Find Nearby Plumbers In Charlotte, North Carolina

Hobbs Plumbing demonstrates severe deficiencies across professionalism, pricing, and project completion. Five of six reviews explicitly cite poor communication, missed appointments, and failure to follow up on callbacks and quotes—core professionalism failures. Three reviews highlight egregious overcharging (e.g., $728.74 for a disposal repair, $1,800 vs. $574 for the same work), indicating systematic pricing problems. One positive 2019 review praises punctuality and transparency, but it is heavily outweighed by five recent negative reviews spanning 2014–2024. No reviews mention technical skill or workmanship quality. The company's pattern of non-responsiveness and financial exploitation is consistent and damaging.

• CRITICAL: Five of six reviews (83%) are 1-star ratings citing communication failures, missed appointments, and non-responsiveness. This is not a pattern of isolated complaints but systemic operational failure.
• PRICING ABUSE: Multiple reviews document severe overcharging. One elderly customer was charged $728.74 for a disposal repair; other plumbers agreed it was excessive. Another customer was quoted $1,800 for work completed elsewhere for $574—a 214% markup. This suggests predatory pricing practices.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURE: Three reviews explicitly state the company failed to return calls or provide promised quotes/explanations. One customer left multiple voicemails with no response; another waited three weeks for an explanation on an inflated bill.
• RECENCY CONCERN: While one positive review exists from 2019, the most recent reviews (2024, 2021, 2018) are predominantly negative, suggesting ongoing or worsening problems.
• LIMITED SKILL DATA: No reviews discuss technical competence, workmanship quality, or problem-solving ability. The single positive review mentions thoroughness but provides no technical detail. This dimension cannot be scored.

This WW Score of 32.1 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong warning signal. The score is based on six reviews with consistent, explicit evidence of professionalism and pricing failures across multiple years. The company's pattern of missed appointments, non-responsiveness, and documented overcharging is severe and repeated, not isolated. Potential customers should exercise extreme caution.

The reviews paint a predominantly negative picture of Price Brothers across multiple dimensions. Professionalism scores low-to-moderate due to consistent complaints about poor communication, missed time windows, and dismissive customer service representatives — partially offset by one instance where a manager intervened and resolved a scheduling issue. Project completion is scored very low based on explicit reports of failing plumbing joints after just two years in a new construction home, and a flat refusal by the company to investigate or stand behind their work. Experience is similarly penalized because the workmanship failure described — every joint leaking in a two-year-old home — suggests a meaningful quality-of-installation concern. Pricing data was entirely absent from all three reviews and cannot be scored.

• Very small sample size of only 3 reviews — WW Score should be treated as highly preliminary and not representative of long-term performance.
• Two of the three reviews are from 2014 and 2016, making them 8–10 years old. Only one review is from 2019. Recency weighting significantly limits the reliability of these findings.
• No pricing or value-for-money information was mentioned in any review — that dimension cannot be evaluated at all.
• The one 5-star review contains mixed content: it describes poor initial communication and an unprofessional text message, yet still awards 5 stars. This inconsistency between review text and star rating may indicate rating inflation or customer reluctance to leave a low score after partial resolution.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the extremely small sample size means no meaningful pattern analysis is possible.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, two of which are over 8 years old, making it insufficient to reliably represent the contractor's current quality — treat this score with significant caution and seek more recent, independent feedback before making a hiring decision.

This contractor's review profile is dominated by severe, repeated failures across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is critically low, with multiple reviewers citing no-shows, no-calls, unanswered messages, and complete disappearance after collecting deposits — a pattern consistent across 2024 reviews. Project completion is the weakest area: multiple jobs were abandoned mid-work or never started after deposits were paid, including a flooded yard from improper pipe work and an encapsulation job left out of code compliance. Experience scores marginally higher only because a small number of positive reviews describe some technical knowledge and successful minor repairs, but these are heavily outweighed by accounts of workers with 'zero experience' and dangerously improper workmanship. Pricing receives a slightly higher score solely because one reviewer noted the price seemed reasonable, though in context, any payment to this contractor appears to carry significant financial risk given the pattern of deposit theft described.

• STRONG PATTERN OF DEPOSIT FRAUD: Multiple reviewers explicitly describe paying 50–62% deposits and never seeing the contractor again. This is a serious consumer protection concern, not merely a service quality issue.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE REVIEWS: The three 5-star reviews are vague, lack specific job details, or are incomplete (e.g., 'I'll post again about how the repair goes' with no follow-up). They contrast sharply in tone and specificity with the detailed negative reviews. Positive scores have been weighted conservatively as a result.
• ONE REVIEW (2024-06-03, 5-star) appears to reference multiple vendors via Yelp and may not be a direct review of this specific contractor. It has been excluded from usable data scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: All reviews are from 2024, meaning the negative pattern is current and not historical. No improvement trend is detectable.
• SAFETY CONCERN: One review describes the contractor using putty to seal old piping and burying it under concrete, resulting in a flooded yard. This represents a potentially dangerous and code-violating repair practice.
• CONTRACTOR IDENTITY WARNING: One reviewer states they met this contractor on a dating site, suggesting possible solicitation of clients through non-professional channels — a significant red flag for legitimacy.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall confidence due to a sufficient number of detailed, specific, and corroborating negative reviews from 2024, but is tempered by a small total review count and suspected low-credibility positive reviews; the score should be treated as a reliable warning signal rather than a precise measurement.

The reviews paint a largely negative picture of this contractor, with two out of three reviewers describing serious failures in communication, responsiveness, and job completion. One reviewer explicitly states the contractor ducked calls, was rude, and did not complete the repair, while another reports unanswered calls and an unresolved appliance issue. A single positive review from 2023 mentions a quick repair at a good price, which provides limited but real positive data points for pricing and experience. The weight of negative evidence across professionalism and project completion drags the overall WW Score down significantly. With only three reviews total, this score should be treated with caution.

• Only 3 reviews total — score reliability is very low and should not be used as a definitive assessment.
• Two of three reviews are strongly negative (1-star), describing non-responsiveness, rudeness, and failure to complete work.
• One reviewer reports the contractor screened calls by number, answering only when called from an unknown number — a significant red flag for business integrity.
• The single positive review is generic in detail (no technician name, no specifics beyond 'quick' and 'good price') and cannot be weighted heavily.
• Review dates span from January 2023 to June 2024 — the two most recent reviews (2024 and early 2023) are both negative, suggesting no improvement over time.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be considered highly unreliable — the score directionally indicates poor performance but cannot be trusted as a statistically meaningful assessment without significantly more review data.

Benjamin Franklin Plumbing Charlotte receives overwhelmingly negative reviews across all four scored dimensions, with pricing being the single most dominant complaint across the entire review set. The vast majority of reviewers explicitly describe being charged dramatically more than competitors for identical work, with many providing direct price comparisons showing markups of 2x to 5x or more. Professionalism scores are severely dragged down by repeated accounts of rude technicians, no-shows, failure to return calls, and staff hanging up on customers — with only a small handful of positive reviews describing courteous and punctual service. Project completion is critically damaged by numerous accounts of work left unfinished, problems recurring shortly after service, warranty claims being denied, and technicians lacking the tools or skills to complete jobs — often requiring customers to hire a second plumber to actually resolve the issue. Technical experience scores are low due to multiple explicit accounts of misdiagnosis, incorrect repair recommendations, and work performed so poorly it created new hazards, including one account of an improperly installed gas line that nearly caused an explosion.

• SUSPECTED FAKE OR INCENTIVIZED POSITIVE REVIEWS: The 7 five-star reviews are strikingly generic in praise, use suspiciously similar language ('top-notch', 'prompt', 'professional', 'friendly'), and stand in extreme contrast to the 65 one-star reviews. Several positive reviews name specific technicians without describing any concrete details of the work performed, which is a common pattern in solicited or fake reviews.
• EXTREME RATING POLARIZATION: Of 72 reviews, approximately 65 are rated 1 or 2 stars and only 7 are rated 5 stars with no middle-ground reviews. This bimodal distribution is statistically unusual and further raises suspicion about the authenticity of the positive reviews.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2023–2024) continue to reflect the same negative patterns as older reviews dating back to 2013, indicating no meaningful improvement in business practices over more than a decade.
• SYSTEMIC PRICING FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe an identical pattern — a low advertised trip fee ($45–$77) followed by undisclosed diagnostic fees ($150–$295) revealed only after the technician has already performed the diagnosis, effectively trapping customers into paying. This is a documented and repeated business practice, not isolated incidents.
• MANAGEMENT CONDUCT: Multiple reviews specifically name General Manager Paul Stefano as dismissive, accusatory toward customers, and unwilling to issue refunds even when overcharging is acknowledged. This suggests the pricing and service issues are systemic and management-endorsed rather than individual technician failures.
• VULNERABLE CUSTOMER TARGETING: Multiple reviewers explicitly state or strongly imply that technicians targeted elderly customers, single women, and people in emergency situations with inflated quotes and unnecessary upsells.
• BBB AND COLLECTIONS AGENCY COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviewers report being sent to collections agencies for disputed charges, and several mention filing complaints with the Better Business Bureau, indicating a pattern of aggressive debt collection for contested bills.

This WW Score is based on 72 reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH confidence — the negative scores across all dimensions are supported by an overwhelming volume of detailed, specific, and independently corroborated accounts, while the small number of positive reviews show patterns consistent with solicited or inauthentic feedback and should be weighted accordingly.

This contractor's reviews paint an overwhelmingly negative picture across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is catastrophically low, with repeated no-call no-shows documented across at least six separate reviews, unanswered phones, a full voicemail box, and in one case an alleged $85 fee collected without service ever being rendered. Project completion is similarly dismal — the vast majority of reviewers report that work was never started or finished, with multiple reschedules and complete abandonment of jobs. On pricing, there are specific concerns about upfront fees charged without service being performed, which is a serious red flag. The only positive review describes a single phone-based interaction with helpful guidance, and one older review suggests a water heater was installed but post-install warranty service was then refused — providing minimal uplift to the experience score.

• PATTERN WARNING: Six of eight reviews are dated within a 6-week window (June–July 2023), all rating 1 star, all describing near-identical no-call no-show behavior. While this could reflect a genuine operational collapse during that period, the clustering is notable.
• FINANCIAL MISCONDUCT FLAG: One reviewer explicitly states they paid an $85 upfront fee via Cash App and never received service or a refund. This is a potential consumer fraud concern and significantly damages trust in this contractor.
• FAKE REVIEW CHECK — POSITIVE REVIEW: The single 5-star review (April 2023) is vague, uses generic praise language, and describes only a phone call rather than completed work. It cannot be ruled out as inauthentic, and it has been weighted conservatively.
• RECENCY NOTE: The one non-2023 review dates to August 2020, suggesting long-standing service issues that predate the 2023 cluster. The 2020 review also describes post-install warranty abandonment, consistent with the 2023 pattern.
• OVERALL RELIABILITY CONCERN: The contractor appears to have a documented pattern of accepting appointments and fees without delivering service, which goes beyond poor performance into potential bad-faith business conduct.

This WW Score is based on 8 reviews with strong dimensional coverage and HIGH confidence across the two most heavily weighted dimensions, making it a reliable reflection of this contractor's performance — which is severely deficient.