Find Nearby Plumbers In Terre Haute, Indiana

Able 2 Plumbing receives sharply divided feedback, with a small number of satisfied customers praising friendly, timely service contrasted against multiple serious complaints. Pricing is the most consistently criticized dimension, with multiple reviewers citing hidden charges, unexplained billing changes, and fees they considered excessive or deceptive — including one reviewer who detailed a situation escalating from $2,800 to a potential $9,500 total. Professionalism is similarly mixed, with complaints about showing up unannounced, poor communication, and unprepared technicians alongside a few positive mentions of courtesy and helpfulness. Project completion is a notable concern, with at least one documented case of a repair failing within three months and a follow-up visit that did not resolve the underlying issue. The positive reviews are brief and lack specific detail, which limits their evidentiary weight.

• Most reviews are older than 12 months, with the most recent dating to December 2022. No reviews from the past 12 months are present, so current service quality cannot be assessed.
• The three positive reviews (5-star) are notably brief and generic, lacking specific job details, while the negative reviews contain granular, verifiable specifics. This asymmetry reduces confidence in the positive reviews.
• One reviewer explicitly alleges work was performed without permits, which if accurate represents a serious legal and safety concern.
• A documented warranty/callback situation resulted in the customer being quoted significantly more money rather than having the original work honored, suggesting potential issues with accountability and follow-through.
• The plumber arriving unprepared without necessary materials for a standard disposal installation raises a workmanship and professionalism concern.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability due to a small review pool of 7 reviews spanning several years, a lack of any recent reviews, and a pattern where positive reviews are vague while negative reviews are detailed and specific — suggesting the negative experiences may be more representative of actual service quality.

McCalister receives mixed signals across all dimensions. Professionalism scores relatively highest, with multiple reviewers noting polite staff, prompt responses, and good communication — though this is partially offset by the serious operational failure of leaving a cable stuck in a customer's drain. Pricing is deeply conflicted: two reviewers describe competitive or reasonable pricing, while one reviewer explicitly describes being charged thousands of dollars unexpectedly, pulling the score down significantly. Project completion is a major concern: one reviewer reports the company failed to unclog a sink that a competitor resolved in 15 minutes, and another describes a cable being abandoned inside a drain — both are serious completion failures that weigh heavily given the small review pool. Experience follows a similar pattern, with one positive account of quality pipe work in difficult conditions offset by two clear skill or judgment failures.

• Very small review pool (4 reviews) — WW Score should be treated as highly provisional and not representative of consistent performance.
• One review (2019) is over 5 years old and may not reflect current service quality; it has been included but carries reduced reliability.
• The 1-star review describes an egregious operational failure (cable left inside drain, customer charged thousands for removal) — this is a serious red flag beyond a typical negative experience.
• The 3-star review raises a competency concern: failure to resolve a clog that another company fixed in 15 minutes suggests possible skill or effort gaps.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in tone, detail, and rating, suggesting authentic submissions.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning over 4 years and should be considered highly unreliable as a basis for hiring decisions — significantly more recent reviews are needed before any confident assessment can be made.

Supreme Heating and Air Conditioning shows significant weaknesses across multiple dimensions. While technicians occasionally demonstrate politeness and technical competence, the company is severely hampered by aggressive pricing practices, poor billing transparency, and inconsistent professionalism from management. Multiple reviews document labor charges that appear inflated (e.g., $1,800 for boiler repair without itemization, $1,395 for water heater installation nearly double the unit cost), misleading discount policies, and rude customer service from ownership. Project completion issues include incomplete work, parts not being on-hand, and failure to honor warranty obligations. The few positive reviews praise individual technicians and quick response times, but these are outweighed by systemic problems with pricing, accountability, and customer respect.

• PRICING PATTERN: Eight reviews explicitly mention excessive charges, price gouging, lack of itemization, or inflated labor costs. This is the most consistent complaint across the dataset.
• MANAGEMENT CONDUCT: Multiple reviews (2016, 2018, 2024) document rude, dismissive, or evasive behavior from ownership/management when questioned about bills or service issues.
• SAFETY CONCERN: 2018 review documents a gas line installation that violated code and created a dangerous leak—a serious safety and liability issue.
• BILLING OPACITY: Recurring complaint that invoices lack itemization, hourly rates, or hour counts, making it impossible for customers to verify charges.
• RECENCY: Most negative reviews are older (2010–2018), but the most recent review (July 2024) shows the same pattern of unprofessional behavior and excessive charges, suggesting systemic issues persist.
• INCONSISTENCY: Positive reviews (2011, 2024) praise work quality and politeness, but negative reviews from the same period document opposite experiences, suggesting highly variable service quality or selective positive reviews.

This WW Score of 42.8 is reliable and should be trusted. It is based on 10 reviews with consistent patterns across multiple dimensions, particularly strong evidence on pricing (8 mentions) and professionalism (7 mentions). The company's core weaknesses—excessive pricing, billing opacity, and poor management conduct—are documented across a 13-year span, indicating systemic rather than isolated problems. However, the presence of some positive reviews acknowledging good technical work suggests the score reflects a company with competent technicians undermined by poor business practices and management.

B&S Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all dimensions. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and shows a stark split: several reviewers praised punctuality, responsiveness, and friendly communication, while multiple others reported being stood up for appointments, ignored on callbacks, and told not to call back — dragging the score down significantly. Project completion is similarly divided, with one reviewer praising efficient multi-project completion in a single visit, while another describes pipes that have frozen every winter for 7 years after a $1,700 job with no follow-through, and a third describes a water heater installed incorrectly and then charged again to fix it. Pricing and experience scores are penalized by the same pattern: the incorrect installation charged at full price to correct, and the use of wrong pipe color coding on a second heater, suggest inconsistent workmanship that undermines confidence in technical quality. The majority of positive reviews are from 2012–2014, while the negative reviews are more recent (2019–2022), indicating a possible decline in service quality over time.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The most positive reviews (5-star, detailed praise) are from 2012 and 2014 — over 10 years old. More recent reviews (2019–2022) skew negative, suggesting a possible decline in service quality. Recent reviews were weighted more heavily.
• ONE REVIEW (2021-12-19) contains no usable review content — it only states the company's union affiliation. This review was excluded from scoring as it provides no customer experience data.
• PATTERN OF UNRESPONSIVENESS: At least two separate reviewers (2019, 2020) independently report being stood up for scheduled appointments and having calls go unreturned by the same individual ('Brian'). This is a credible and specific recurring complaint.
• WORKMANSHIP ERRORS: One reviewer documents two separate water heaters installed by B&S — one incorrectly (wrong pipe configuration causing years of cold water issues) and one with reversed pipe color coding. The company charged the customer to fix their own error after the warranty period, which is a significant negative signal for both experience and project completion.
• ELDERLY CUSTOMER COMPLAINT: One reviewer (88 years old at time of writing) reports paying $1,700 for work that resulted in pipes freezing every winter for 7 years, with the company refusing further assistance. This is a serious unresolved completion and workmanship failure.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 9 total reviews span over a decade. The WW Score should be treated with caution given the limited data volume.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to a small review pool spanning 10+ years, a clear recency-weighted decline in sentiment, and serious documented complaints about workmanship errors and unresponsiveness that are not offset by the older positive reviews.

The review set for A-Affordable Plumbing is small (4 reviews) and spans a wide date range (2009–2018), significantly limiting reliability. Two highly detailed negative reviews describe serious failures across nearly every dimension: a technician who misrepresented himself as the owner, overcharged by approximately double, caused collateral property damage, and refused accountability; and a separate incident involving repeated misdiagnosis, wrong parts, improper installation, and chronic no-shows. One detailed positive review from 2009 describes a well-managed pipe replacement job with good communication and clean workmanship, and one brief 5-star review from 2018 offers only vague praise with no specifics. The weight of specific, credible negative evidence across professionalism, pricing, project completion, and experience drives scores well below average for all dimensions.

• The 2018 5-star review ('I have used A-Affordable for years and have always provided quality work honest and reliable service') is extremely vague, contains no specifics, and reads as a generic endorsement — treat with low confidence.
• Two reviews describe serious misconduct: one involving a technician falsely claiming to be the owner, overcharging, causing property damage, and refusing refunds; another involving repeated misdiagnosis, wrong parts, and abandonment of a heating job in winter.
• The positive 5-star review from 2009 is over 15 years old and should carry minimal weight relative to more recent reviews.
• Only 4 reviews total — this is a very small sample and the WW Score should be treated as indicative only, not definitive.
• Ownership confusion documented in one review (Anthony Coble vs. David Stevens both claiming or denying ownership) suggests possible internal accountability issues at the company level.

This WW Score is LOW CONFIDENCE due to only 4 reviews, a 15-year date span, one likely generic fake-positive review, and two detailed, credible negative reviews that describe serious professional and technical failures — prospective customers should seek additional recent references before hiring.

This contractor shows significant weaknesses across multiple dimensions. Two of three reviews report serious project completion failures: incomplete work, unfinished callbacks, and work that made problems worse rather than better. Pricing integrity is severely compromised, with one review documenting a $175 quote-to-invoice discrepancy without prior discussion. The single positive review (2018) praised responsiveness and professionalism, but two more recent negative reviews (2022, 2014) describe poor communication and non-responsiveness. The WW Score of 38.2 reflects critical deficiencies in completion and pricing, though confidence is limited due to the small sample size.

• CRITICAL: Two reviews (2022, 2014) report incomplete project work and unresponsive follow-up, suggesting systemic project completion issues.
• CRITICAL: Pricing integrity concern — 2022 review documents $150 quote vs. $325 final bill with no prior discussion of additional costs.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent negative review is from 2022 (quote/billing dispute). Oldest review is from 2014 (incomplete waterproofing work). Only one positive review from 2018. Pattern suggests ongoing issues.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: 2014 review explicitly states 2 weeks of no response to contact attempts regarding incomplete work.
• Sample size is very small (n=3) — confidence in overall score is limited and should not be treated as definitive.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (3 reviews), but the pattern of project completion failures and pricing disputes across multiple years suggests genuine operational concerns that warrant further investigation before engaging this contractor.