Find Nearby Plumbers In Charlotte, North Carolina

Michael and Son Services receives strong praise for individual technician professionalism, with dozens of reviews citing friendly, courteous, punctual, and communicative technicians by name — this is the company's clearest strength. However, pricing is a persistent and serious concern across a substantial portion of reviews spanning multiple years, with numerous customers explicitly describing charges as excessive, non-transparent, or outright predatory, including undisclosed dispatch fees, high flat-rate labor charges, and pressure tactics. Project completion is generally positive in recent reviews but is undermined by a meaningful cluster of older reviews describing missed appointments, abandoned work, failed callbacks, and jobs that required multiple return visits to resolve. Technical experience scores moderately well, with many reviewers praising knowledgeable technicians, though a notable minority describe incompetent diagnoses, misidentified problems, and work that failed inspection or caused further damage.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: A large block of reviews dated 2025-06-09 through 2025-06-04 appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates of one another (same review text, same technician names, same wording), suggesting possible fake or artificially inflated recent reviews. These duplicates were counted only once per unique review text for scoring purposes.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 20+ reviews contain no text at all — only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per Rule 2.
• GENERIC/PLACEHOLDER REVIEWS: Several reviews contain only 'unknown', 'x', '.', or 'Awesome' with no substantive content. These were excluded from dimension scoring.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC AND SPAN 2014–2024: Multiple independent reviewers across many years describe the same pattern — undisclosed dispatch fees, refusal to quote over the phone, flat-rate pricing that results in very high effective hourly rates, and pressure to accept work on the spot. This is not isolated and significantly suppresses the pricing score.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENTS ON RECORD: At least one review describes work that failed a county inspection and created a gas leak hazard for tenants over 18 months. Another describes a technician diagnosing a problem without performing the required inspection. Another describes suspected deliberate wire damage. These are severe outliers but are noted for transparency.
• RECENCY BIAS RISK: The most recent reviews (2025) are heavily positive and include confirmed duplicates, which may artificially inflate the perceived recent performance of the company. Older reviews (2014–2022) contain a disproportionate share of negative experiences.
• MANAGER CONDUCT COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews reference a specific operations manager (Maurice Noori) as rude, condescending, and unresponsive to legitimate complaints. This pattern across independent reviewers adds credibility to the complaints.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy, but should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate reviews inflating recent positive signals, a systemic and well-documented pricing complaint pattern, and several serious historical incidents involving failed work, missed appointments, and poor complaint resolution.

Roby Services earns strong marks for professionalism and experience across a large volume of reviews, with many customers praising courteous, knowledgeable technicians who communicate well and arrive on time. However, pricing is a persistent and significant concern — dozens of reviewers across multiple years explicitly describe costs as high, pricey, or outrageous, and several negative reviews cite hidden charges, billing surprises, or rates that changed after quoting, which substantially drags down the pricing dimension. Project completion is generally solid but is undermined by a meaningful cluster of negative reviews describing abandoned work, callbacks not honored, incorrect diagnoses requiring return visits, and at least one serious case of ongoing property damage left unresolved. Responsiveness failures — including no-call-no-shows, unanswered messages, and poor office communication — appear repeatedly across older reviews and temper the otherwise strong professionalism score. The overall picture is a capable company with real quality technicians but inconsistent follow-through and a pricing model that generates frequent dissatisfaction.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Four reviews appear to be exact duplicates posted on consecutive dates (June 4-9, 2025): 'Always a great job, thorough...' and 'Excellent experience from the time we met...' and 'Brandon is knowledgeable...' and 'Great service and I appreciate...' each appear twice within days of each other. This is a strong indicator of fake or artificially boosted reviews. Confidence in the most recent review cluster has been reduced accordingly.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: The cluster of reviews dated 2025-04-07 contains an unusually high number of short, generic, undetailed 5-star reviews posted on the same date, several with no text at all. This pattern is consistent with review padding.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 11 reviews contain no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2012 to June 2025. The majority of substantive negative reviews regarding billing disputes, no-shows, and project failures are distributed across 2016-2022, while recent 2024-2025 reviews skew more positive. This may reflect genuine improvement or increased review management activity.
• PRICING CONCERN: Pricing complaints are among the most consistent and specific signals in this dataset, appearing across many independent reviewers over multiple years. This is not a one-off complaint and should be weighted seriously by prospective customers.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURES: Multiple independent reviewers across different years report being unable to reach the company, receiving no callbacks, or experiencing no-call-no-show appointments. This is a recurring operational issue.

This WW Score is based on a large review dataset (183 reviews) with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically robust; however, the detection of duplicate and potentially fabricated reviews in the most recent period, combined with a long tail of older negative reviews on pricing and project completion, means prospective customers should treat the score as a moderate-confidence signal and pay particular attention to the pricing and project completion dimensions before hiring.

R&R Plumbing presents a deeply split profile across its review history. Recent reviews from approximately 2023–2025 are overwhelmingly positive, with customers consistently praising named technicians (Brandon, Raffi, Cristian, Javier, Tyler, Daniel, Berto) for punctuality, clear communication, technical skill, and fair pricing. However, a substantial volume of older reviews — particularly from 2015–2019 and largely tied to Lowe's subcontracted appliance installations — describe severe failures in communication, repeated no-shows, abandoned jobs, and rude or incompetent technicians. Project completion is the most penalized dimension because no-shows, abandoned installs, and unresolved callbacks are explicitly documented across dozens of reviews. Pricing scores moderately well overall, with several recent reviewers praising fair or competitive rates, though at least two reviews explicitly flag overpricing. The experience dimension scores higher than completion because when technicians did show up in recent years, workmanship was generally praised.

• TEMPORAL SPLIT WARNING: The review corpus spans 2005–2025. Reviews from 2015–2019 are predominantly 1-star and describe a fundamentally different operational profile (Lowe's subcontract work, chronic no-shows, no callbacks, abandoned jobs, property damage). Reviews from 2023–2025 are predominantly 5-star and describe a high-quality plumbing service. These may represent two distinct business eras or operational contexts and should not be averaged without caution.
• POSSIBLE DUAL-ENTITY ISSUE: Several negative reviews reference Lowe's appliance installation subcontracting (dishwashers, microwaves, cooktops), while positive reviews reference direct plumbing service calls. It is possible this is the same company operating in two different capacities, or that the Yelp/Google profile aggregates reviews for related but distinct service lines.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A cluster of 5-star reviews dated 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-08 (approximately 10 reviews within 2 days) contain very brief, generic praise with no specifics ('Friendly and reliable service', 'Good work and professional!', 'Great service, thank you', 'A++'). Several are blank text with only a 5-star rating. This pattern is consistent with review padding. Confidence in the most recent cluster is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 5 reviews contain no text whatsoever (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• NO-SHOW AND ABANDONMENT PATTERN: At least 15 reviews explicitly describe technicians failing to appear for scheduled appointments without notice, or abandoning jobs mid-completion. This is a significant project completion risk signal, though concentrated in the 2015–2019 period.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE REPORTED: At least 2 reviews describe property damage caused by technicians (flooded cabinets, cracked toilet, holes in drywall) with disputed or no resolution. This is a serious workmanship and liability flag.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of positive, detailed reviews are from 2023–2025 and fall within the past 12–24 months. The majority of negative reviews are from 2015–2019, now 5–10 years old. The WW Score reflects the full corpus but recent performance appears substantially improved.

This WW Score carries MODERATE-to-HIGH reliability for recent plumbing service engagements (2023–2025), but should be treated with significant caution due to a large volume of historically severe negative reviews from the 2015–2019 Lowe's subcontract era, suspected review padding in the most recent cluster, and documented instances of property damage and job abandonment that meaningfully depress the project completion dimension.

Rocket Plumbing has a large and broadly positive review base, with many customers praising individual technicians — particularly Chris, Sam, Matt, Jose, and Anthony — for professionalism, punctuality, and technical competence. However, the score is meaningfully dragged down by a recurring pattern of serious complaints: multiple reviewers report no-shows or missed appointments without communication, pricing disputes and unexpected charges, and at least two detailed accounts of alleged dishonesty involving a water heater (aging it on the invoice to push a replacement sale). Pricing is the weakest dimension, with numerous reviewers calling costs high or excessive, and several negative reviews specifically citing overcharging or bait-and-switch pricing. Project completion is moderate — most jobs are finished, but there are credible accounts of incomplete work, recurring problems shortly after service, and one multi-visit failure requiring a competitor to redo the job. Experience scores reasonably well given the volume of positive technical feedback, but is tempered by a few accounts of poor diagnosis or work that did not hold.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two reviews appear to be near-identical copies posted on different dates (the long 'I pray we never have another plumbing problem' Chris/Brian review appears verbatim on both 2016-06-10 and 2015-11-10; the Brian/water heater education review appears verbatim on both 2016-06-10 and 2015-06-18). These duplicates have been counted only once per unique text for scoring purposes but raise concerns about review authenticity.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: A cluster of reviews dated exactly 2020-06-09, 2018-04-23, 2017-06-10, 2016-06-10, and 2015-06-11 contain multiple entries with no review text (rated 1 or 5 stars), generic one-liners with no specifics, and identical dates — consistent with bulk or incentivized review activity. Confidence is reduced accordingly.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: Two independent reviewers (one in 2019, one in 2018) allege the same plumber 'Chris' falsified a water heater's age on the invoice to pressure customers into an unnecessary $1,400 replacement. Both reviewers had the unit independently verified as functional by another plumber. This is a significant integrity flag.
• NO-SHOW / COMMUNICATION FAILURES: At least 5 distinct reviews describe technicians failing to show up for confirmed appointments with no proactive communication. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews span 2014–2024. The most recent reviews (2024) are generally positive, but the no-show and pricing complaints persist across all years including 2023–2024, suggesting these issues have not been resolved.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC: Overcharging, price changes mid-job, trip fees inconsistent with website, and charges for incomplete work appear across multiple years and multiple technicians — not isolated to one employee.

With 125 reviews analyzed and strong mention counts across all four dimensions, the WW Score of 72.1 carries HIGH statistical confidence in its accuracy; however, the presence of duplicate reviews, suspected bulk ratings, and serious recurring allegations of dishonesty and no-shows mean prospective customers should weigh the negative reviews carefully rather than relying solely on the aggregate score.

AAA City Plumbing scores well on professionalism and customer-facing communication, with a large volume of reviews praising office staff (Jaime, Gina, Cindy) and field technicians for courtesy, punctuality, and responsiveness. Project completion is generally solid, with many reviewers confirming same-day service and jobs finished correctly, though a notable minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, and situations where problems recurred after the initial repair. Experience scores moderately well, with several reviewers citing knowledgeable diagnostics and skilled workmanship, but offset by a handful of cases where technicians lacked proper equipment or misdiagnosed issues. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the most frequently flagged concern across the review set — multiple reviewers across multiple years describe charges they considered 50–100% above market rate, hidden fees, bait-and-switch quoting, and refusals to provide itemized billing, with several receiving partial refunds only after escalating complaints.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH SEVERITY: Pricing complaints are consistent, specific, and span the full date range of reviews (2015–2025). Multiple reviewers cite quotes 50–100%+ above competitor rates for identical work. Several received partial refunds only after posting negative reviews or escalating to ownership, suggesting systemic overcharging rather than isolated incidents.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A large cluster of reviews dated 2025-05-26 through 2025-06-08 are heavily concentrated on praising specific office staff (Jaime, Gina, Cindy) with near-identical structure: name the staff member, call them kind/professional/helpful, give 5 stars. Many of these reviews contain no detail about the actual plumbing work performed. This pattern is consistent with incentivized or solicited reviews and should reduce confidence in the professionalism score.
• RECENCY BIAS RISK: The majority of 5-star reviews are clustered in 2025 (especially May–June 2025), while the most detailed negative reviews about pricing, no-shows, and incomplete work span 2016–2022. It is unclear whether service quality has genuinely improved or whether recent reviews reflect a review solicitation campaign.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: Multiple reviews (2017, 2018, 2019) describe technicians failing to arrive for scheduled appointments with no proactive communication, and one 2019 review describes a technician arriving 13 hours late and performing only a temporary cap rather than a full repair.
• INCOMPLETE WORK AND RETURN VISITS: Several reviews describe work that was not completed correctly on the first visit, requiring callbacks. One reviewer paid $650 for a repair that failed within 6 hours, and the after-hours technician refused to inspect the crawlspace. Another reviewer had a toilet installation that repeatedly came loose over several months.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 7 reviews contained no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (120 reviews) spanning 2015–2025 and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy, but the pricing score in particular should be weighted heavily by prospective customers — the volume, specificity, and consistency of overcharging complaints across many years represents a material risk that is not offset by the high volume of recent 5-star reviews, which show patterns consistent with solicited or incentivized feedback.

Pipe It Up has a large and generally positive review base, with many customers praising individual technicians — particularly Juan, Paul, Henry, Victor, and Rashad — for being knowledgeable, courteous, and responsive. Professionalism scores are meaningfully dragged down by a cluster of serious negative reviews describing no-call no-shows, forgotten appointments, unprofessional technician conduct, and failure to respond after causing damage. Project completion is the most concerning dimension: multiple reviews describe jobs left incomplete for weeks or months, a civil lawsuit over flood damage caused by faulty work, a dangerous water heater installation in a modular home, and a leak caused by a faucet/disposal replacement that went unaddressed for days. Pricing is generally viewed as fair to reasonable, with several reviewers explicitly noting competitive or transparent quotes, though one reviewer flagged the cost as high and one noted no upfront quote was provided. Experience scores are solid for routine jobs but are tempered by documented cases of incompetent workmanship and a technician who performed flooring work far outside his skill set.

• SERIOUS LEGAL FLAG: One reviewer (2024-08-19) states that owner Rashad Gordon lost a civil lawsuit for thousands of dollars in flood damage caused by a technician, and that he failed to appear in court multiple times. This is a significant red flag for accountability and business integrity.
• PROJECT ABANDONMENT: One review (2023-06-10, 1-star) describes a corporate plumbing job that exceeded 90 days with no completion and no communication. Another review (2021-05-18, 1-star) describes a repair left incorrect for over a month with repeated missed appointments. Another (2021-05-03, 1-star) describes a toilet repair with a 3-week wait for a part and a no-show on the scheduled fix day.
• DAMAGE CAUSED AND UNADDRESSED: A 2021 review (1-star) describes water damage to a finished basement caused by a faucet/disposal installation, with no emergency response despite advertised 24/7 service and no return calls afterward.
• DANGEROUS INSTALLATION: A 2018 review (1-star) alleges that a water heater meant for a traditional home was installed in a modular home, blocking the carbon monoxide vent — a potentially life-threatening error.
• UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT: A detailed 2023 review (2-star) documents a technician arriving late with no apology, wearing no identifying uniform, disappearing for 20 minutes without explanation, never providing a quote, and then sending an invoice marked 'OVERDUE' while calling the customer daily for payment.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN — MODERATE: A cluster of 8 reviews all dated exactly 2023-06-10 with no timestamps, several with no review text (just a star rating), and several with very generic praise and no specifics. This pattern is consistent with bulk-submitted or incentivized reviews. Confidence is not reduced to LOW DATA since there is ample other genuine review content, but these reviews were weighted minimally.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most serious negative reviews span 2018–2024, indicating these are not isolated historical incidents. Positive reviews also continue through 2025, suggesting the company has improved in some areas but has not fully resolved accountability issues.
• 8 reviews contained no text — only a star rating — and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• SCOPE CREEP CONCERN: One reviewer noted a technician attempted flooring work he was clearly unqualified to perform, resulting in costly remediation. This suggests the company may occasionally accept work outside its competency.

This WW Score of 72.1 is based on a large review set with HIGH confidence across all dimensions, but should be interpreted cautiously given documented legal action, multiple instances of project abandonment, at least one dangerous installation, and a pattern of poor accountability when things go wrong — the score reflects a company capable of excellent routine work but with a meaningful and recurring failure mode in complex jobs and post-service follow-through.