Find Nearby Plumbers In Raleigh, North Carolina

The review set is deeply divided, with a cluster of strongly positive older reviews (2015–2021) contrasting sharply with a pattern of serious complaints in more recent reviews (2022–2024). Professionalism scores were dragged down by multiple accounts of broken commitments, miscommunication around pricing, and a technician breaking equipment and failing to disclose it. Pricing received mixed signals — some reviewers praised competitive rates while others described hidden charges, disputed estimates, and being billed for damage caused by the plumbers themselves. Project completion is a significant concern, with multiple reviews describing incomplete or botched work, return visits that were promised but complicated by additional charges, and jobs that left the customer worse off than before. Experience scores reflect a similar split — older reviews praise technical skill and quality workmanship, while newer reviews describe technicians who appeared to misdiagnose problems, broke pipes and filters, and demonstrated poor technical judgment. Given that the most recent reviews (2022–2024) skew heavily negative, the current state of this contractor's service quality appears to have declined meaningfully from earlier years.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent reviews (2022–2024) are predominantly 1-star with serious complaints. Older reviews (2015–2021) are predominantly 5-star. This divergence suggests a possible decline in service quality over time and the older positive reviews should be weighted less heavily.
• DAMAGE PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews (2022-05-23 and 2023-08-30 and 2024-10-11) describe the plumbers breaking equipment or pipes during service calls and then attempting to charge the customer for the resulting damage. This is a consistent and serious pattern, not an isolated incident.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: At least two reviews (2023-08-30 and 2024-04-09) describe disputes over what was quoted versus what was charged, including a specific named employee (Tim) who was cited for using vague language and assumptions in estimates.
• UNDISCLOSED DAMAGE: One review (2022-05-23) describes a broken light bulb with mercury-covered glass shards left in a crawlspace without disclosure to the homeowner, which raises a safety and ethics concern beyond typical service quality issues.
• FALSE ACCREDITATION CLAIM: One reviewer (2022-05-23) explicitly states the company displays a BBB Accredited Business badge on their website but is not actually BBB accredited. If accurate, this is a deceptive business practice and a significant trust flag.
• GENERIC POSITIVE REVIEWS: The 5-star reviews from 2019 and earlier contain limited specifics and some use effusive language with minimal verifiable detail. While not conclusively fake, they should be treated with moderate caution.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the mention counts are sufficient for statistical grounding, but the strong recency-based divergence between old positive and new negative reviews, combined with a documented pattern of damage, billing disputes, and a potential false accreditation claim, means the score likely overstates current service quality and prospective customers should weight the 2022–2024 reviews most heavily.

This contractor's review set is deeply polarized: a cluster of brief, generic 5-star reviews contrasts sharply with a substantial number of detailed, credible 1-star accounts describing serious failures across all dimensions. Professionalism is heavily damaged by multiple reports of no-shows, extreme lateness without notice, verbal abuse and profanity from the owner, abandoned jobs, and threatening behavior. Pricing is a significant concern, with multiple reviewers citing grossly inflated charges, hidden fees, and costs far exceeding market rates for comparable work. Project completion is a major weakness, with documented cases of work left unfinished for months, problems made worse rather than fixed, and a running toilet installed by the company requiring immediate follow-up. Experience scores are dragged down by accounts of incorrect diagnoses, improper installation technique, failure to follow manufacturer instructions, and unnecessary work performed on already-clear lines. The positive reviews, while present, are too brief and generic to meaningfully offset the detailed negative accounts.

• SUSPECTED FAKE OR LOW-QUALITY POSITIVE REVIEWS: Multiple 5-star reviews consist of only 1-2 sentences with no specific details (e.g., 'Awesome Company! Very professional and friendly.', 'Prompt courteous service. Very pleased!', 'Precision Services provided prompt and wonderful service on Christmas Day!'). These lack job type, technician name, or any verifiable detail and follow a suspiciously uniform praise pattern.
• OWNER CONDUCT WARNING: One detailed 1-star review (2016) describes the business owner screaming obscenities at a customer, using profanity, and hanging up mid-call during a routine scheduling dispute. This is a serious red flag for business conduct.
• ABANDONED/INCOMPLETE WORK: At least two reviews describe work that was left incomplete or unfinished for extended periods (months in one case), and one review describes a newly installed toilet that immediately began malfunctioning.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUES: Multiple reviews cite hidden fees not disclosed upfront, charges far above market rate (e.g., $332 for a toilet flush assembly, $1,400+ for a toilet replacement, $412 for under an hour of work), and refusal to negotiate despite repeat-customer status.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most detailed and credible negative reviews span from 2012 to 2023, indicating these are not isolated historical incidents. Positive reviews are concentrated in 2024 but are uniformly brief and undetailed. The 2024 positive reviews should be treated with caution given the fake review flag above.
• ONE REVIEW (2015-12-17) contained only a period '.' and was excluded from scoring as it contains no usable data.
• ONE REVIEW (2014-10-30) stating only 'I want nothing to do with this company again' was counted as a negative sentiment signal for professionalism and project completion but provided no scorable detail beyond that.

This WW Score is based on 19 reviews with usable data spanning 2012–2024, achieving HIGH confidence across all four dimensions due to mention volume; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence of generic, potentially inauthentic 5-star reviews inflating the positive signal, and the negative reviews are notably more detailed, specific, and credible than the positive ones.

This company exhibits a stark divide between positive and negative customer experiences. While some customers praise professionalism, punctuality, and technical expertise (particularly in HVAC work), the majority of recent reviews (2023-2024) reveal serious concerns about pricing practices, lack of transparency, and poor time management. Multiple customers report being quoted significantly inflated prices ($1,300 vs. $40 actual cost; $1,600 vs. $435 actual cost), refusal to provide itemized statements, and undisclosed service fees. The company's responsiveness and communication are inconsistent—ranging from excellent updates and on-time arrivals to severe delays and broken commitments. Older positive reviews (2020-2021) suggest the company may have experienced service degradation over time.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Positive reviews are from 2020-2021 (3-4 years old); negative reviews are predominantly from 2023-2024 (recent). This suggests significant service quality decline.
• PRICING RED FLAG: Multiple independent reviews report being quoted 3-4x higher than actual market rates for identical repairs. Pattern suggests systematic overpricing or aggressive sales tactics.
• TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: Company explicitly refuses to provide itemized statements and hides service fees until after work is quoted, indicating potential deceptive practices.
• INCONSISTENT PROFESSIONALISM: Extreme variation in punctuality (on-time arrivals vs. 3+ hour delays) and communication quality suggests operational inconsistency.
• CUSTOMER RETALIATION: One review reports company cancelled maintenance contract after customer obtained repair elsewhere, suggesting poor customer relations management.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to temporal clustering of negative reviews and evidence of systematic pricing concerns; however, the consistency of complaints across multiple independent customers regarding overpricing and lack of transparency suggests these are genuine issues rather than isolated incidents. The score reflects a company in apparent decline with serious ethical concerns around pricing practices.

Bolton Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all dimensions. On the positive side, recent reviews (2021–2024) highlight responsive technicians who solved problems quickly and professionally, including during a hurricane emergency. However, older reviews reveal serious concerns: a failed AC repair that lasted less than 24 hours with no managerial follow-through, repeated failures to respond to customer inquiries, technicians who refused to help after arriving on-site, and a pricing complaint where a near-trivial fix was billed at full rate with no accommodation. Professionalism and project completion scores are dragged down significantly by the pattern of poor responsiveness and unresolved complaints. The more recent reviews are more favorable, suggesting possible improvement over time, but the volume of negative experiences cannot be ignored.

• Several reviews are significantly outdated (2012, 2015, 2018), which reduces their relevance to current performance. More recent reviews (2021–2024) trend more positively, suggesting possible improvement.
• The negative reviews are highly specific and credible — they include named managers, specific dollar amounts, and detailed timelines — lending them strong authenticity and weight.
• Only 7 total reviews are available, which is a very small sample size. Scores should be treated with caution as a few reviews in either direction could significantly shift results.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in tone, detail, rating, and date, and include both positive and negative experiences with specific details.

This WW Score is based on only 7 reviews spanning over a decade, making it a low-reliability snapshot; the score should be treated as directionally informative but not statistically robust.

Pearce Pump & Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension and is sharply divided: positive reviewers praise friendly, communicative technicians and responsive scheduling, while negative reviewers describe no-shows without callbacks, cancelled appointments without notice, and dismissive attitudes from ownership when recurring problems were raised. Project completion is a significant concern — one reviewer documents the same repair failing annually for six years with no root-cause investigation, another describes a technician who spent only five minutes on a job and missed an obvious underlying issue, and a third experienced a complete no-show. Pricing feedback is mixed, with one reviewer calling costs reasonable, one noting the company is 'a little pricey,' and one detailing years of repeated $200 service fees for what may be a workmanship defect. Experience scores are pulled down substantially by the long-term recurring failure documented in the 2014 review and the superficial diagnosis described in the 2010 review, offsetting the competent same-day repairs praised in more positive accounts.

• RECENCY WARNING: Only 1 of 7 reviews is from the past 12 months (2023). Four of the seven reviews are from 2010–2016, making the dataset largely outdated. The contractor's current quality may differ significantly from what these older reviews reflect.
• SERIOUS WORKMANSHIP CONCERN: One reviewer (2014) documents the same repair failing every year for six consecutive years with no investigative follow-up from the contractor, suggesting possible systemic faulty parts, poor installation, or deliberate avoidance of a permanent fix. This is a significant red flag.
• REPEATED NO-SHOW / SCHEDULING FAILURE: Two separate reviews (2010, 2016) describe appointments being cancelled or missed without proactive communication from the contractor, indicating a pattern of unreliable scheduling.
• SUPERFICIAL DIAGNOSIS CONCERN: The 2010 reviewer explicitly states the technician spent fewer than 5 minutes on the job, removed a piece of toilet paper, and failed to identify a failing sump pump that broke down 8 months later — suggesting inadequate diagnostic thoroughness on at least one occasion.
• OWNER ATTITUDE FLAG: The 2014 reviewer describes the owner (Lisa) as acting annoyed when contacted repeatedly about the same unresolved issue — a concern for customer service accountability at the ownership level.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 7 total reviews span over a decade of business activity. This is an extremely thin dataset and limits the reliability of any score produced.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to the very small review sample (7 reviews), the age of most reviews (5 of 7 are more than 7 years old), and the presence of serious unresolved workmanship and scheduling complaints that meaningfully drag down multiple dimensions — prospective customers should seek additional recent references before engaging this contractor.

The three reviews present a deeply mixed picture of Bass Plumbing. Professionalism receives a moderate score because two reviews praise communication, kindness, and customer service — particularly from a staff member named Theresa — while one review describes a severely unprofessional business practice of waiting six months to deposit a check. Project completion is scored very low based on the single review that addresses it, as the delayed check deposit reflects a serious failure in business follow-through and financial handling. Experience receives a modest score based on one review noting helpful explanations, though no reviews describe technical workmanship in detail. Pricing data is entirely absent from all reviews and cannot be scored.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score reliability is very low and should be treated with caution.
• Two of the three positive reviews are from 2016 and 2021, making them 3–8 years old. Recency weighting significantly reduces their relevance to current service quality.
• The most recent review (May 2024) is a 1-star complaint describing a serious business practice issue — a 6-month delay in depositing a payment check — which is the strongest signal of current operational quality.
• No pricing, no detailed workmanship descriptions, and no project completion confirmations appear in any review, leaving major scoring dimensions either null or based on very thin evidence.
• The two positive reviews are generic in nature with limited specifics about actual plumbing work performed, reducing their evidentiary weight.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 8 years, with the most recent being a serious complaint, making the score highly unreliable and insufficient to draw confident conclusions about current service quality.