Find Nearby Plumbers In Raleigh, North Carolina

PlumbV's review history reveals a company that performed well in its earlier years (roughly 2012–2018) under original owner Matt Vanderwalker, with consistent praise for punctuality, fair pricing, and skilled workmanship. However, reviews from 2019 onward — and especially 2022–2024 — show a sharp and consistent decline across all dimensions, with multiple customers reporting inflated and non-transparent pricing, failed follow-through on promises, disorganized scheduling, and poor responsiveness from management. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with several reviewers explicitly citing quotes that were two to five times higher than market rates for simple repairs, and supervisors refusing to adjust charges. Project completion also suffers, with documented cases of botched installations, work left in worse condition, and a complete failure to honor warranty callbacks. The overall WW Score reflects a business in significant decline, dragged down heavily by recent negative experiences despite a historically positive foundation.

• STRONG RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are dated 2012–2018 and reference a specific former owner (Matt Vanderwalker) who is no longer with the company. Reviews from 2019 onward are predominantly negative (1–2 stars), indicating a material change in service quality under new management.
• MANAGEMENT CHANGE FLAG: Multiple reviewers explicitly state that the original owner Matt Vanderwalker has left and that quality has declined since. One reviewer even removed a prior 5-star review. Scores from the Matt-era reviews should not be treated as representative of current operations.
• PRICING PATTERN — POSSIBLE UPSELL SCHEME: At least three independent reviews (2023–2024) describe a pattern where a free inspection or diagnostic is used to generate inflated repair quotes far exceeding market rates. This is a consistent and specific pattern, not isolated complaints.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW LEVEL: Several older 5-star reviews (2012–2015) are brief, generic, and name-drop 'Matt' without specific detail. While not conclusive, a subset of these may be inflated. This has a minor downward effect on confidence for the older positive data.
• NO CALLBACK / FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURES: At least three reviews (2016, 2023, 2024) describe being promised a manager callback that never came, suggesting a systemic customer service failure at the management level.
• DRIVING CONDUCT FLAG: One review (2023) describes a PlumbV company vehicle driving recklessly and dangerously on a public road. While not a direct service quality issue, it reflects on company culture and professionalism.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence based on 27 reviews with broad dimensional coverage, but the score's practical reliability for predicting current service quality is significantly strengthened — not weakened — by the recency weighting: the post-2019 reviews are overwhelmingly negative and paint a consistent picture of a company that has materially declined since its original ownership, making the score a reasonable reflection of what a new customer should expect today.

Modern Plumbing and Backflow presents a deeply polarized review profile. Positive reviews — concentrated heavily in 2024–2025 — describe friendly, punctual, and professional technicians who complete jobs efficiently and communicate well. However, a substantial body of negative reviews spanning 2017–2023 documents a consistent and serious pattern: an extremely rude and aggressive office manager/owner (referred to as Jamie or JJ), threats of legal action against customers who leave negative reviews, misquoting and upselling beyond what was necessary, incomplete or incorrect work, and outright abandonment of jobs mid-service. Pricing is a particular concern, with multiple reviewers alleging inflated quotes, bait-and-switch pricing, and attempts to extract cash payments outside of home warranty coverage. Project completion suffers significantly due to documented cases of incorrect repairs, no-shows, and refusal to return to fix their own errors. The technician-level experience scores moderately well in recent reviews but is undermined by older cases of clear technical incompetence such as installing PVC in place of CPVC on a hot water heater.

• SUSPECTED REVIEW MANIPULATION: The owner/manager has explicitly threatened multiple reviewers with legal action (defamation lawsuits) if negative reviews were not removed within 24 hours. This is documented in at least 4 separate reviews and raises serious concerns about the authenticity and completeness of the positive review pool.
• RECENCY BIAS IN POSITIVES: The vast majority of 5-star reviews are clustered in 2024–2025, while the most detailed and severe negative reviews span 2017–2023. This temporal split may reflect genuine improvement, but could also reflect suppression of older negative reviews or a surge of solicited positive reviews.
• PATTERN OF GENERIC 5-STAR REVIEWS: Several recent 5-star reviews contain no review text (blank body, rating only) and others are extremely brief and non-specific (e.g., 'Great job!', 'Best company'). These are consistent with solicited or incentivized reviews and reduce confidence in the positive score pool.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2021-12-01 and 2021-11-03 appear to be near-identical duplicates posted by the same reviewer, possibly submitted twice. These were counted as one unique incident for scoring purposes.
• OWNER CONDUCT PATTERN: At least 8 independent reviewers describe the same behavior from the office manager/owner — screaming, hanging up, threatening lawsuits, and refusing to complete paid work. This is a systemic leadership issue, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: Multiple reviewers allege bait-and-switch pricing, false reports submitted to home warranty companies to void coverage, and demands for cash payment on-site before contacting the warranty company. One reviewer documented a $4,000 quote for what turned out to be a worn O-ring.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED FROM SCORING: 7 reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously — the company's documented pattern of threatening reviewers with legal action strongly suggests the positive review pool may be artificially inflated, and the true customer experience, particularly regarding office conduct and pricing integrity, is likely worse than the blended score reflects.

This contractor has a deeply polarized review history spanning over a decade, with a significant volume of severe negative reviews that drag all four dimensions down substantially. Professionalism is the most heavily impacted dimension, with numerous reviews describing a receptionist or office staff who repeatedly lied, failed to call back, canceled appointments without notice, and was rude or dismissive — this pattern appears across multiple independent reviewers spanning 2013 through 2025. Project completion is similarly damaged by multiple accounts of abandoned jobs, no-shows, months-long delays, and work left unfinished, including one reviewer who waited seven months without resolution. Pricing drew consistent criticism for undisclosed service charges, inflated labor costs, and billing disputes that escalated to small claims court. On the positive side, individual technicians — particularly Jose — received genuine praise for skill, diagnostic ability, and quality workmanship, which is reflected in a modestly higher experience score, though even this is tempered by reviews citing incorrect materials, improper installations, and a failure to check water pressure leading to repeated hot water heater failures.

• Two reviews dated 2024-06-28 and 2025-05-10 are nearly identical in content (hot water heater complaint), suggesting the same reviewer may have posted twice across platforms or the same review was submitted twice — treat as one unique complaint for scoring purposes.
• Two reviews dated 2023-09-12 are extremely similar in content (7-month delay, lying receptionist, parts excuse) and may represent the same reviewer posting on multiple platforms or a duplicate submission — treated as one unique incident for scoring purposes.
• Two reviews dated 2015-10-20 and 2016-06-11 describe an almost identical no-show scenario with the same excuse ('no reception') and same timeline — may be the same reviewer or a recurring pattern; both were counted as separate incidents given the date gap.
• Several 5-star reviews contain very little detail (e.g., 'Great plumber, honest and trustworthy', 'It was good experience', 'unknown', blank text with 5 stars) and cannot be used to score specific dimensions — these were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews.
• A disproportionate number of the most detailed and credible negative reviews are from 2023–2025, suggesting a possible decline in service quality in recent years. Recency weighting was applied, which further suppresses the overall score.
• The blank reviews (no text, only a 5-star rating) were flagged as uninformative and not used for dimension scoring.
• The pattern of office/receptionist complaints is remarkably consistent across reviewers spanning 2013–2025, indicating a systemic and persistent operational problem rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over 15 years, with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable — however, the strong recency of negative reviews and the systemic nature of the complaints suggest the score accurately reflects a contractor with serious and ongoing operational deficiencies that prospective customers should weigh heavily.

Anthony receives genuinely mixed feedback across all dimensions. On professionalism, a recurring and serious pattern emerges: multiple reviewers explicitly cite failure to return phone calls and failure to follow through on commitments, which significantly drags down an otherwise personable demeanor noted by several customers. Project completion is similarly mixed — while several jobs were completed well and quickly, at least three reviews describe incomplete work, improperly secured fixtures, or abandoned follow-up, which is a meaningful red flag. On experience, Anthony demonstrates solid competence in straightforward plumbing tasks but shows gaps when encountering unfamiliar equipment, and one reviewer noted he broke a fixture during a repair. Pricing is a relative bright spot, with multiple reviewers calling his rates affordable or fair, though one negative experience involved disputed charges for work that caused additional damage.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2016-04-27 and 2016-04-29 are word-for-word identical. This is a likely duplicate submission and only one was counted toward scoring.
• RECENCY WARNING: All reviews are from 2013–2018. The most recent review is from April 2018, meaning there is no data from the past several years. Current performance cannot be assessed from this dataset.
• PATTERN OF CONCERN — NON-RESPONSIVENESS: At least three independent reviews (2018, 2016, 2013) explicitly describe Anthony failing to return calls or follow up on incomplete work. This is a consistent behavioral pattern, not an isolated incident.
• ONE REVIEW ('Very well.' — 2012) contains no usable detail and was excluded from dimension scoring.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERN: One reviewer reported a screw left hanging out after a valve replacement, a faucet handle broken during service, and a coupling left unrepaired. These are concrete quality-of-work failures that informed the experience score.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the sample size is small (11 reviews), all data is over 5 years old, one duplicate review was detected, and the consistent pattern of non-responsiveness and incomplete work across multiple independent reviewers is credible and materially impacts the score.

Daniel Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. On the positive side, several older reviews praise fair pricing, same-day responsiveness, quality workmanship, and a master plumber credential. However, the most recent reviews — from 2022 and 2024 — are severely negative, describing an inexperienced technician who caused water damage and was never followed up on, a complete lack of responsiveness to messages, and a charge of $200 for a problem the plumber could not diagnose or fix. The owner's failure to follow through after causing damage is a serious project completion and professionalism failure. Recency weighting significantly drags down all dimension scores, as the 2024 and 2022 reviews represent the most current picture of the business.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The three most recent reviews (2022, 2024 x2) are all 1-star and describe serious failures. The positive reviews are predominantly from 2014–2019, with only one positive review from late 2023. The business's current performance appears to have declined significantly.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW LEVEL: Two older 5-star reviews ('Excellent!' and 'Great!!!') are extremely brief with no specifics, which is a minor flag. However, the majority of positive reviews do contain specific details, so this is noted but not heavily weighted.
• OWNER ABANDONMENT: The 2024 review explicitly states the owner promised a follow-up visit after causing water damage and never returned or made contact — a serious red flag for accountability.
• SKILL CONCERN: The 2022 review describes a plumber unable to diagnose a drain issue that the municipal sewer authority resolved in under 5 minutes at no charge, suggesting a possible gap in diagnostic competence.
• UNRESPONSIVENESS: The June 2024 review reports multiple unanswered messages and a misleading '24-hour' availability claim, indicating a current communication reliability problem.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a reasonable number of reviews, but the strong recency skew toward negative outcomes and the age of most positive reviews mean the score likely overstates current performance — prospective customers should weight the 2022–2024 reviews most heavily.

Streamline Services presents a deeply polarized profile with severe structural problems. While professionalism scores moderately (68) based on positive mentions of punctuality, courtesy, and communication in recent positive reviews, this is heavily undermined by consistent pricing complaints across 35 reviews citing extreme markups, hidden fees, and aggressive upselling. The pricing dimension scores critically low at 28, with documented cases of 2-3x market rates and deceptive practices (e.g., $407 per flapper, $10,000 electrical panel quote later deemed unnecessary). Project completion is compromised (55) by multiple reports of incomplete work, repeated callbacks for same issues, warranty disputes, and failure to follow through on commitments. Experience shows moderate technical competence (62) but is shadowed by misdiagnosis patterns and unnecessary part replacements. The company's business model appears predatory, particularly targeting elderly customers and those in emergency situations.

• CRITICAL: Systematic pricing abuse pattern — 35 reviews explicitly document overcharging, with multiple cases of quotes 2-5x higher than competitors for identical work. This is not isolated; it is structural.
• CRITICAL: Predatory targeting of vulnerable populations — multiple reviews describe aggressive upselling to elderly customers (e.g., $900 toilet replacement that required only a plunger; $500 shower lever fix for damage technician caused).
• CRITICAL: Misdiagnosis and unnecessary replacements — at least 8 reviews document false diagnoses (AC coil/compressor blamed when issue was toilet ring; fan motor replaced repeatedly; electrical panel deemed faulty when it was not). Pattern suggests deliberate or reckless diagnostic practices.
• CRITICAL: Warranty and follow-through failures — multiple reports of warranty disputes, refusal to honor coverage, non-responsive management, and failure to complete promised work or set up required inspections.
• CRITICAL: False advertising — company advertises 24/7 emergency service but multiple reviews confirm they are 9-5 only; one customer waited 16+ hours for callback on emergency water heater leak.
• CRITICAL: Refund and cancellation abuse — family plan customers report extreme difficulty canceling memberships, non-responsive management, and forced chargebacks.
• MODERATE: Recency bias in positive reviews — most 5-star reviews are from 2013-2017 (7-11 years old); most recent reviews (2024, 2023, 2022) are overwhelmingly 1-star with detailed complaints of ongoing abuse.
• MODERATE: One suspicious 5-star review (2023-09-18) uses generic, templated language ('breath of fresh air,' 'went above and beyond') with no specific details or technician names, inconsistent with authentic positive reviews that cite specific names and situations.
• MODERATE: Inconsistent quality — some individual technicians (Chad, Matthew, Tom, Jerry, Ed, Mike) receive consistent praise for professionalism and knowledge, suggesting company-wide problems are systemic/management-level rather than universal technician failure.

This WW Score of 52.3 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong warning signal. The HIGH confidence across all dimensions is based on 56 reviews with consistent, detailed, and corroborated patterns of abuse. The polarization (high professionalism scores offset by catastrophic pricing and completion failures) reflects a company that presents well initially but systematically exploits customers through overcharging, misdiagnosis, and warranty disputes. Recent reviews (past 2 years) show no improvement; the pattern has intensified. This company should be avoided.