Find Nearby Plumbers In Winston-Salem, North Carolina

Doug Hammaker demonstrates strong professionalism across multiple reviews, with explicit mentions of punctuality, responsiveness, cleanliness, and courteous demeanor. His technical expertise is evident in problem-solving abilities (locating difficult leaks, diagnosing issues accurately) and willingness to suggest cost-effective solutions rather than unnecessary replacements. Project completion is consistently affirmed with callbacks honored and work finished thoroughly. Pricing feedback is limited but positive, showing value-conscious recommendations. The 30-year client relationship underscores reliability and follow-through.

• All five reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback or complaints — this uniformity warrants caution, though the specificity of details (toilet china leak, washer replacement, hot water heater handle) suggests genuine experiences rather than fabricated reviews.
• Review dates span 2006–2014 (9 years old); no recent reviews from past 12 months available. Current service quality cannot be verified.
• Sample size is small (n=5); confidence in overall score is therefore limited despite positive data.

This score should be treated with moderate caution due to small sample size, age of reviews, and lack of recent feedback; however, the consistency and specificity of positive mentions across multiple dimensions suggests genuine customer satisfaction with this contractor's work.

The overwhelming majority of reviews praise this company's professionalism, punctuality, communication, and courteous technicians across a large and diverse team including Josh, Ryan, Brooke, Brian, Jason, Ric, Hugo, Matthew, Dan, and others. Pricing scores are pulled down by a meaningful minority of negative reviews explicitly citing overcharging, surprise charges, and quotes that were significantly higher than competitors or industry norms — including a $2,000 quote for a gas line job, a $1,460 charge that left gas still leaking, a $660 toilet wax seal job quoted at $280, and a $326 charge for a 10-minute repair. Project completion scores reflect a strong general record of jobs finished on time and correctly, but are tempered by several credible complaints of incomplete work, failure to follow through on callbacks, abandoned jobs, and at least one instance where a repair did not resolve the underlying issue after multiple visits. Experience scores are high overall, with many reviewers specifically praising technical skill and problem-solving, though a small number of reviews describe botched work, improper installations, and a technician who lacked equipment to properly test gas lines.

• Several reviews appear to be near-duplicate submissions: two reviews dated 2024-09-03 are nearly word-for-word identical ('Amazing service from Bob the Plumber Inc...'), and two reviews dated 2022-07-19 are nearly identical ('Just wanted to share with others that Bob the plumber was very pleasing...'). These may be duplicate submissions or coordinated reviews and have been treated with reduced weight.
• Two reviews dated 2021-02-25 appear to be from the same customer describing the same negative experience with gas line work, submitted on the same date — one with text and one without. Counted as one incident.
• A significant number of reviews (49+) contain no review text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable qualitative data.
• Reviews span from 2005 to 2025, a 20-year window. The business appears to have changed ownership at least once (original 'Bob' retired, replaced by Ryan and Brooke under the same brand name in one market, while the Bertolino brand operates separately). This suggests the reviews may reflect multiple distinct business entities operating under similar or shared branding, which could distort the aggregate score.
• Pricing complaints are credible and specific, not vague. Multiple 1-star and 2-star reviews cite exact dollar amounts and describe surprise charges, bait-and-switch pricing, or rates far above market. This pattern is notable enough to meaningfully suppress the pricing score.
• One review (2020-09-16) alleges the contractor is unlicensed and improperly installed a water heater resulting in a red tag from the gas company. A separate 2011 review also alleges no license and no insurance. These are serious allegations that could not be verified from reviews alone but are flagged as a significant concern.
• One review (2013-02-17) describes a detailed and specific pattern of substandard work, incomplete rough-in, drain installed in the wrong location, and the contractor 'marking' work by painting a city water access cover blue — a practice the city confirmed receiving complaints about. This is a credible and specific negative flag.
• Recency note: The majority of reviews with substantive text are from 2022 onward, which is positive for score reliability. However, the negative reviews are distributed across the full timeline, suggesting recurring issues rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score is based on a very large review set (320 total, 271 with usable data) spanning 20 years and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but users should note that the reviews likely reflect multiple business entities or ownership periods operating under shared branding, that pricing complaints are specific and recurring enough to be treated as a genuine pattern rather than outliers, and that serious allegations regarding licensing and workmanship quality — while unverified — warrant independent verification before hiring.

NuBlue/Ease Plumbing scores strongly on professionalism, with the vast majority of reviewers praising friendliness, punctuality, communication, and courteous technicians across many years of reviews. Project completion is also solid, with most jobs described as finished efficiently and on time, and at least one notable instance of the company returning at no charge to make a job right. Experience scores well given repeated mentions of knowledgeable technicians who explained issues clearly and solved difficult problems other plumbers could not. However, pricing is a significant drag on the overall score: multiple reviewers explicitly called the company expensive, one declined service due to cost, one alleged overcharging of $350 for 20 minutes of work, one reported a $756 bill they felt was excessive, and one reported being denied an itemized breakdown — these are serious and recurring concerns that substantially lower the pricing dimension. The WW Score of approximately 79 reflects a company that delivers quality, professional service but carries a meaningful and consistent pattern of pricing complaints that prospective customers should investigate carefully.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH FREQUENCY: At least 8 reviews explicitly flag pricing as expensive, excessive, or unfair. One reviewer was charged $350 for 20 minutes of work and reported the owner did not return calls. Another paid $756.86 for a drain clearing and believed it was excessive after researching market rates. One reviewer was denied an itemized bill breakdown. One declined service entirely due to cost. This is a statistically significant and recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SUSPECTED DUPLICATE REVIEW: Two reviews dated 2022-04-13 and 2022-04-15 are nearly word-for-word identical (Hal and Jose review). This appears to be the same review submitted twice. Only one instance was counted in scoring.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A cluster of reviews dated 2020-01-29 (six reviews on the same day) use very similar generic praise language with no specific job details. While not conclusive, this pattern warrants caution. Confidence is not reduced to LOW but this is noted.
• ONE REVIEW IS UNINTELLIGIBLE: The review consisting only of '************' (2020-06-26) provides no usable data and was excluded from scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2019 to 2024. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) remain consistent with historical patterns. No significant quality decline or improvement trend detected in recent reviews.
• INCOMPLETE JOB FLAG: One review (2022-06-10, rating 0.5) explicitly states the technician could not complete the job — unable to drill to locate a leak or open the wall to find damage. This is a project completion failure and was factored into the project completion score.
• DISHONESTY FLAG: One review (2024-01-02, rating 3.0) alleges a technician lied about running a camera and attempted to upsell a $15,000 job that was not needed. The reviewer obtained a second opinion and saved thousands. This is a serious integrity concern and was weighted accordingly.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews (125) spanning multiple years, giving it HIGH statistical confidence overall; however, the recurring and specific pricing complaints — including alleged overcharging, lack of billing transparency, and one allegation of dishonest upselling — represent a material risk that the score alone does not fully capture, and prospective customers are strongly advised to obtain itemized quotes in writing before authorizing any work.

Thomas Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with particular strengths in project completion and professionalism. The company excels at responsiveness, same-day/next-day service, and technical competency across multiple technicians (David, Dean, Cody, Patrick, Jerry, etc.). However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness, with multiple complaints about bait-and-switch tactics, inflated labor charges, and quotes that don't match final bills. While most recent reviews (2024-2025) are highly positive, older reviews reveal recurring issues with pricing transparency and occasional quality control problems. The company shows good recovery practices when issues are escalated to ownership.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple explicit complaints about dishonest pricing practices including bait-and-switch quotes (2023, 2020), inflated labor hour billing (2020), and quote discrepancies. This pattern appears across different time periods and suggests systemic pricing issues rather than isolated incidents.
• QUALITY CONTROL INCONSISTENCY: Several reviews document poor workmanship requiring callbacks or rework (loose faucet installation 2020, failed toilet installation 2019, incomplete reverse osmosis work 2014). Quality appears highly dependent on which technician is assigned.
• RECENCY BIAS: Reviews from 2024-2025 are overwhelmingly 5-star with minimal detail, while older reviews (2010-2020) show more balanced feedback with specific complaints. Recent reviews lack the specificity and critical detail of older reviews, suggesting possible review selection bias.
• OWNER BEHAVIOR CONCERNS: Multiple reviews document defensive or dismissive responses from ownership when quality issues are raised (2020 faucet installation, 2019 toilet installation, 2011 jetted tub). Owner initially denied workmanship issues before eventually conceding.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE DELIVERY: No-show appointment (2018), multiple callback requirements (2020), and technician knowledge gaps (2014) indicate operational inconsistencies despite strong recent performance.
• GENERIC RECENT REVIEWS: Several 2024-2025 reviews contain minimal detail or are entirely blank, reducing confidence in their authenticity.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with moderate caution. While recent reviews (past 12 months) are uniformly positive and support a higher score, the company's documented history of pricing disputes, quality control issues, and defensive ownership responses suggests customers should verify pricing in writing before work begins and carefully inspect completed work. The score reflects strong technical capability and responsiveness but is tempered by legitimate concerns about transparency and consistency.

Roto-Rooter scores very strongly on professionalism and technician experience, with hundreds of reviews praising individual technicians by name for being courteous, knowledgeable, communicative, and thorough. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs resolved same-day or within a short timeframe, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, broken promises on follow-up visits, and warranty disputes. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension across the entire review set — dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges as 'outrageous,' 'ridiculous,' 'a scam,' or triple the price of competitors, with specific dollar amounts cited ranging from $315 for 4 minutes of work to $8,700 for a water heater installation. Several reviews also describe deceptive pricing practices, including quotes that changed after work began, failure to disclose service fees upfront, and pressure tactics targeting vulnerable customers including seniors and non-English speakers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., multiple identical reviews for 'Gio,' 'Gabriel,' 'Daniel,' 'Gus,' 'Giovanni,' and others). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate a review solicitation system that caused customers to submit the same review twice, or potential manipulation. Confidence in raw review count is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 150-200 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (almost all 5-star). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from scoring but inflate the total count.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SEVERE AND SPECIFIC: Negative pricing reviews are not vague — they cite specific dollar amounts, compare to competitor prices, and describe practices such as quoting after work begins, refusing to honor coupons, and charging elderly or non-English-speaking customers without disclosure. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe technicians failing to arrive within promised windows, no-call-no-shows, and dispatch communication failures. This is a recurring pattern affecting the project completion score.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Several reviews describe Roto-Rooter refusing to honor stated warranties, including a 6-month guarantee and a 30-day guarantee, with customers being charged again for the same recurring issue.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: A small but notable number of reviews describe active harm caused by technicians — flooding a kitchen, improperly setting a toilet, changing the wrong pipe, leaving sewage handprints, and damaging property with no accountability.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians quoting extremely high prices and then reducing them when customers push back, suggesting initial quotes are inflated as a negotiating tactic rather than honest pricing.
• RECENCY: All reviews are dated between approximately May 7, 2025 and June 9, 2025 — all within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is fully applied.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review set and carries HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews inflating volume, a strong and consistent pattern of severe pricing complaints that meaningfully suppresses the score, and documented instances of incomplete work and warranty non-compliance that suggest the positive technician-level experience does not always translate to a satisfactory overall customer outcome.

Pride Plumbing receives strong praise for professionalism, punctuality, and courteous technicians across a large volume of reviews, with many customers specifically naming individual plumbers who went above and beyond. However, pricing is a significant and recurring concern: multiple detailed negative reviews describe bait-and-switch tactics, quotes that changed dramatically upon arrival, charges for incomplete work, and rates described as 400-500% above competitors. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are completed efficiently and same-day, but a meaningful subset of negative reviews describe work that failed shortly after completion, warranty disputes, abandoned jobs, and technicians who left without resolving the issue. Technical experience is generally rated positively by satisfied customers, but several negative reviews describe incompetent diagnoses, improper repairs, and work that had to be redone by other companies. The wide spread between glowing 5-star reviews and detailed 1-star complaints suggests inconsistent service quality across different technicians and locations.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two pairs of reviews appear to be near-identical or exact duplicates (e.g., the 'Nobody wants to need a plumber' review from 2022-10-17 appears twice; the 'Bait and switch' review from 2024-08-12 and 2024-09-12 are near-identical). This inflates positive review counts and reduces reliability.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 15+ reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring but may artificially inflate the star average.
• PRICING PATTERN — BAIT AND SWITCH: Multiple independent, detailed reviews (not duplicates) describe the same pattern: a low price quoted by phone ($89 or $150/hr), followed by a significantly higher charge upon arrival ($225 walk-in fee, $175/hr, or flat rates far above quote). This is a systemic concern, not isolated incidents.
• WARRANTY AND FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe work failing within days or weeks, warranty claims being denied or disputed, and management refusing to honor commitments made by technicians in the field.
• MANAGEMENT CONDUCT CONCERNS: Several reviews describe management calling customers liars, being dismissive of complaints, failing to return calls, and altering invoice language after the fact. One review describes a manager asking the customer to explain the fix so he could train his own plumber.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2008 to 2025. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) contain a notably higher proportion of negative pricing and completion complaints relative to earlier periods, suggesting possible decline in service consistency.
• POSSIBLE MULTI-LOCATION ENTITY: Reviews reference locations including San Diego CA, Summerville SC, North Charleston SC, Chula Vista CA, La Mesa CA, and Inland Empire CA. It is possible these reviews aggregate multiple businesses operating under the 'Pride Plumbing' name, which would reduce the reliability of treating this as a single contractor profile.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEWS: Two reviews (aggressive driving on I-805, rude parking behavior) describe conduct unrelated to plumbing service quality and were excluded from dimension scoring.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be treated with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews, a high volume of blank star-only reviews, strong evidence of systemic pricing misrepresentation, and the possibility that reviews span multiple distinct business locations operating under the same name.