Find Nearby Plumbers In Greenville, North Carolina

Hardee's Plumbing demonstrates solid professionalism with quick response times and courteous staff across multiple reviews. Pricing is perceived as fair to reasonable, though one reviewer noted higher costs are industry-standard. Project completion shows strength in timely service and emergency response, but is tempered by one significant quality failure involving a faulty shower valve installation that caused ceiling damage. Experience level is evidenced by reliable workmanship and long-term customer relationships, though the installation defect raises concerns about quality control. The company's willingness to compensate for damage (noted in the updated review) partially mitigates the initial failure.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 4 of 5 reviews are from 2016-2020 (4-8 years old). Only 1 review from 2019. No recent reviews within past 12 months limits confidence in current service quality.
• QUALITY CONTROL RED FLAG: One review documents a significant installation failure (faulty shower valve causing water damage to ceiling). While the update notes compensation was provided, this indicates a serious workmanship issue that should not be overlooked.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews total. Scores are based on limited data and may not be representative of typical customer experience.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (5 reviews), age of most reviews (4-8 years old with no recent data), and the presence of a documented quality failure that was only partially resolved. The score reflects historical performance but may not accurately represent current service standards.

Professionalism is the strongest and most consistently mentioned dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly citing punctuality, courtesy, and responsiveness across several reviews. Project completion also scores well, with reviewers noting jobs finished in a single day, proper follow-through, and satisfaction with results. Pricing receives only two mentions — one reviewer noted the plumber found a used water heater to save money, and one described pricing as 'reasonable' — yielding a conservative LIMITED confidence score. Experience is supported by moderate evidence, with reviewers praising quality of work and technical preparedness, though specifics are sparse. All reviews are older than 12 months (most over 7 years old), which significantly limits the reliability of this score as a reflection of current performance.

• ALL reviews are older than 12 months — the most recent review is from July 2017, and several date back to 2013–2015. This score does NOT reflect recent performance and should be treated with caution.
• One review contains only the word 'unknown' and was excluded from scoring as it provides no usable data.
• Review from 2015-03-24 ('Always does a very excellent job') is extremely vague with no specifics — minimal scoring weight applied.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback. While not conclusive, the uniformity warrants mild fake review awareness, though most reviews do contain some specific detail.
• Small sample size of 8 total reviews (7 usable) limits statistical reliability of all dimension scores.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a small, entirely outdated review set — all reviews are more than 7 years old — meaning the score reflects historical impressions only and should not be used as a confident indicator of current contractor quality.

This contractor demonstrates strong technical competence and generally positive customer interactions, with multiple reviews praising efficiency, knowledge, and fair pricing. However, the score is significantly impacted by two severe 1-star reviews from 2021-2022 documenting no-shows and unprofessional driving behavior, which directly contradict the positive pattern seen in older reviews (2010-2013). The older reviews (9+ years old) consistently praise punctuality and responsiveness, but the recent failures suggest a potential decline in service reliability. Professionalism scores are pulled down by the documented no-shows and reckless driving incident, despite many positive interpersonal comments in other reviews.

• CRITICAL: Two severe 1-star reviews from 2021-2022 document complete no-shows (3 missed appointments with no communication) and dangerous unprofessional driving behavior. These directly contradict the positive pattern in older reviews and suggest either service degradation or potential reliability issues.
• RECENCY CONCERN: 7 of 10 reviews are from 2010-2013 (11+ years old). Only 3 reviews are from 2020 or later, limiting confidence in current service quality.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between older reviews (consistently 4-5 stars, detailed praise) and recent reviews (1-star failures). This pattern warrants caution.
• GENERIC REVIEW: Review dated 2013-04-18 states only 'I am we'll pleased' with no specifics—minimal evidentiary value.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While technical competence appears solid based on multiple detailed positive reviews, the recent no-show and driving incidents (2021-2022) are serious red flags that cannot be ignored, and the age of most positive reviews (11+ years) limits their relevance to current service quality. Recommend requesting recent references before engaging.

Thomas demonstrates solid technical competence and generally completes work as promised, with several reviews praising quality workmanship and timely delivery. However, significant professionalism concerns emerge across multiple reviews, including failure to provide courtesy calls, constant personal phone interruptions during work, and loud behavior in clients' homes. Most critically, pricing is a major red flag—multiple independent reviews document what customers perceive as arbitrary and excessive charges, with Thomas allegedly justifying high prices through personal financial needs rather than job complexity. The contractor's long tenure (20+ years) and loyal repeat customers suggest reliability, but recent reviews (2013–2017) consistently highlight pricing disputes and professionalism lapses that undermine overall trustworthiness.

• PRICING PATTERN: Three separate reviews (2013, 2014, 2017) explicitly cite overcharging or unexpectedly high prices. Two reviews describe pricing as arbitrary and disconnected from actual work performed. This is a consistent, credible concern—not isolated complaints.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERNS: 2014 review documents unprofessional behavior including constant personal phone calls during work, loud talking, and asking clients to clean up after him. These are specific, detailed observations.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Most reviews are 6–11 years old (2011–2017). Only one review is from 2023. Limited recent data makes it difficult to assess current practices.
• GENERIC PRAISE: 2011 review ('They are angels!') is vague, generic, and lacks specific details. Combined with its age and lack of substantive content, it carries limited weight.
• LONG-TERM LOYALTY vs. RECENT DISSATISFACTION: Early 5-star review (2023) from 20-year customer contrasts sharply with multiple 1-star and 3-star reviews from 2013–2017, suggesting either inconsistent service or changing pricing practices over time.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to limited recent data (only 1 review from past 12 months) and a clear pattern of pricing complaints across multiple independent reviews that raises credibility concerns about value proposition, despite demonstrated technical competence and project completion ability.

This contractor shows severe inconsistency across reviews. Two positive reviews (2024 and 2016) praise quality work, responsiveness, fair pricing, and attention to detail. However, a damaging 2016 review documents serious professionalism failures—owner screaming obscenities at a customer and her child, with alleged focus on payment over job completion. The professionalism and project completion scores are heavily depressed by this critical incident. With only 3 reviews total and conflicting signals, confidence in this score is limited. The recency of the most recent positive review (2024) provides some reassurance, but the severity of the documented misconduct cannot be overlooked.

• CRITICAL: One review documents severe unprofessional behavior (owner screaming obscenities at customer and child) and alleged job abandonment—this is a major red flag regardless of other positive reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two reviews are from 2016 (8+ years old); only one recent review from 2024. Limited recent data to assess current performance.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews total. Score reliability is inherently limited with this few data points.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews and a 1-star review documenting serious misconduct suggests either significant service variability or potential reliability issues.

This score should be treated with caution. While the 2024 review is encouraging, the documented professionalism failure in 2016 is severe and unresolved in the review record. With only 3 reviews and conflicting signals, this score does not provide reliable guidance for hiring decisions without additional recent references.

This contractor's reviews present a deeply mixed picture dominated by two serious negative experiences. Professionalism is heavily dragged down by a no-show appointment with no record kept (Review 2) and a rescheduling debacle compounded by a dismissive 'Well, I guess you will' response from staff (Review 3), with only one positive experience of a friendly, communicative technician (Review 1). Project completion is similarly damaged — two of three reviews describe jobs that were never started due to scheduling failures, while only one review confirms timely job completion. Pricing data is minimal, with only one mention of a 15% discount offered only after the customer requested it, suggesting pricing transparency is not proactive. The single positive experience with technician Scott suggests some competent staff exist, but the pattern of scheduling failures and indifferent customer service responses is a significant concern.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as highly provisional and not representative of consistent performance.
• Two of three reviews describe complete scheduling failures, suggesting a systemic problem with appointment management and internal communication.
• The staff response 'Well, I guess you will' in Review 3 is a serious customer service red flag indicating potential indifference to client needs.
• Review 3 is dated 2020 and carries less recency weight; however, Review 2 from 2023 confirms similar scheduling issues persist, suggesting the problem has not been resolved.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews are specific, varied in tone, and include negative detail consistent with genuine experiences.

With only 3 reviews spanning multiple years, this WW Score carries LIMITED reliability and should not be used as a definitive assessment; the score directionally indicates meaningful service delivery problems but requires substantially more review data to be trusted.