Find Nearby Plumbers In Raleigh, North Carolina

Wilkinson Supply Co. demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with staff consistently praised for knowledge, helpfulness, and courteous service across 28 reviews. However, the company shows significant vulnerabilities in pricing transparency and project completion reliability. While many customers report fair pricing and excellent value, three detailed negative reviews cite hidden restocking fees (>25%), high prices relative to alternatives, and delayed replacements that impacted project timelines. Most critically, one extensive 2014 review documents severe post-sale service failures regarding appliance warranty support and customer care. The WW Score reflects strong interpersonal and technical dimensions offset by documented pricing and follow-through concerns.

• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple reviews from 2021-2022 contain identical or near-identical 5-star ratings with minimal detail (empty text fields, generic praise like 'Best in the business,' 'Everything you need'). At least 8 reviews have no substantive text content, suggesting possible automated or placeholder reviews.
• RECENCY BIAS: Majority of detailed positive reviews are from 2021 and earlier. Recent reviews (2025, 2024) show more critical feedback, including appointment no-show incident and restocking fee complaint.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: Multiple customers report surprise charges or undisclosed fees. One customer cited >25% restocking fee not clearly disclosed upfront; another noted prices higher than competitors.
• POST-SALE SERVICE FAILURE: 2014 review documents extensive warranty/replacement refusal on $11K appliance purchase, with company declining responsibility despite customer dissatisfaction. This represents a critical integrity concern.
• INCONSISTENT STAFF EXPERIENCE: Negative reviews specifically cite poor performance by individual staff members (no-show appointment, rude greeting to walk-in customer), while positive reviews praise named individuals. Service quality appears highly dependent on which staff member assists.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERNS: Delayed replacement (dented sink took weeks), unresolved callback (range hood bulbs), and appointment no-show all suggest follow-through gaps.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While professionalism and experience scores are well-supported by 18-28 mentions, pricing and project completion are based on only 6-8 mentions, and several negative reviews document serious service failures that contradict the predominantly positive rating distribution. The presence of multiple low-detail placeholder reviews and a pattern of older positive vs. newer critical feedback suggests the overall reputation may be declining. Prospective customers should specifically inquire about pricing transparency, warranty policies, and staff assignment before committing to large purchases.

Coats Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and competitive pricing, with many customers praising quick response times and quality workmanship. However, professionalism scores are significantly dragged down by multiple documented instances of poor customer service, including hostile attitudes toward customers, dismissive communication from office staff (Michelle), and refusal to take responsibility for incomplete repairs. Project completion is inconsistent—while many jobs are completed successfully on time, at least two customers experienced unresolved issues requiring multiple visits and unmet expectations. The company shows polarized performance: excellent work quality and fair pricing when things go well, but serious interpersonal and accountability issues when problems arise.

• CRITICAL: Multiple credible complaints (Jan 2025, June 2023, Aug 2021, June 2019) document hostile/rude behavior by plumbers and dismissive customer service from office staff (Michelle). These are detailed, specific accounts with corroborating details, not generic complaints.
• PATTERN: At least 3 reviews describe communication breakdowns and refusal to take responsibility for failed repairs. One customer (Jan 2025) reports being told she was 'taken advantage of' after paying $350+ for unresolved leak across 2 visits.
• CONCERN: One review (June 2023) alleges the company blamed customer for purchasing 'off-brand' faucet when no brand recommendation was provided during initial visit, then refused third visit at no charge despite failed repair.
• CONCERN: One review (April 2021) questions whether licensed plumbers are actually sent to jobs despite website claims, and alleges work done without proper licensing.
• RECENCY: Most negative reviews are from 2019-2025 (recent), while many positive reviews cluster in 2018-2021. Recent negative review (Jan 2025) suggests ongoing issues.
• POSSIBLE PATTERN: Three blank reviews with 5-star ratings (June 2023, June 2023, June 2010, June 2020, June 2020, June 2010, June 2021) lack any detail and may be placeholder/fake reviews, though this is not conclusive.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between glowing testimonials praising 'honest work' and detailed accounts of dishonesty, blame-shifting, and incomplete repairs suggests highly variable service quality or selective review posting.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical WW Score of 76.8 reflects mixed performance, the underlying data reveals a company with genuine technical competence but serious and recurring customer service and accountability issues that are not fully captured by the aggregate score. The presence of multiple detailed, credible complaints about hostile behavior and unresolved repairs—particularly recent ones—suggests the score may overstate trustworthiness. Customers should be aware of significant risk regarding how disputes are handled.

Chapman Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and responsiveness, with multiple reviews praising punctuality, communication, and honest dealings. Pricing is generally competitive and transparent, though one customer felt overcharged for diagnostic work without resolution. Project completion is the weakest dimension—while many jobs were finished successfully, the July 2024 tankless water heater installation had significant defects (improper gas line installation, missing corrosion protection) that required external correction, and a June 2023 leak diagnosis was never actually repaired. Technical skill is evident in complex work like wall hammer diagnosis and gas line installations, but quality control and on-site oversight appear inconsistent.

• CRITICAL: Two recent negative reviews (July 2024 and June 2023) describe incomplete or defective work. The July 2024 review is particularly concerning—major installation errors in gas line routing and missing corrosion treatment suggest inadequate inspection and quality control.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2019-2020 (4 of 5 five-star reviews). More recent reviews (2023-2024) show deterioration in service quality and project completion.
• QUALITY CONTROL: The July 2024 review explicitly states Chris did not oversee the job or inspect it after completion, indicating potential delegation without accountability.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE: Same company received both 5-star and 1-star ratings for similar water heater work, suggesting variable quality depending on crew or oversight.

This score should be treated with caution. While historical reviews are positive, the two most recent reviews (within 18 months) reveal serious project completion failures and quality control issues that contradict the older narrative. The MODERATE overall confidence reflects conflicting evidence: strong professionalism scores are undermined by documented installation defects and incomplete work. Potential customers should request on-site oversight and independent inspection of complex installations.

Thermo Direct demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across most reviews, with technicians consistently praised for courtesy, knowledge, and attentiveness. However, the company is significantly undermined by serious project completion and pricing issues. Multiple recent reviews (2023-2025) document incomplete work, missed appointments, scheduling failures, and warranty disputes. Pricing complaints span from overcharging elderly customers to excessive markups and undisclosed fees. While individual technicians (Kenneth, Felipe, Stephen, Derek) receive high marks, systemic operational failures—particularly in scheduling reliability and follow-through—substantially lower the overall score.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document incomplete/abandoned work: clogged pipe only 50% cleared despite full payment (2024-07-30), HVAC unit installed with poor workmanship requiring replacement (2024-08-22), water damage from faulty installation with no follow-up (2023-03-08), unit still non-functional after 3 technician visits (2022-06-09).
• CRITICAL: Severe scheduling/reliability issues: missed 4-hour appointment windows repeatedly (2025-05-10), cancelled 43 minutes before appointment wasting customer vacation day (2018-05-25), promised same-day service not delivered (2013-06-13), inconsistent communication about inspection scheduling (2025-05-10).
• CRITICAL: Pricing concerns: charged $900 for hose/valve replacement vs. competitor $285 (2022-10-10), overcharged 3x for damper installation vs. Amazon price (2018-05-17), $336.89 estimate for incomplete work, charged 50% upfront for parts without transparency (2024-07-30), warranty non-transferable despite 12-year claim (2024-08-05), continued charging membership fees after customer moved (2024-08-05).
• CRITICAL: Quality/installation issues: poor HVAC installation with wrong unit size, shortcuts, and improper ductwork (2024-08-22), heat pump installation left trash, sharp copper piping, and caused water damage (2023-03-08), technician allegedly disconnected motor to justify $14,000+ replacement (2023-01-05).
• MODERATE: Inconsistent service quality—some reviews praise exceptional service while others report unprofessional behavior and lack of follow-through from same company.
• MODERATE: Recent reviews (past 12 months) show higher concentration of negative experiences compared to older reviews, suggesting potential decline in service standards.
• LIMITED: Three blank/emoji-only reviews (5-star) with no substantive content—minimal impact but noted.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with CAUTION. While professionalism and experience scores are solid (HIGH confidence), the MODERATE confidence in project completion and pricing—combined with multiple documented cases of incomplete work, scheduling failures, and billing disputes—indicates systemic operational problems that significantly outweigh individual technician quality. Recent negative reviews (2023-2025) suggest deteriorating service standards. Customers should expect strong technical knowledge but should verify all quotes, confirm scheduling in writing, and establish clear completion/warranty terms before engaging this company.

Wake Forest Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for friendly, courteous staff and timely communication (10 mentions, HIGH confidence). However, the company shows significant weaknesses in responsiveness and follow-through: multiple recent reviews (2020-2022) report unreturned calls and lack of callback, which directly undermines project completion reliability. Pricing is a mixed concern—some customers found rates reasonable while others deemed them expensive relative to competitors, and the company's policy of charging for estimates creates friction. Technical skill is solid when work is completed, but inconsistent service delivery and communication failures in recent years suggest operational decline.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2017-2019. Recent reviews (2020-2023) show a sharp decline in responsiveness and communication, with multiple customers reporting unreturned calls and inability to reach the company.
• OPERATIONAL DECLINE PATTERN: The 2023 review is positive, but three reviews from 2020-2022 explicitly cite failure to return calls or respond to inquiries. This suggests either staffing issues or a systemic communication breakdown during 2020-2022.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Customers report conflicting experiences—some found pricing 'much lower than expected' while others found it 'very expensive' compared to competitors. The non-free estimate policy is mentioned negatively in multiple reviews.
• INCOMPLETE PROJECT DELIVERY: One customer (2020-06-06) explicitly did not complete work due to pricing concerns, indicating lost business due to cost positioning.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While professionalism scores are well-supported (10 mentions), the company's recent communication failures (2020-2022) and inconsistent pricing perception create significant reliability concerns. The positive 2023 review suggests possible recovery, but insufficient recent data (only 1 review in past 12 months) prevents high confidence. Prospective customers should verify current responsiveness before committing.

Fasco Plumbing shows strong professionalism in responsiveness and communication (9 mentions), with multiple reviews praising punctuality, politeness, and knowledgeable technicians like Travis and Luna. However, project completion is significantly undermined by two severe 1-star reviews detailing non-responsiveness, failure to follow up, and incomplete diagnostics. Pricing is a major concern, with explicit allegations of dishonest quoting ($750 quote for $50 fix) and pressure to accept inflated out-of-pocket costs. The company demonstrates technical competence when engaged, but reliability and follow-through are inconsistent. The WW Score reflects this volatility: strong on initial service delivery but weak on accountability and pricing transparency.

• CRITICAL: Two detailed 1-star reviews (2015, 2014) describe serious issues: non-responsiveness after service, failure to return calls for 2+ weeks, dishonest diagnostic practices, and inflated quotes. These are specific, credible complaints with named technicians and documented outcomes.
• PRICING RED FLAG: One review explicitly states a $750 quote for a $50 fix; another describes pressure to accept $600 out-of-pocket costs when insurance covered the full cost. This suggests potential dishonest quoting practices.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2017-2024 (recent), but the most damaging negative reviews are from 2014-2015 (older). However, the specificity and detail of negative reviews (names, amounts, timeline of non-response) make them credible despite age.
• PAYMENT SECURITY ISSUE: One review (2015) reports unauthorized credit card charges after using their Square reader, raising potential security concerns.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews (quick, polite, efficient) and 1-star reviews (dishonest, non-responsive, incompetent). This suggests either highly variable service quality or selective customer experience depending on circumstances.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While recent reviews are consistently positive and suggest good professionalism, the detailed and specific nature of negative reviews describing dishonest practices, non-responsiveness, and inflated quotes raises serious concerns about reliability and trustworthiness. The company appears to perform well on initial service delivery but fails on follow-up, accountability, and pricing transparency. Recommend requesting detailed written quotes and verifying with insurance before engaging.