Find Nearby Plumbers In Fayetteville, North Carolina

Bass Plumbing's review corpus is dominated by deeply negative experiences across all four dimensions, with professionalism and project completion being the most critically damaged. The overwhelming majority of reviewers describe technicians who were rude, dismissive, and unwilling to perform work, combined with an office staff that routinely failed to return calls, missed appointments without notice, and provided no accountability. Project completion is the single worst-performing dimension: dozens of reviews describe jobs that were never finished, claims that were never submitted to warranty companies, no-shows on scheduled appointments, and customers who ultimately had to hire other plumbers at their own expense. Experience scores marginally higher only because a small but consistent cluster of positive reviews — primarily involving technicians named Raymond, Jeff, and Eddie — describe genuinely skilled and knowledgeable work, but these are vastly outnumbered by accounts of misdiagnosis, shoddy installations, and work done without proper permits or code compliance. Pricing received a slightly higher score due to a handful of reviews praising fair or reasonable rates, but this is offset by accounts of unexpected charges, bait-and-switch upselling, and a $560 charge for heating a crawlspace without resolving the underlying problem.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review beginning 'DO NOT USE this company. If I could give Bass Plumbing a negative score...' (kitchen sink/dishwasher leak) appears verbatim on two different dates (2024-08-13 and 2024-07-22). This was counted once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review beginning 'Never, Ever Use them! I am a real estate agent...' appears verbatim on two different dates (2024-06-09 and 2024-05-30). This was counted once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The toilet flange review beginning 'I hired Bass Plumbing to do a few tasks for a bathroom renovation...' appears verbatim on two different dates (2021-06-10 and 2020-12-05). This was counted once for scoring purposes.
• POTENTIAL FAKE OR IRRELEVANT REVIEW: The review dated 2022-06-10 ('Great food and service, more like family') appears to be for a restaurant, not a plumbing company, and was excluded from scoring.
• POTENTIAL FAKE OR IRRELEVANT REVIEW: The review dated 2015-06-04 contains only 'unknown' with a 5-star rating and was excluded from scoring as it contains no usable data.
• POSITIVE REVIEW PATTERN: A disproportionate number of positive reviews are generic (e.g., 'Fast and efficient', 'Professional and courteous', 'Good and knowledgeable techs. Can't go wrong') with no specific details, names, or job descriptions. These may be inflated or solicited reviews and were scored conservatively.
• RECENCY NOTE: The negative review pattern is consistent and persistent across all date ranges from 2012 through 2025, indicating this is not an isolated period of poor performance but a systemic and long-standing operational failure.
• SYSTEMIC PATTERN — WARRANTY FRAUD RISK: A large number of reviews across multiple years describe the company accepting home warranty service fees, performing minimal or no work, failing to submit required reports to warranty companies, and then becoming unreachable. This pattern is consistent enough to suggest a deliberate business practice rather than isolated incompetence.
• RETALIATION FLAG: One reviewer (2024-08-27) explicitly states that after leaving a negative review, his wife received a call from Bass Plumbing that made her feel 'uncomfortable and upset.' This is a serious flag regarding the company's response to criticism.
• GEOGRAPHIC INCONSISTENCY: Some reviews appear to reference a Bass Plumbing in Albany/Schenectady, NY area while the majority reference Fayetteville, NC. It is possible these are two different companies sharing a name. Scores reflect the aggregate of all reviews as provided.

This WW Score of 28.4 is based on a very large sample of 117 usable reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH confidence — the score accurately reflects a company with severe, systemic, and well-documented failures in professionalism, follow-through, and workmanship, and should be treated as a strong warning against engaging this contractor.

This contractor's review profile is severely damaged by two recent (2024) highly negative reviews describing threatening behavior, dishonesty, and abandoned work, alongside an older 2017 review also citing incomplete work. These are partially offset by a cluster of older positive reviews (2006–2014) praising personability, honest communication, and quality workmanship, but those reviews are between 10 and 18 years old and carry significantly reduced weight under recency rules. Project completion is a major concern, with multiple reviewers explicitly stating work was not finished or dragged on far longer than quoted. Professionalism scores are pulled sharply downward by the 2024 reviews describing threats, harassment, and unprofessional conduct, which are the most recent and therefore most heavily weighted signals.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The two most recent reviews (2024) are both 1-star and describe serious misconduct including threats, harassment, dishonesty, and incomplete work. These are the most relevant signals for current contractor behavior.
• STALENESS CONCERN: All positive reviews are from 2006–2014, making them 10–18 years old. They should be treated as low-reliability indicators of current performance.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: At least two reviews (2024-10-28 and 2017-05-05) explicitly state work was not completed. A third (2014-08-24) notes the job ran significantly longer than quoted.
• CONDUCT WARNING: The 2024-10-28 review alleges threatening behavior, bogus animal control calls made out of malice, and public shaming of customers on social media. If accurate, this represents serious professional misconduct.
• GENERIC REVIEW FLAGGED: The review 'They were good.' (2014-05-30, 5-star) contains no usable detail and was excluded from dimension scoring.
• POSSIBLE BUSINESS CONTINUITY ISSUE: Reviews reference different names (Jimmy Duane, Julian) which may indicate ownership or staffing changes over time, making older positive reviews potentially irrelevant to current operations.

This WW Score has LOW overall reliability due to a small review pool, extreme age of positive reviews, and serious unresolved misconduct allegations in the most recent reviews — prospective customers should exercise significant caution.

This contractor's review set is small (4 reviews) and deeply divided, making any score inherently unreliable. The two negative reviews — both from 2022–2023 — describe serious issues: improper installation of a bath/shower kit with refusal to remedy the work, and a bait-and-switch pricing situation where the final charge significantly exceeded the quoted amount with substandard workmanship. The two positive reviews are older (2020) and lack specific detail, raising some concern about their weight relative to the more recent and detailed negative accounts. Recency weighting further depresses the score, as the most recent reviews are the most damaging. Overall, the pattern suggests meaningful risk in hiring this contractor.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as highly provisional and not statistically reliable.
• The two positive reviews (both from 2020) are generic in nature with limited specifics, while the two negative reviews (2022 and 2023) contain detailed, credible accounts of misconduct — recency and specificity favor the negative reviews.
• One review documents a formal license complaint filed against the contractor, which is a serious red flag.
• One review documents deceptive pricing practices: a quoted price of ~$150 that became $240 after a 10-minute job, with the contractor's own office staff expressing confusion about the charge.
• One review documents improper installation (Bath/Shower kit) and refusal to correct the work — a direct project completion and professionalism failure.
• The two positive reviews use somewhat generic praise ('great work,' 'show up on time,' 'quality') with no job-specific detail, which limits their evidentiary value.
• Recency warning: Both positive reviews are from 2020 (3–4 years old). Both negative reviews are from 2022–2023. More recent reviews paint a significantly worse picture.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning 3 years and should be considered LOW reliability — the small sample size, the age gap between positive and negative reviews, and the severity of documented complaints mean this score cannot be trusted as a stable representation of contractor quality.

With only two reviews, the data is highly insufficient to draw reliable conclusions. The negative review is detailed and damning on professionalism and project completion — the plumber missed two appointments without proactive communication, which is a serious pattern of unreliability. The positive review is brief and generic, praising quick response, affordable price, and superior work, but lacks specific detail. The stark contrast between the two reviews — one 1-star and one 5-star — creates high uncertainty across all dimensions. All scores are treated conservatively given the extremely small sample size and conflicting signals.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The positive review uses very generic language ('Quick response. Superior work at an affordable price.') with no specific details about the job, technician, or experience. This warrants caution.
• Both reviews are from 2017, making them over 7 years old. These scores should not be considered representative of current performance.
• The negative review describes a pattern of no-shows and missed appointments across multiple reschedules, which is a significant red flag for reliability and professionalism.
• The two reviews are in direct conflict (1-star vs 5-star), making any aggregate score highly unreliable.

This WW Score report is not reliable — only 2 reviews were available, both are over 7 years old, they directly contradict each other, and the positive review lacks sufficient detail to validate its claims.

Both reviews are severely negative and describe catastrophic failures across multiple dimensions. The first review details pervasive quality issues including sand in water lines, inadequate water pressure, leaking dishwashers, clogging toilets, and failed fixtures on a new home installation. The second review describes a ceiling leak emergency, refusal of emergency service, and rude employee behavior. However, with only 2 reviews total and both from 2014-2020, the sample size is critically insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. No positive data points exist to balance the assessment.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed — insufficient data for reliable scoring (minimum 3 required)
• RECENCY CONCERN: Both reviews are older than 1 year (2014 and 2020). No recent reviews available to assess current performance.
• EXTREME NEGATIVITY: Both reviews are 1-star with severe complaints. No counterbalancing positive reviews present.
• PRICING DIMENSION: No mention of pricing, quotes, or cost in either review — cannot assess value for money.
• SAMPLE SIZE RISK: With n=2, any score would be statistically unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

This assessment cannot be trusted for decision-making purposes due to insufficient review volume (only 2 reviews) and age of data (no reviews from past 12 months). A minimum of 3-5 recent reviews is required before a WW Score can be calculated reliably.

Both reviews are positive and mention multiple dimensions, including fair pricing, professional conduct, and successful job completion. Review 1 highlights quick response time, two technicians dispatched, and clean work at a reasonable price. Review 2 specifically praises professionalism, technical competence, fair pricing, and a work guarantee that was not needed because the job was done correctly the first time. However, with only 2 reviews — both 5-star — and the most recent dating back to 2015, there is insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score.

• Only 2 reviews provided — minimum threshold of 3 reviews not met; WW Score cannot be reliably calculated.
• Both reviews are 5-star with no negative feedback; while not conclusive, this warrants caution given the small sample size.
• Most recent review is from 2015 — all data is more than 9 years old and may not reflect current service quality.
• Review from 2011 is over 13 years old and carries very low recency weight.

This score should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of current contractor quality due to an extremely small review sample (2 reviews) and the fact that all available data is between 9 and 13 years old.