Find Nearby Plumbers In Raleigh, North Carolina

This contractor's review record is deeply split between strong positive experiences and a serious pattern of no-shows and poor communication. Professionalism and project completion scores are heavily dragged down by at least 6 reviews explicitly describing no-call/no-show incidents across multiple appointments, with one reviewer also reporting a threatening response from the owner. When Chris did show up, customers consistently praised his punctuality, communication, and pleasant demeanor — but the reliability problem is too frequent and too serious to ignore. Pricing was consistently praised by those who received service, with multiple reviewers confirming quotes were honored exactly. Technical skill and workmanship were well-regarded among completed jobs, but the high volume of abandoned appointments means many customers never got to experience that quality. The recency trend is particularly concerning: the majority of no-show complaints cluster in 2020–2021, suggesting a possible deterioration in reliability over time compared to the positive reviews from 2012–2019.

• SERIOUS RELIABILITY PATTERN: At least 6 of 14 reviews explicitly describe no-call/no-show incidents, several involving multiple missed appointments with the same customer. This is not an isolated complaint.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Nearly all negative reviews are from 2020–2021, while most positive reviews are from 2018 and earlier. This suggests a significant decline in service reliability in recent years. Reviews are all older than 1 year from a current 2024 perspective — no recent data available.
• THREATENING BEHAVIOR FLAG: One reviewer (2019) reports the owner responded to a complaint with 'thats alright i know where you live' — an extremely serious professionalism and safety concern if accurate.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: One negative reviewer explicitly states 'I'm thinking this dude is writing his own reviews if he even exist at all.' While this cannot be confirmed, the sharp contrast between glowing 5-star reviews and repeated no-show complaints warrants scrutiny.
• OWNER COMMUNICATION ISSUE: One review notes the owner asked the customer to remind him of his own appointment the day before — an unusual and concerning operational practice that contributed to a no-show.
• DATA AGE WARNING: The oldest reviews (2012, 2014) are over 10 years old and may not reflect current business practices. They were included in scoring but carry reduced practical relevance.

This WW Score is based on 14 reviews with high dimensional coverage, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the strong recency-negative trend, a documented pattern of no-shows, and a serious owner conduct allegation — potential customers should weight the 2020–2021 reviews most heavily when making a hiring decision.

ARS Rescue Rooter presents a deeply bifurcated picture: individual technicians are frequently praised for being polite, courteous, and professional, which props up the professionalism score, but the company's systemic practices drag every other dimension down severely. Pricing is the most damaging dimension, with dozens of detailed, credible complaints describing extreme markups (e.g., $400 for a $20 capacitor, $455/lb for refrigerant worth $40-80/lb, $600 for a 10-minute drain unclog), bait-and-switch tactics, and high-pressure upselling toward unnecessary full system replacements. Project completion is severely undermined by repeated accounts of unresolved repairs requiring multiple return visits, no-shows, missed appointment windows without communication, abandoned warranty follow-through, and units left in worse condition than before service. Experience scores suffer from multiple credible accounts of misdiagnosis — where second-opinion companies found simple, cheap fixes after ARS quoted thousands — suggesting either incompetence or deliberate dishonesty in diagnosis. The volume and specificity of negative reviews across all dimensions, spanning multiple years and geographies, indicate these are systemic company-level problems rather than isolated incidents.

• SUSPECTED DUPLICATE REVIEWS: A large block of reviews dated 2025-06-06 and 2025-06-08 are exact word-for-word duplicates of each other (e.g., 'The tech arrived early for the appointment. He was courteous & professional...', 'All went well; Very professional.', 'Not friend, right away started to charge me...', etc.). These appear to be the same reviews submitted or scraped twice. Duplicate entries were identified and counted only once per unique review text to avoid score inflation.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple blank reviews with 5-star ratings and no text content appear throughout the dataset. These provide no usable data and may artificially inflate star averages on external platforms.
• PRICE GOUGING PATTERN: An unusually high volume of detailed, specific complaints about extreme price markups on parts and labor — including refrigerant, capacitors, drain unclogging, and minor plumbing repairs — suggests a systemic company pricing policy rather than isolated technician errors.
• PREDATORY UPSELLING PATTERN: Numerous independent reviewers describe a consistent pattern of technicians diagnosing expensive or unnecessary repairs (often full system replacements), followed by a salesperson visit, with second-opinion companies finding simple, low-cost fixes. This pattern is documented across multiple years and locations.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2016 to June 2025. The most recent reviews (2025) skew positive for individual technician interactions but the systemic pricing and completion complaints are consistent across all years. Older reviews (pre-2022) carry reduced weight per scoring rules but reinforce long-standing patterns.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE FAILURE PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe inability to reach managers, unreturned calls over weeks, and corporate customer service that cannot resolve local issues — suggesting a structural breakdown in post-service accountability.
• WARRANTY DISPUTE PATTERN: Several reviewers report being charged for parts or labor that should have been covered under warranty, with no resolution after repeated contact attempts.

This WW Score of 52.1 is based on a very large volume of reviews with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, and should be considered a reliable representation of the customer experience — the score reflects a company where individual technician professionalism is a genuine strength, but systemic pricing practices, inconsistent repair quality, and poor follow-through on project completion and warranty obligations create significant risk for consumers.

Air Experts has a deeply polarized review profile spanning roughly a decade, with enthusiastic praise from satisfied customers offset by a substantial volume of serious complaints. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with numerous reviewers explicitly describing inflated quotes, lack of itemization, pressure tactics, and charges that were 2–4x what competitors charged for identical work. Project completion is also significantly damaged by multiple accounts of incomplete ductwork installs, unresolved repairs requiring multiple return visits, and at least two cases where customers paid thousands and were left with non-functional systems. Professionalism scores are dragged down by documented incidents of condescending or rude technicians, missed appointment windows, and high-pressure upselling — though a meaningful subset of reviewers praised individual technicians as courteous and thorough. Technical experience scores reflect a troubling pattern of misdiagnosis (compressors, coils, capacitors) that was later corrected by competing companies, though positive reviews do credit specific technicians with genuine skill and knowledge.

• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: At least 10 reviews independently describe quotes that were 2–4x higher than competitors for identical repairs (capacitor, ignition switch, fan inducer, TXV, compressor). This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: Multiple reviews (at least 5) describe technicians recommending expensive repairs or full replacements that competing companies diagnosed and fixed for a fraction of the cost. This raises concerns about diagnostic honesty.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: At least 3 reviews describe ductwork or installation jobs left incomplete or with significant defects (leaking joints, old duct left connected, mold from partial replacement), suggesting a quality control problem on larger jobs.
• UPSELLING / PRESSURE TACTICS: Multiple reviews describe technicians using fear-based language, refusing to itemize costs, pressuring elderly or vulnerable customers to decide on the spot, and pushing full system replacements when minor repairs were sufficient.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span 2013–2024. Negative reviews are distributed across the entire date range, including recent 2024 reviews, suggesting the issues are not historical anomalies but ongoing concerns. More weight was given to 2022–2024 reviews.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW: The positive reviews are generally specific enough (named technicians, described scenarios) to appear genuine. However, the stark contrast between 5-star and 1-star reviews with little middle ground is consistent with a company that may have solicited positive reviews while genuine negative experiences go unfiltered.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE ESCALATION FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe being unable to reach managers, receiving no callbacks, or being told by a manager (Troy) that a customer would simply 'lose their $4,000' with no recourse — indicating systemic customer service breakdown at the management level.

This WW Score is based on 57 reviews with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; however, the score reflects a genuinely troubled contractor profile where serious, specific, and recurring complaints about pricing dishonesty, misdiagnosis, and incomplete work substantially outweigh the positive experiences reported by satisfied customers.

Greenway Irrigation presents a deeply polarized profile with stark contrasts between positive and negative experiences. While some customers praise professional technicians (Alex, Chelsea West) and quality workmanship, the majority of reviews document serious systemic issues: excessive pricing (parts marked 2-4x higher than competitors, inflated labor charges), repeated project failures requiring multiple callbacks, missed appointments, poor communication, and unresolved work. Pricing concerns appear in 11 reviews with consistent evidence of overcharging. Project completion failures span 12 reviews documenting incomplete work, missed deadlines, and refusal to honor callbacks. Professionalism scores are dragged down by rude management (Kimberly Ayscue), unsafe driving, no-shows, and dismissive customer service, though individual technicians occasionally demonstrate excellence. The company's revenue scale and dismissive attitude toward customer concerns further undermine trust.

• SEVERE RECENCY BIAS: 13 of 23 reviews (57%) are from 2022 or earlier; only 5 reviews from 2024. Historical pattern may not reflect current operations, but recent 2024 reviews still show pricing and completion issues.
• POLARIZED DISTRIBUTION: 5-star reviews (5 total) cluster in 2015-2019 period; 1-star reviews (11 total) dominate 2018-2024. This suggests deterioration over time or systematic changes in service quality.
• MANAGEMENT CREDIBILITY ISSUE: Multiple reviews cite owner 'Brent Droege' and manager 'Kimberly Ayscue' as dismissive, rude, and unresponsive to legitimate complaints. One detailed 2018 review documents owner refusing to speak with customer while on phone with technician.
• PRICING PATTERN: 11 reviews explicitly document overcharging—parts 2-4x retail, inflated labor estimates ($600-1000 for minor repairs fixed elsewhere for $150), and discrepancies between quoted and posted rates. This is not isolated complaint but systemic pattern.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: 12 reviews document incomplete work, multiple failed callbacks, work abandoned mid-project, and refusal to honor service guarantees. One customer waited 3 weeks for drainage job completion with no callbacks.
• SISTER COMPANY CONFUSION: Reviews reference both 'Greenway Irrigation' and 'Agape Landscaping/Company' as related entities. Multiple negative reviews apply criticism to both names, suggesting shared management/quality issues.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS LACK SPECIFICITY: The 5-star reviews (2015-2019) are notably generic ('excellent,' 'highly recommend') with minimal detail, while negative reviews are extensively documented with dates, names, and specific dollar amounts. This asymmetry suggests positive reviews may be less reliable.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE ESCALATION: Multiple reviews document customers being unable to reach management, receiving voicemail-only responses, and management refusing engagement when contacted.

This WW Score of 52.8 should be treated with MODERATE confidence but interpreted as a clear warning signal: the company demonstrates serious, documented, and recurring problems in pricing integrity and project completion that outweigh occasional positive experiences. The score is heavily weighted by recent and detailed negative reviews with specific evidence (dollar amounts, dates, names). However, the 2015-2019 positive reviews and recent 2024 positive feedback from one customer suggest the company may retain some capable technicians. Potential customers should assume high risk of overcharging and incomplete work, and should obtain independent quotes and verify all estimates before engaging.

Proven Professional Construction Services presents a deeply polarized review profile: a core of genuinely satisfied customers praising specific technicians (Michael, Robert, Brandon, Rob) for punctuality, courtesy, and competence, set against a large and detailed body of serious complaints. Professionalism scores poorly overall due to repeated, credible allegations of office non-responsiveness, rude staff (including a manager calling a customer a liar), technicians using profanity, and failure to return calls for days or weeks. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple independent reviewers alleging inflated quotes, fabricated code violations, and attempts to extract large out-of-pocket payments for work covered by warranty — a pattern consistent across many years and multiple reviewers. Project completion is severely dragged down by numerous accounts of abandoned work, missed appointments, jobs left in worse condition than found, and failure to follow through on callbacks. Experience scores modestly above the midpoint because positive reviews do describe skilled, knowledgeable technicians, but are offset by credible accounts of misdiagnosis, broken pipes, and a failed water heater installation that stopped working within 24 hours.

• PRICING FRAUD PATTERN: At least 7 independent reviewers across multiple years (2018–2024) allege fabricated code violations, inflated out-of-pocket charges, or misrepresentation to warranty companies to extract additional payment. This is a consistent and specific pattern, not isolated complaints.
• TECHNICIAN MISCONDUCT: Multiple reviewers allege specific technician Brandon engaged in a repeated 'water pressure scam' across different properties, and a technician named Chris allegedly instructed a customer to lie to their warranty company and solicited off-books work.
• OFFICE NON-RESPONSIVENESS: A large number of reviews (10+) independently describe the same pattern: calls go unanswered for days, voicemails are never returned, and the company fails to contact customers within promised windows. This is a systemic operational issue, not isolated incidents.
• WORK LEFT INCOMPLETE OR WORSENED: Multiple reviewers describe technicians leaving homes with new damage (broken pipes, leaking sinks, holes in walls) and then failing to return to repair the damage they caused.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with identical text ('AVOID THIS COMPANY AT ALL COST...') appear with different dates (2023-06-10 and 2022-12-22). This may indicate a reposted review or a data duplication artifact; it was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most severe complaints span from 2018 through 2024, indicating the problematic patterns are not historical anomalies but persistent issues. Some positive reviews from 2024–2025 suggest possible improvement in field technician quality, but office and pricing complaints continue into 2024.
• TWO REVIEWS HAD NO TEXT CONTENT (Rating: 1.0, Date: 2022-06-10) and were excluded from dimensional scoring as they provided no usable data.
• SPLIT IDENTITY RISK: The review corpus strongly suggests two distinct service tiers — individual field technicians who perform well versus a systemic office/management failure. Scores reflect the aggregate, not just the best-case technician experience.

This WW Score of 47.2 is based on a large volume of detailed, specific reviews spanning seven years and carries HIGH confidence; the score should be treated as a reliable signal of significant and persistent service quality problems, particularly in pricing transparency, office responsiveness, and project follow-through, despite the existence of genuinely positive field technician experiences.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning a decade. Professionalism scores are dragged down by documented rudeness, failure to follow up on promised callbacks, and poor communication around quotes. Pricing is a major weakness, with multiple explicit complaints about excessive charges (one customer paid $208/hour vs. competitor's $300 for the same job). Project completion appears adequate when work is performed, but experience is undermined by reports of technicians lacking knowledge about water heaters and inability to provide quotes. The most recent negative reviews (2023, 2022) suggest ongoing issues rather than past problems.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent reviews (2023, 2022) are strongly negative, while the only positive detailed review is from 2013 (10+ years old). This suggests service quality may have declined significantly.
• PRICING PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews cite excessive pricing and lack of transparent quoting. This is a consistent complaint, not isolated.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: Documented instances of broken callbacks and rudeness toward customers indicate systemic professionalism issues.
• KNOWLEDGE GAP: Technician unable to provide water heater pricing or information suggests inadequate training or expertise.
• REVIEW QUALITY: One review marked 'unknown' with 5-star rating provides no usable data and appears potentially fake or placeholder.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to limited recent data (only 2 usable reviews from past 2 years, both negative) and a decade-long gap between positive and negative feedback, suggesting the positive review may not reflect current service standards. The consistent pricing complaints across multiple independent reviews carry significant weight.