Bathtub Repair In Columbus

CLB Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and reasonable pricing, with multiple reviews praising diagnostic skills, honest recommendations, and fair quotes. However, the WW Score is significantly dragged down by severe project completion failures: three reviews explicitly document no-shows, abandoned jobs, and complete lack of follow-up communication after service. While early reviews (2016–2018) show excellent work quality and professionalism, more recent reviews (2020) reveal critical breakdowns in accountability, including poor workmanship on hot water tank installation that caused $1,200 in additional damage and unresponsiveness to callbacks. The pattern suggests deteriorating reliability over time.

• CRITICAL: Three reviews (2018-08-15, 2018-08-07, 2020-08-18) document complete no-shows, abandoned jobs, and zero callback response—this is a severe red flag for project completion.
• QUALITY REGRESSION: 2020 reviews show poor workmanship (hot water tank discharge tube leak caused by installation error) and unresponsiveness, contrasting sharply with glowing 2016–2018 reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent reviews (2020) are significantly more negative than older reviews (2016–2018), suggesting business performance has deteriorated.
• FAKE REVIEW INDICATOR: One 2018 review explicitly states 'I think this guy is just having friends write reviews for him'—this suggests awareness of review manipulation and adds credibility to negative reviews.
• CALLBACK PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2020-12-28, 2020-08-18, 2018-08-15, 2018-08-07) document failure to respond to calls, emails, and voicemails after service—this is a consistent systemic failure.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 12 reviews with adequate mention counts, the data reveals a contractor with serious reliability and follow-up issues that directly contradict positive early reviews; the recent pattern of no-shows, abandoned work, and unresponsiveness suggests the current business state is significantly worse than the overall score indicates, and potential customers should heavily weight the 2020 negative reviews over older positive ones.

The Service People demonstrates strong technical expertise and workmanship, with multiple reviews praising skill level and problem-solving ability. However, professionalism is inconsistent—while many reviews highlight punctuality and responsiveness, several older reviews cite poor phone communication, unresponsiveness to follow-ups, and unprofessional office staff. Pricing concerns appear in multiple reviews, with complaints about inflated permit fees and high charges for minor repairs, though some customers report competitive quotes. Project completion is generally solid, though one significant 2018 review documents a month-long parts delay with poor communication and contradictory explanations. Recent reviews (2019–2023) are notably more positive than older ones (2015–2018), suggesting possible management or operational improvements.

• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews are from 2015–2018; most positive reviews are from 2019–2023. This suggests significant operational or management changes over time. Older reviews may not reflect current service quality.
• INCONSISTENT PROFESSIONALISM: Multiple reviews mention poor phone communication and unresponsiveness, particularly in older reviews. One 2016 review explicitly criticizes office staff as unprofessional and dismissive.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Three separate reviews flag pricing issues—inflated permit fees (2017), high charge for minor repair (2015), and competitive quotes mentioned positively (2018). Pricing transparency appears inconsistent.
• PARTS/SUPPLY CHAIN ISSUES: Two reviews (2018, 2021) document significant delays in parts availability and poor communication during wait periods. One customer abandoned the company after a month with no follow-up.
• INDIVIDUAL TECHNICIAN VARIATION: Reviews frequently praise specific technicians by name (Matt, Tony, Mark, Stephanie) but criticize office/management. This suggests service quality is highly dependent on which technician is assigned.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews show genuine variation in experience, specific details, and mixed ratings. Language is natural and not repetitive across reviews.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While the dataset is adequate in size (12 reviews), the company shows a clear temporal split between older negative reviews (2015–2018) and newer positive ones (2019–2023), making it difficult to assess current performance. The score reflects an average across this period, but customers should prioritize recent reviews and specifically request experienced technicians like Matt or Tony. Verify pricing and permit fees in writing before work begins.

Capital City Mechanical has a generally positive review profile, with multiple customers praising responsiveness, communication, and prompt service across plumbing, heating, and cooling work. Pricing is mentioned favorably in a few reviews, with one customer specifically noting best value and no pressure for unnecessary add-ons. Project completion feedback is solid, with jobs described as completed well and on time, including a complex tankless water heater installation and a tricky dishwasher plumbing situation. However, professionalism takes a notable hit from a 1-star review citing discourteous driving behavior by a company vehicle, which is a direct reflection on the business. The majority of reviews are older than 12 months, with most dating back to 2017–2019, which meaningfully limits confidence in how well these scores reflect current performance.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Only 2 of 10 reviews are from the past 12 months (2023–2024). The majority of reviews are 5–7+ years old, significantly reducing reliability of the score as a reflection of current service quality.
• THIN RECENT DATA: The two most recent reviews are a 1-star complaint about driver behavior (2024) and a 5-star emergency service review (2023), which are too few to establish a reliable current trend.
• GENERIC REVIEWS: Several older reviews (2017–2018) contain very little detail — phrases like 'They did a good job' and 'everything was prompt' with no specifics. These contribute minimal scoring signal and may reflect low-effort or generic submissions.
• PROFESSIONALISM FLAG: The 2024 1-star review about a company vehicle driver cutting off traffic is a concrete, specific complaint that directly reflects on the business's public conduct and was weighted accordingly.
• NO NEGATIVE PRICING OR COMPLETION FEEDBACK: While this is positive, the absence of complaints in these areas should not be over-interpreted given the small and largely dated review set.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a small review pool, a heavy concentration of reviews from 2017–2019, and limited recent data points — prospective customers should seek more current references before making a hiring decision.

Carter's My Plumber earns strong marks for professionalism and experience across a large volume of reviews, with many customers praising punctuality, courteous technicians, clear communication, and skilled workmanship. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs finished as promised, though a handful of notable failures — including an unresolved emergency callback, a rushed job with no post-work check, a misdiagnosed water heater replacement, and an honored-quote dispute — prevent a higher score. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many customers describe fair or reasonable pricing, a significant and recurring thread of complaints about high costs, unexpected charges, parts-run fees, and upselling drags the score down considerably. The overall WW Score of 76.4 reflects a company with genuine strengths in service delivery but meaningful and consistent concerns around pricing transparency and occasional lapses in quality control.

• 25 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several reviews use single generic phrases ('Good company.', 'We were happy with their service.', 'It went very well.', 'unknown') with no specifics. These were treated as low-signal and not counted toward dimension mentions.
• One review (2016-10-03) appears to describe an automotive service ('changed out spare tire', 'checked brakes') and is almost certainly a misplaced review for a different business. It was excluded from scoring.
• Pricing complaints are recurring and specific across multiple independent reviews spanning 2013–2025, including: $411 to reseal a toilet, $200 charge to pick up parts, $3,900 quote for a sump pump backup, $2,600 water heater later found to be $800 overpriced, and a refused honor of a signed written quote. This pattern is credible and materially impacts the pricing score.
• A 2023 review describes a misdiagnosed water heater replacement costing $2,324 when the actual issue was an HVAC condensate pump — a serious workmanship and diagnostic failure that impacts both experience and project completion scores.
• A 2024 review describes a rushed job, poor communication, no post-work verification by the technician, and a dismissive attitude — directly contradicting the majority of positive professionalism reviews.
• The majority of reviews (roughly 60%+) are older than 12 months, with a large cluster dating back to 2013–2019. Recent 2025 reviews are predominantly positive but many lack substantive text. Recency weighting was applied conservatively.
• No strong fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, detail, tone, and rating. Negative reviews are specific and credible. Positive reviews reference named technicians and specific job details, which increases authenticity confidence.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over a decade, with sufficient negative and positive evidence across all four dimensions to produce a moderately reliable assessment; however, the high proportion of blank or content-free reviews and the age of much of the data mean the score should be treated as a general indicator rather than a precise measure of current performance.

Custom Care Group shows a mixed but cautiously positive profile across a very small review set. Professionalism scores moderately well — two reviews praise communication, courtesy, and responsiveness, but the negative review documents a failure to clean up sewage and paper towels left behind, which is a meaningful professionalism concern. Project completion is the most penalized dimension: the 1-star review describes a drain blockage that was not resolved on the first visit, a second charge for what should have been a warranty callback, and damage caused to an adjacent drain during the work — serious execution failures. Pricing received a single positive mention (best value of four quotes), but with only one data point this carries very limited weight. Experience is mixed: the gas leak job was completed efficiently and the contractor is described as knowledgeable, but the drain job required two visits and caused collateral damage, suggesting inconsistency in technical execution.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is statistically unreliable and should be treated as preliminary only.
• The negative review (2022) is older than 12 months relative to the two positive reviews (2024); recency weighting favors the positive reviews, but the severity of the 1-star complaint warrants full consideration.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details, varied language, and include a critical negative review, which supports authenticity.
• The 1-star review raises a potential warranty/guarantee concern: contractor reportedly does not guarantee work, meaning repeat issues result in additional charges to the customer.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be considered highly preliminary — at least 8–10 reviews would be needed to establish a reliable baseline for this contractor.

A. Friend Plumbing (Dave) earns strong marks across most dimensions, with consistent praise for responsiveness, punctuality, friendliness, and fair pricing spanning many years of reviews. Pricing is frequently highlighted as competitive and transparent, with multiple reviewers noting Dave's honesty in advising customers against unnecessary services. However, three negative reviews — two of which describe the same or very similar incident involving a pipe damaged during a toilet installation that Dave allegedly refused to remedy — meaningfully drag down the project completion and professionalism scores. A fourth negative review describes a broken shut-off valve that Dave charged the customer to replace after breaking it himself, further undermining trust in accountability. These are serious, specific complaints that cannot be dismissed and prevent the score from reaching the high 80s or above.

• Two reviews (dated 2024-06-09 and 2022-03-14) describe nearly identical incidents: Dave drilling a hole in a pipe during a toilet installation and refusing to make it right. These may be the same customer posting twice on different platforms, or two separate incidents of the same nature. Either way, this is a significant pattern of unresolved workmanship liability.
• Two reviews appear to be blank or contain no usable text (rated 5.0 and 1.0 respectively, dated 2022-06-10 and 2020-06-10). These were excluded from scoring.
• One review (dated 2020-12-19) appears to be a duplicate — identical text posted twice with slightly different timestamps. Only one instance was counted in scoring.
• One review (dated 2015-01-13) contains only the word 'unknown' and was excluded from scoring.
• A large portion of reviews (roughly 60%) are dated 2022 or earlier, with many from 2011–2014. Recency weighting was applied; the most recent reviews (2023–2024) were given greater influence. The negative pipe-damage review from 2024 is particularly significant given its recency.
• Several older 5-star reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Great work fast response', 'Great guy... trust him.', 'excellent all three times'). While not conclusively fake, these lack specificity and were treated as low-detail data points with limited scoring influence.
• One review (dated 2018-10-12) states the company is 'totally unreliable and rude' but provides no specific details. It was noted but given limited weight due to lack of supporting specifics.
• One review (dated 2021-11-18) is a 2-star complaint solely about service area limitations (not serving the northwest side of Columbus). This reflects a business scope issue rather than quality of work and was excluded from dimension scoring but noted here.

This WW Score is based on 44 usable reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH overall confidence in volume terms, but the presence of multiple specific, credible negative reviews about unresolved workmanship damage — including one from 2024 — introduces meaningful uncertainty, and prospective customers should weigh those complaints carefully alongside the otherwise strong positive record.