complaints across all dimensions suggests systemic operational problems rather than isolated incidents.

• CRITICAL: All three reviews are 1-star ratings with no positive reviews to balance assessment. This is an extremely poor review profile.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Reviews span 2014–2021 (7-year range). The two most recent reviews (2021 and 2018) are still highly negative, indicating problems persist over time.
• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews describe identical problematic behavior—technician leaves to get tools, returns, charges for full time despite incomplete work, and fails to follow up. This suggests systemic operational failure, not isolated incidents.
• SAMPLE SIZE WARNING: Only 3 reviews analyzed. While all are consistently negative, a larger sample would be needed for high-confidence scoring. However, the uniformity of complaints is concerning.
• NOT FAKE REVIEWS: These appear to be genuine complaints with specific details (dates, times, dollar amounts, equipment issues), not generic praise or suspicious patterns.

This score should be treated with extreme caution due to the very small sample size (3 reviews), but the uniformity and specificity of severe complaints across all operational dimensions suggests genuine and persistent service failures. A larger sample would be needed to confirm reliability, but current data indicates this contractor has serious professionalism and completion issues.

Both reviews are highly positive and mention professionalism (courteous, efficient, thorough communication), project completion (issues resolved, came early, went above and beyond), and experience (skilled assessment and problem-solving). One review explicitly mentions pricing favorably (waived assessment fee). However, with only 2 reviews total, all scores carry LIMITED confidence and cannot support a reliable overall WW Score calculation per the requirement of minimum 3 reviews.

• Insufficient review volume: only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language; no critical feedback or specific complaints present to validate claims.
• One review is from 2021 (over 3 years old); only one review from recent period (2023). Recency is limited.
• Pricing dimension mentioned in only 1 review; all other dimensions mentioned in 2 reviews. Very limited data density across all dimensions.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required). Individual dimension scores are based on LIMITED data and should not be used for decision-making.

With only two reviews spanning 2007 and 2009, there is insufficient data to produce a reliable WW Score. The professionalism dimension is mixed: one review praises a staff member (Jessica) as highly professional and knowledgeable, while the other describes a contractor who only improved their work after the customer invoked Angie's List membership — suggesting responsiveness required external pressure. Pricing is similarly split: one reviewer appreciated help staying within a tight budget, while the other expressed dissatisfaction with the overall service value. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with the only relevant review describing repeated problems, an unsatisfactory initial outcome, and a need for rework. All scores are treated conservatively given the extremely low mention counts and the age of both reviews (15+ years old).

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are significantly outdated, dated 2007 and 2009 respectively — over 15 years old. These reviews provide no meaningful signal about current contractor performance.
• Review 1 (2-star) describes a warranty repair scenario involving a manufacturer referral, which may reflect on the manufacturer's process as much as the contractor's own standards — context limits direct attribution.
• Review 2 (5-star) explicitly states 'Plumber's Supply did not do the actual installation,' meaning the positive experience relates to a supply/sales interaction only, not actual contracting or plumbing work. This significantly limits its relevance to workmanship or project completion scoring.
• No patterns of fake reviews detected, but the extremely small sample size and age of reviews make any scoring highly unreliable.

This WW Score report should not be trusted for any purchasing or hiring decision — only 2 reviews exist, both are over 15 years old, and one explicitly does not cover actual installation work, leaving the dataset far too thin and outdated to draw meaningful conclusions.