Find Nearby Plumbers In Asheville, North Carolina

Coopers Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism, with numerous reviewers praising responsiveness, communication, and courteous staff across many years of reviews. Pricing is generally viewed favorably, with multiple customers noting fair or below-expected costs and no hidden charges, though the sample is smaller. Project completion is solid overall but is meaningfully dragged down by one credible 1-star review describing unfinished work after upfront payment and a pattern of broken commitments, which cannot be ignored. Experience scores are generally positive, with reviewers citing knowledgeable and skilled work, but one 2-star review raises a legitimate concern about a misdiagnosis and a failure to follow through with a promised estimate, introducing a note of caution.

• One credible 1-star review (2016-12-20) explicitly describes incomplete work, broken scheduling promises, and a concern that upfront payment reduced prioritization — this is a meaningful negative signal for project completion.
• One credible 2-star review (2013-08-14) describes a misdiagnosis recommending unnecessary full pipe replacement and a failure to follow up with a promised estimate — this is a meaningful negative signal for experience.
• The majority of reviews (approximately 14 of 21) are older than 12 months from a 2024 analysis date, and most are from 2021 or earlier. Only 2 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024 and late 2023). Recency of data is limited.
• One review (2016-01-19) contains only the text 'unknown' with a 5-star rating and has been excluded from usable data as it provides no scorable information.
• Several positive reviews are generic in phrasing (e.g., 'highly recommend,' 'great service') with limited specifics, which slightly reduces confidence in the highest-end scores. However, enough reviews contain specific details to avoid a fake review flag.

The WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability given 20 usable reviews with dimension-level data, but should be interpreted with caution due to the age of most reviews, two credible negative reviews that reveal real failure patterns, and only two reviews from the past 12 months to confirm current performance.

Goodman Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and project completion capabilities, with most customers praising workmanship quality and timely service delivery. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with numerous complaints about inflated charges, hidden fees, and perceived overpricing relative to market rates. Professionalism is mixed—many technicians are described as courteous and knowledgeable, but communication lapses, scheduling failures, and occasional rudeness are documented concerns. The company shows responsiveness in emergencies but struggles with consistency in follow-up and appointment reliability.

• PRICING PATTERN: 47 mentions of pricing issues reveal systematic overcharging complaints. Multiple reviews cite markups of 200-400% on parts (e.g., $1,580 for a $591 pump, $378 for a $44 valve, $630 for 15-minute PRV replacement). This is the most consistent negative theme across the dataset.
• SCHEDULING INCONSISTENCY: 12+ reviews document no-shows, missed appointment windows, failure to call ahead, or rescheduling delays. This undermines otherwise positive technical work.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The first two reviews are identical (same text, different dates: 2025-06-05 and 2025-06-02). This review describes initial poor professionalism followed by redemptive follow-up by 'Nick.' The duplication suggests possible data error or review manipulation.
• MIXED PROFESSIONALISM: While 89 mentions of professionalism exist, the sentiment is polarized. Positive mentions emphasize courtesy and knowledge; negative mentions cite rudeness, dismissiveness, and condescension. One review explicitly states the technician was 'dismissive and condescending,' another describes contractors as 'extremely rude' and unprofessional.
• QUALITY CONTROL VARIANCE: Several reviews document poor workmanship (e.g., cutting through wall studs instead of drywall, creating unnecessary holes, damaging fixtures during repair, improper installations). This suggests inconsistent quality across technicians.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reviews cite lack of callback, delayed responses, or failure to follow through on promised callbacks. One customer waited 9 days for a quote that never arrived.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent reviews (2025) show mixed results. Recent positive reviews (May-June 2025) are balanced by recent pricing complaints (April 2025: $400 for $25 part; March 2025: $85 diagnostic fee complaint).
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several 5-star reviews with minimal detail ('Outstanding', blank text, generic praise) appear in clusters around 2025-01-07 and 2024-12-08. However, most reviews contain specific details and are not flagged as suspicious.

This WW Score of 76.8 is reliable but reflects a company with significant operational inconsistencies. High confidence is warranted for the pricing weakness (65 score) and experience strength (85 score), both supported by 47+ and 68+ mentions respectively. However, customers should expect variable service quality, potential scheduling delays, and should always obtain itemized quotes and compare pricing before committing, as overcharging appears to be a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.

Four Seasons Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with technicians consistently praised for punctuality, courtesy, knowledge, and problem-solving ability. Project completion is solid with most jobs finished on first visit and callbacks honored. However, pricing is a significant weakness—numerous reviews explicitly criticize the company as overpriced, with markups far exceeding market rates (e.g., $1,281 for a toilet install vs. $239 retail; $1,400 for 2.25 hours of work). This pricing concern substantially depresses the overall WW Score despite excellent service quality. The company's fixed-fee model lacks transparency and appears designed to obscure true labor costs.

• PRICING PATTERN: Systematic overpricing documented across 28 reviews. Multiple customers report markups of 300-500% above fair market value. This is the single largest driver of negative sentiment.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: A small number of reviews (3-4) report incomplete work, no-shows, or failure to return for callbacks (e.g., Jason water softener installation with leaks and no follow-up for months).
• MEMBERSHIP/EMERGENCY SERVICE GATEKEEPING: Several reviews (2025-06-07, 2019-10-26, 2020-04-14) report company refusing emergency service unless customer has premium membership, which creates customer frustration.
• BAIT-AND-SWITCH PRICING: Multiple reviews describe being quoted one price over phone, then presented with significantly higher flat-rate pricing on-site (e.g., 2015-12-25 toilet install review).
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent reviews (June 2025) continue to report high pricing complaints, indicating this is an ongoing issue, not historical.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - LOW: While many 5-star reviews are brief, they contain specific technician names, job details, and varied language patterns. No strong evidence of coordinated fake reviews, though some generic praise exists.

This WW Score of 76.8 is highly reliable due to large sample size (150 reviews) and strong data across all dimensions. The score accurately reflects a company with exceptional service quality and professionalism undermined by systematic pricing practices that customers perceive as exploitative. Customers should expect excellent work but should obtain multiple estimates and negotiate aggressively on pricing.

TP Howard Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with many customers praising punctuality, communication, and skilled workmanship. However, the company shows significant inconsistency in project completion and follow-through, with multiple complaints about delayed responses, abandoned projects, and warranty issues. Pricing feedback is mixed—some customers report fair value and competitive rates, while others cite excessive charges and hidden fees. Recent reviews (past 12 months) show both exceptional service and serious failures, suggesting operational challenges despite the company's long-standing reputation.

• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Company shows stark contrast between excellent 5-star reviews and severe 1-star complaints, suggesting inconsistent service quality or staff performance variability.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (2025-03-11, 2025-01-10, 2024-06-09, 2021-05-06, 2021-08-04) document significant delays, unfinished work, and failure to follow through on commitments. One customer waited 3 months for a project to begin.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Several reviews explicitly mention lack of response to calls/emails, delayed callbacks, and poor follow-up from service manager Mike Anderson.
• WARRANTY/ACCOUNTABILITY ISSUES: At least 3 reviews (2024-06-09, 2024-03-20, 2021-08-04) describe refusal to honor warranties or stand behind work, with misdiagnosis and incorrect parts charged to customers.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews cite excessive charges ($427 for failed diagnosis, $2400 for 6-hour water heater install, $300 for sitting in driveway, $160+ for incomplete repairs). One customer noted 'too expensive' as sole complaint.
• PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT ISSUES: One 2024-03-08 review alleges inappropriate behavior (unwanted staring) and unprofessional conduct (sending customer's friend to hardware store while plumber sat idle).
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews cluster in 2024-2025 (recent period), while older reviews (2017-2020) are predominantly positive, suggesting recent operational decline.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - LOW: While some reviews are generic ('Great!', 'Top notch company'), most contain specific details, names, and circumstances. No clear pattern of identical phrasing detected. Generic reviews appear authentic but uninformative.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with CAUTION. While based on substantial data (56 reviews, 28+ mentions per dimension), the company exhibits high volatility in service quality with serious recent failures in project completion and communication. The score reflects a company in transition—historically strong but currently struggling with consistency, follow-through, and accountability. Customers should expect variable service and should verify warranty terms and project timelines in writing before engaging.

Professionalism is the strongest dimension, with the overwhelming majority of reviews praising technicians as courteous, prompt, and communicative — including frequent emergency and after-hours responsiveness. Experience scores well overall, with many reviewers noting technicians diagnosed and resolved issues quickly and knowledgeably, though a handful of negative reviews describe operator error, misdiagnosis, and work that had to be redone. Project completion is solid but meaningfully dragged down by several serious complaints: a drain snake left stuck in a pipe at the customer's expense, a $2,200 excavation job that failed to fix the problem, a frozen pipe repair left incomplete, and a toilet that began leaking again within seven months with only a 30-day warranty honored. Pricing is the weakest dimension by a significant margin, with multiple independent reviewers across different time periods explicitly describing quotes as grossly inflated, markups described as 4x fair market value, and one reviewer documenting a $3,200 water heater quote; these are partially offset by reviewers who found pricing fair or reasonable, but the volume and specificity of overcharging complaints is notable.

• FAKE REVIEW RISK — HIGH: A large cluster of reviews dated 2025-05-10 and 2025-06-05 through 2025-06-09 show highly repetitive patterns: extremely short text (e.g., 'Joe was great!', 'Sam was here he did great!', 'Ben L', 'Cullen great work', 'He's a legend.'), near-identical phrasing across multiple reviews, and many with zero specifics about the work performed. Several pairs of reviews appear to reference the same technician on the same date with suspiciously similar wording. These reviews inflate the review count significantly and should be treated with low confidence.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review praising Ryan for honesty and integrity ('PLUMBERS with HONESTY & INTEGRITY...') appears twice with identical text, dated 2022-08-04, submitted under what appear to be two separate entries.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SERIOUS AND RECURRING: At least 8 distinct reviews across multiple years (2018–2024) independently describe being quoted prices 2x–4x above market rate, being charged for unnecessary work, or feeling pressured into expensive services. This is not isolated and represents a systemic pattern.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES DOCUMENTED: At least 4 reviews describe work that was not completed correctly — a drain snake left stuck in a customer's pipe requiring jackhammering at customer expense, a $2,200 excavation that did not fix the problem, a frozen pipe repair left incomplete with dispatch hanging up on the customer, and a toilet repair that failed within 7 months covered by only a 30-day warranty.
• COMMISSION DECEPTION COMPLAINT: One reviewer explicitly states they were told technicians do not work on commission, then discovered job postings showing commission-based pay, and requested a refund for the $99 visit fee. This raises a trust and transparency concern.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2025 (within the past 12 months), which is positive for recency weighting. However, the high concentration of very short, generic 5-star reviews in this recent period raises the fake review concern noted above. Older reviews (2018–2022) tend to be more detailed and carry higher individual credibility.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Two reviews contained no text (one rated 4.0, one rated 5.0) and were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence of fake or incentivized short-form reviews inflating the count, a recurring and independently corroborated pattern of pricing complaints, and multiple documented workmanship failures — the true score for an unbiased customer pool may be meaningfully lower than 76.4.

C&J Plumbing has a strong historical track record across most dimensions, with many reviewers praising punctuality, reasonable pricing, and solid technical skill — including multiple instances where the plumber solved problems that other plumbers could not. However, the score is meaningfully dragged down by recurring responsiveness failures: at least three reviews explicitly cite unreturned calls or no-shows, including a 2022 update where a promised callback never materialized. Project completion is also penalized by one review noting a recurring issue that went unresolved, and another citing slow and poor work. Pricing is generally viewed favorably, with multiple reviewers noting competitive or below-market rates. The overall picture is of a capable but inconsistently reliable contractor whose communication and follow-through have been a persistent weak point across multiple years.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review 'He did an excellent job. He did what we wanted and the price was reasonable...' appears verbatim on both 2012-06-06 and 2009-11-18. This is a likely duplicate entry and was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• RECENCY WARNING: The vast majority of reviews are older than 1 year. Only one review (2022-10-07) is within the past 3 years, and it is a negative update about a failed callback. The most recent data point is unfavorable, which warrants caution about current service quality.
• REVIEW SPAN WARNING: Reviews span from 1999 to 2022 — over 23 years. Business quality, ownership, and staffing may have changed significantly over this period. Older reviews (pre-2010) should be weighted with caution.
• VAGUE/UNUSABLE REVIEWS: Several reviews ('unknown', 'slowly and badly', 'Fine, Fast and Thorough', 'excellent work, up to date, affable and efficient') provide minimal detail and were scored conservatively or excluded from specific dimension counts.
• RESPONSIVENESS PATTERN: At least 3 separate reviews across different years (2008, 2022, and 2002) explicitly cite failure to return calls or follow through on commitments. This is a consistent and recurring negative pattern, not an isolated incident.

This WW Score is based on a moderately large review set but should be treated with caution due to the extreme age of most reviews, a confirmed duplicate entry, and a clear recurring pattern of communication failures that persists into the most recent available review from 2022.