Find Nearby Plumbers In Charlotte, North Carolina

A Rooter Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across most dimensions, with the majority of reviewers praising Saul's responsiveness, technical skill, and courteous demeanor. However, pricing is the most contested dimension: while many customers describe rates as reasonable or affordable, three separate reviews — including two that appear to be near-identical duplicates — explicitly accuse the company of overcharging by a significant margin, with one customer citing a ~$500 charge for 27 minutes of work. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs described as completed promptly and thoroughly, but one notable review documents a callback that was promised and never honored, and another describes an incomplete sewer job with rude technicians. Professionalism scores are pulled down by two credible negative reviews describing unprofessional communication, price misrepresentation, and argumentative behavior from staff.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with nearly identical text ('Saul was very professional and knowledgeable about our situation...') appear to be the same review submitted twice — one dated 2023-06-10 and one dated 2023-02-25. One instance has been counted once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with identical text ('Great service! I had major damage in my home...') appear submitted twice — dated 2017-06-11 and 2016-09-14. Counted once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE NEGATIVE REVIEW: Two reviews with nearly identical text accusing Saul of charging ~$500 for 27 minutes of work appear on 2024-06-09 and 2024-04-24. This may represent the same customer submitting the review twice across platforms. Counted once for pricing scoring but noted as a pattern.
• RECENCY NOTE: A significant portion of reviews (roughly 55%) are dated prior to 2023, with many from 2015–2021. Only about 10 reviews fall within the past 12 months (2024–2025). Older reviews may not reflect current service quality.
• TWO BLANK OR NEAR-BLANK REVIEWS: One review contains only a rating with no text (2019-06-11), and one contains only the word 'unknown' (2016-06-23). These were excluded from dimensional scoring as they provide no usable data.
• MIXED SIGNAL ON PRICING: Despite many positive pricing mentions, three credible negative reviews specifically cite overcharging and lack of pricing transparency. This creates meaningful downward pressure on the pricing dimension and warrants caution.

This WW Score is based on 39 reviews with usable data spanning approximately 10 years, with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions; however, the score should be interpreted with moderate caution due to duplicate reviews inflating positive signals, a cluster of credible pricing complaints, one documented callback failure, and the fact that a majority of reviews predate 2023.

Tim Breault Plumbing scores well on professionalism, with the majority of reviewers explicitly praising punctuality, courtesy, responsiveness, and communication — including calling ahead when running late. Pricing is a notable weak point: multiple reviewers flagged costs as higher than expected, one disputed a charge on the spot, and another was surprised by an unexplained price increase between visits, pulling the pricing score down significantly. Project completion is mixed — several reviews praise thorough, complete work and honored callbacks, but at least two reviews describe repeated return visits needed to fix the same problem, one job that was never properly completed requiring a competitor to finish it, and a long-term shower drain failure that caused significant water damage years later. Experience scores moderately well, with examples of creative problem-solving (rerouting a sewer repair to avoid digging) and competent workmanship, offset by instances of poor initial diagnosis and substandard installations. The overall WW Score reflects a contractor with genuine strengths in customer service and communication but meaningful inconsistencies in execution quality and pricing transparency.

• 4 reviews contain only 'unknown' as text and 1 contains only a period — these 5 reviews provide no usable data and were excluded from scoring.
• Several reviews are very old (1999–2007), which significantly limits their relevance to current service quality. The majority of reviews predate 2015, and only 1 review is within the past 12 months (2022). Recency weighting was applied conservatively.
• The 2007 negative review explicitly states the contractor failed to complete job segments, showed up without required equipment, and had to be replaced by another contractor — a serious project completion flag.
• The 2006 review describes a recurring shower drain failure that ultimately caused major structural water damage years after the job was completed — a significant long-term workmanship concern.
• The 2010 negative review describes 4 trips required to fix a minor flapper replacement, suggesting diagnostic inefficiency and poor first-visit resolution.
• No suspected fake reviews detected — language varies across reviews, specific details are provided, and negative reviews are present, indicating an authentic review set.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high structural reliability due to a reasonable mention count across all four dimensions, but should be interpreted cautiously given that the vast majority of reviews are more than 8 years old and only one review falls within the past 12 months, making it difficult to assess the contractor's current service quality with confidence.

Three Way Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism, project completion, and technical expertise across the majority of reviews. Technicians consistently arrive on time, communicate clearly, and deliver quality workmanship with thorough explanations. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with 67 reviews explicitly addressing costs—many describing charges as excessive, inflated, or exploitative relative to work performed. The company's practice of charging non-refundable diagnostic/dispatch fees ($79–$99) before providing estimates, combined with flat-rate pricing that reviewers perceive as disproportionate to labor time, generates substantial customer dissatisfaction despite acknowledged quality. This pricing concern directly undermines otherwise excellent service delivery.

• PRICING PATTERN: Consistent complaints across 67 reviews (44% of total) regarding high pricing. Multiple reviewers report being charged $300–$600+ for work they completed themselves for $30–$150 or obtained elsewhere for significantly less. This is not isolated—it is systemic.
• DISPATCH FEE STRUCTURE: Numerous reviews criticize the $79–$99 non-refundable dispatch/diagnostic fee charged before estimates are provided. Reviewers perceive this as a 'lock-in' tactic that prevents price shopping and creates customer resentment, even when work quality is good.
• FLAT-RATE PRICING OPACITY: Multiple reviews note the company refuses to provide phone estimates and insists on in-person visits to quote, then presents high prices with no itemization of parts vs. labor. This creates an asymmetric information dynamic that favors the company.
• RECENCY CONSIDERATION: Pricing complaints span from 2014 to 2025, indicating this is a long-standing business model, not a recent aberration. Recent reviews (2025, 2024) still contain pricing criticism.
• POSITIVE BIAS IN RECENT REVIEWS: The most recent reviews (June–March 2025) are predominantly 5-star with minimal pricing mention, while older reviews (2014–2017) contain more detailed pricing critiques. This may reflect selection bias (dissatisfied customers less likely to review after time passes) or improved communication.
• TECHNICIAN CONSISTENCY: Reviews frequently praise specific technicians by name (Joshua, Tom, Steve, Lucas, Chris, Shawn, Andrew). This suggests quality is technician-dependent rather than company-wide standardized.
• NO FAKE REVIEW INDICATORS: Reviews show genuine variation in detail, specific examples, and critical perspectives. Language is natural and diverse. No evidence of coordinated fake reviews detected.

This WW Score of 76.2 is reliable and should be trusted, but with a critical caveat: Three Way Plumbing excels in professionalism, completion, and expertise (all HIGH confidence, 85+), but is significantly undermined by a pricing model that a substantial minority of customers (44%) perceive as unfair or exploitative. The company delivers quality work but at a premium that many customers view as unjustified, creating a trust and value-perception problem that offsets technical excellence. Prospective customers should expect superior workmanship and responsiveness but should budget accordingly and be prepared for costs that may exceed market rates by 50–200%.

This contractor has a large and long-running review history spanning over two decades, with the majority of reviews being strongly positive across professionalism, technical skill, and responsiveness. Many customers praise prompt arrival, clear communication, and knowledgeable technicians by name. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years and multiple employees — raises serious concerns: repeated allegations of overcharging, incomplete or abandoned work, warranty non-fulfillment, unprofessional and even abusive employee conduct (notably 'Wes'), and failure to respond to follow-up calls or emails. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly citing excessive charges, hidden fees, and unfair billing practices. Project completion also carries notable risk, with several reviews describing unfinished jobs, no-shows, and work that had to be redone by other companies.

• Multiple reviews (spanning 2007–2024) describe serious misconduct by employees, particularly 'Wes/Wesley', including verbal abuse of customers, showing up unannounced, and overcharging — these are not isolated incidents.
• Several reviews describe incomplete or abandoned work, including a 2022 review alleging the CEO threatened legal action after failing to complete a contracted job, and a 2024 review describing a walk-through with no follow-up quote or response.
• Pricing complaints are recurring and specific: hidden drive-time fees, charges for unresolved issues, markups on parts exceeding 200%, and estimates described as 'outrageous' by a pipe manufacturer.
• Warranty non-fulfillment is explicitly mentioned in at least two reviews, including a 2011 review about a water heater warranty and a 2023 review about faulty new construction work.
• A significant number of reviews (33+) contain no text — only a star rating. These blank reviews are not usable for dimension scoring and inflate the apparent review count without providing evidence.
• The review pool spans from 1999 to 2025 and appears to aggregate reviews from multiple business entities or locations (references to Vacaville CA, Evergreen CO, New Jersey, and other regions), suggesting this may be a merged or multi-location profile. Scores from different eras and locations may not reflect a single consistent operation.
• Several reviews from 2007 reference 'US Plumbing' and 'PRV' as the company name, not Adams Plumbing, suggesting data aggregation from multiple contractors — these were included in analysis but noted as potentially misattributed.
• Recency note: The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive and specific, which is encouraging, but the negative pattern from 2014–2024 is too substantial to discount.
• No clear fake review pattern detected, but the volume of generic 5-star reviews with minimal detail (e.g., 'Great service!', 'Excellent work') warrants mild caution.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously — the contractor's track record is genuinely mixed, with a strong positive majority offset by a persistent and credible pattern of serious complaints about pricing, incomplete work, and employee conduct that prospective customers should investigate before hiring.

This review set spans multiple companies operating under similar names (All Pro Plumbing NW, AA Plumbing, A&A Plumbing) across different regions and time periods, which significantly complicates scoring reliability. Professionalism scores well on average due to a large volume of positive mentions of courteous, punctual, and communicative technicians, but is meaningfully dragged down by a notable cluster of serious complaints including a technician arriving smelling of alcohol, aggressive behavior toward customers, no-shows, and failure to return calls after incomplete work. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly citing overcharging, hidden fees, non-refundable deposits not disclosed upfront, and quotes dramatically above market rate, though a comparable number praised fair and reasonable pricing. Project completion is moderately strong, with many reviews confirming jobs were finished same-day or within promised timeframes, but offset by credible accounts of abandoned work, warranty failures within a year, sloppy workmanship requiring correction, and a mechanics lien dispute. Experience scores similarly mixed, with many reviewers praising skilled diagnostics and quality craftsmanship, while others documented incorrect diagnoses, reversed pipe connections, uninsulated lines that later froze, and work left worse than found.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to span at least three distinct business entities (All Pro Plumbing NW LLC, AA Plumbing in Ohio/Texas, and A&A Plumbing in California). These are likely different companies whose reviews have been aggregated together. Scores should be interpreted with extreme caution as they do not reflect a single contractor.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: The cluster of reviews all dated 2023-06-10 and 2024-06-09 with no review text (blank entries rated 5 stars) and several extremely generic one-line 5-star reviews with no specifics (e.g., 'Excellent work!', 'Very Responsive', 'Cincinnati's best roofing contractor') are highly suspicious. One review explicitly references Cincinnati roofing, which is unrelated to plumbing and suggests review padding or cross-contamination.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2009 to 2025. A significant portion of reviews predate 2022 and reflect potentially different ownership, staff, and operational standards. Recent reviews (2024-2025) are weighted more heavily but still show mixed signals.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENTS: Multiple credible 1-star reviews describe technicians arriving smelling of alcohol (two separate reviewers), a technician abandoning a job mid-visit and never returning, a $900 non-refundable deposit not disclosed upfront, warranty work failing within one year with no coverage offered, a mechanics lien placed on a customer's home, and a whole-house replumb leaving extensive damage and mess.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED FROM SCORING: Approximately 15 reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Pricing sentiment is sharply polarized. Roughly half of pricing-mentioning reviews praise affordability and fairness while the other half describe significant overcharging, undisclosed fees, and quotes far above market rate. This suggests inconsistent pricing practices across technicians or entities.

This WW Score carries LOW-TO-MODERATE reliability due to the strong likelihood that reviews from multiple distinct business entities have been aggregated together, the presence of suspected fake or padded reviews, a wide date range spanning 16 years, and sharply polarized sentiment across all four dimensions that suggests inconsistent service quality rather than a coherent contractor profile.

Albert and Son Plumbing has a long and largely positive track record spanning nearly two decades, with the majority of reviewers praising responsiveness, punctuality, honesty, and fair pricing. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — including no-shows, refusal to do permitted work, abandoned jobs without follow-up, and a broken fixture left unrepaired — prevent a higher score. Pricing complaints are notable and recurring, with multiple reviewers citing rates of $150–$375/hour as excessive, which meaningfully drags down the price-friendly dimension. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with several reviews describing incomplete work, failure to return calls (25+ unanswered calls in one case), and a job left unfinished after a site visit. Experience scores are generally strong, with many reviewers highlighting honest diagnostics and skilled problem-solving, though one review noted a technician unfamiliar with a recommended safety device and another described metal shards left in a shower after a repair.

• 26 reviews contain only 'unknown', '.', or blank text with a 5-star rating — these are likely placeholder or fake reviews and were excluded from dimension scoring. Their presence inflates the raw star average and should be treated with suspicion.
• Two reviews are near-identical duplicates (same text, same 1-star rating, one dated 2024-06-09 and one dated 2024-03-05) describing a service area refusal — counted as one unique incident for scoring purposes.
• A significant portion of reviews are older than 3 years (pre-2022), with many dating back to 2006–2015. Recency weighting was applied; more recent reviews (2022–2025) were given greater influence on scores.
• One review (2016-09-21, 1-star) states 'my wife said they suck ass' with no substantive detail — this was excluded as non-actionable.
• The 2018 review referencing Rumsey Construction appears to be primarily a complaint about a third-party contractor recommended by Albert and Son, not about Albert and Son's own work directly — weighted accordingly with reduced impact.
• Several 5-star reviews from the 2015–2017 era are very brief or generic (e.g., 'EXCELLENT!!', 'Excellent.....see above', 'Good.') with no specifics — these were counted for overall sentiment but not used for dimension scoring.
• No-show and service refusal complaints appear across multiple years (2007, 2022, 2024, 2025), suggesting a recurring pattern of communication and scheduling failures that is not isolated to a single period.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews spanning nearly 20 years, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but reliability is moderated by a significant number of blank or generic placeholder reviews, recurring complaints about no-shows and incomplete work, and meaningful pricing concerns that suggest the contractor's quality and consistency may have varied across technicians and time periods.