Find Nearby Plumbers In Greenwood, Indiana

Woody's Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally fair pricing, with multiple reviews praising quality workmanship and honest assessments. However, the company suffers from significant and recurring project completion issues, including no-shows, failure to honor callbacks, incomplete follow-up work, and unresolved warranty claims spanning years. Professionalism is mixed—excellent responsiveness and courtesy in initial interactions contrasts sharply with poor communication and accountability during follow-through phases. The most recent negative reviews (2020-2022) suggest systemic deterioration in reliability, particularly under Andrew Twomey's management.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2020-2022) allege no-shows, failure to return calls/texts, and broken promises regarding follow-up work and warranty fulfillment. One customer reported driving 5 hours twice for missed appointments with no communication.
• CRITICAL: One 2022 review documents a 3-year unresolved warranty claim for failed concrete work with repeated promises and eventual abandonment of customer.
• CRITICAL: Potential management/ownership change flagged in 2020 review alleging 'Andrew Twomey' is using 'Keith Briley's license' and suggesting possible scam operation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2011-2022 (older); negative reviews cluster heavily in 2019-2022, suggesting recent deterioration in service quality.
• Two reviews marked 'unknown' with 5-star ratings (2015) lack substantive detail and cannot be scored; treated as unusable data.
• One review marked 'No response' (2012) lacks content; treated as unusable data.
• Stark divergence between early reviews (2006-2013, consistently positive) and recent reviews (2019-2022, consistently negative) suggests significant operational or management changes.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While technical competence appears solid (HIGH confidence), the company exhibits a severe and documented pattern of project completion failures and communication breakdowns in recent years (2019-2022), which directly contradicts earlier positive reputation. The WW Score of 68.2 reflects this deterioration, but customers should be aware that recent reviews suggest substantially higher risk of incomplete work, missed appointments, and unresolved warranty issues than the overall score indicates.

Thompson Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews. Professionalism is mixed: three reviews praise punctuality and responsiveness, but three others cite scheduling failures, tardiness, and poor communication. Pricing concerns are substantial—one customer was overcharged $500 for reduced scope, another was charged $120 for advice rather than service. Project completion is generally solid when work is performed, though one review indicates the plumber may have avoided the job. Technical skill appears competent when engaged, with quick diagnostics noted. The wide variance between 5-star and 1-star ratings suggests either highly variable service quality or inconsistent staff performance.

• Significant recency bias: 3 of 7 reviews are from 2021 or earlier (3+ years old); only 2 reviews from past 12 months. Recent reviews show deterioration in service quality.
• Pricing transparency issues: Two separate complaints about charges (overcharge of $500, $120 service call for advice only) suggest potential billing practices problems.
• Scheduling and communication failures: Multiple reviews cite double-booking, wrong address arrival, missed calls, and late arrivals—pattern suggests operational/coordination issues.
• Inconsistent service delivery: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews and damning 1-star reviews suggests either different technicians or highly variable performance.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to high volatility in customer experience, limited recent data (only 2 reviews in past 12 months), and documented operational issues with scheduling and pricing transparency that may not be fully captured in older reviews.

The majority of reviews are significantly dated, with five of the seven usable reviews coming from 2010–2014, which substantially limits their reliability as a current indicator of performance. The most recent substantive review (2023) is a serious 1-star complaint describing a contractor who accepted payment, made promises, and then became completely unresponsive for six weeks — a significant red flag for both professionalism and project completion. The older positive reviews do paint a picture of a knowledgeable, polite, and timely technician, but these cannot be weighted equally against a recent failure pattern. Pricing was mentioned positively in one older review but is otherwise largely unaddressed. The combination of a damaging recent review and a heavily aged positive review base results in a conservative, below-average WW Score.

• RECENCY WARNING: Five of seven usable reviews are from 2010–2014, making them over 10 years old. These reviews carry significantly reduced weight in assessing current contractor reliability.
• SERIOUS RECENT COMPLAINT (2023): The only review from the past 12 months describes payment accepted ($200) with no service delivered and no response over 6 weeks. This is a critical trust and completion failure.
• ONE REVIEW UNUSABLE: The review dated 2015-01-13 contains only the word 'unknown' with no substantive content and was excluded from dimension scoring.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW: The older 5-star reviews are somewhat generic in praise but do contain specific names (Mark, Michael, Mike) and situational details, reducing but not eliminating concern about authenticity.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 7 usable reviews total. Scores should be treated with caution and are not statistically robust.

This WW Score has LOW overall reliability due to a very small review sample, a heavily aged positive review base, and a recent serious complaint that directly contradicts the historical positive pattern — prospective customers should seek additional current references before hiring.

This contractor shows genuine strengths in responsiveness and workmanship when they do engage — the emergency water connection job and the honest handling of the accidental well damage are meaningful positives. However, a 1-star review citing two no-shows and a complete failure to follow through on a sewer replacement job is a serious red flag that meaningfully drags down professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing was mentioned positively in one review and negatively implied in another (the $1,100 spent with a prior company before switching), but direct pricing data is thin. The oldest reviews date to 2013 and 2019, reducing their reliability for assessing current performance, with only one review from the past 12 months (2023).

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as highly preliminary and not statistically reliable.
• One review explicitly describes two missed appointments and an abandoned job commitment — this is a significant professionalism and project completion concern.
• Two of the four reviews are older than 4 years (2013 and 2019), and one is from 2020. Only one review falls within the past 12 months (2023), limiting recency confidence.
• The 2013 review is over 10 years old and carries very low weight in assessing current contractor behavior.
• 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 4 reviews spanning a decade, with significant recency gaps and one serious negative account, making it LOW reliability — do not use this score as a confident hiring signal without seeking additional recent references.

BnB Plumbing presents a mixed picture across only three reviews spanning several years. Professionalism is inconsistent: one reviewer praised the team as squared away and professional, another appreciated the office staff and the plumber's demeanor, but the third reported being laughed at when raising a legitimate damage complaint and experiencing initial unresponsiveness — a serious mark against professionalism. Project completion is the most concerning dimension: the water heater job resulted in floor damage that the company refused to address, and the third review noted a significant scheduling delay of four-plus hours beyond the appointment window. Pricing was noted as reasonable or fair in two of three reviews, providing modest positive signal, though the cash-only discount in the damage review raises a minor transparency concern. Experience scores are dragged down by the floor damage incident, which suggests either careless workmanship or poor accountability, offsetting the positive impressions from the other two reviews.

• Review 1 (2023-12-01) was written by someone who applied for a job at the company, not a paying customer. This creates a significant conflict of interest and the review should be weighted with caution or discounted entirely.
• Only 3 reviews total — the WW Score is statistically unreliable and should not be used as a definitive assessment of this contractor.
• Review 2 (2022-07-03) describes a serious unresolved property damage incident with no accountability taken by the company. This is a significant red flag for project completion and professionalism.
• Review dates span from 2018 to 2023. Only one review falls within the past 12 months (Review 1, December 2023), and that review is from a job applicant rather than a customer. The most recent genuine customer reviews are from 2022 and 2018.
• The cash-only discount mentioned in Review 2 may indicate off-the-books pricing practices, which warrants caution.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews — one of which is from a job applicant rather than a paying customer — making it highly unreliable and insufficient to draw confident conclusions about this contractor's overall quality.

The single positive review describes a smooth, timely attic insulation job with good communication and reasonable pricing, but it is significantly outweighed by two detailed negative reviews. Both negative reviewers report unfinished work, poor business practices, and an inability to manage subcontractors — one explicitly describes two separate incomplete jobs and theft on site. Pricing is flagged as a concern, with one reviewer alleging overbilling and a failure to bid jobs accurately. The pattern of negative feedback is specific, detailed, and consistent across the two critical reviews, lending them credibility and pulling all dimension scores sharply downward.

• Two of three reviews are highly negative and contain specific, credible details about unfinished work, unpaid employees, subcontractor misconduct, and property theft — these are serious red flags.
• The sole positive review is from 2021; both negative reviews are from 2017 and 2018, making the overall dataset outdated. No reviews from the past 12 months are present — recency confidence is low.
• The contractor's claimed '23 years of experience' is directly disputed by a reviewer, suggesting potential misrepresentation of credentials.
• One reviewer alleges that subcontractors placed liens on a customer's property due to non-payment by the contractor — this is a significant legal and financial risk for future customers.
• With only 3 total reviews, the dataset is at the minimum threshold for scoring. Results should be treated with caution.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 2017–2021 with no recent data, and the heavily negative content of two detailed reviews makes the score directionally reliable as a warning signal, but the small sample size limits statistical confidence.