Find Nearby Plumbers In Charleston, South Carolina

ABC Plumbing shows a genuinely mixed track record across all dimensions. Professionalism is significantly dragged down by two serious no-show incidents (one customer rescheduled twice and Frank never appeared either time) and one reviewer noting mask compliance issues, despite many others praising Frank's friendliness and responsiveness. Pricing is mostly positive — multiple reviewers called it fair or reasonable, and one explicitly noted it was far less than Roto-Rooter — but one reviewer was quoted $1,061 for a job a competitor did for ~$300, which is a serious outlier that cannot be ignored. Project completion suffers from one confirmed failure (charged full price for a problem he could not fix) and the two no-show appointments, though the majority of jobs described were completed successfully and often quickly. Experience scores moderately well given multiple reviewers praised Frank's competence and technical knowledge, but the one instance of failing to resolve the problem while still charging full price tempers that score.

• Two separate no-show incidents reported by one reviewer (Review dated 2020-01-31) — Frank missed a scheduled appointment twice, causing a customer's husband to lose a day of work. This is a significant reliability concern.
• One reviewer (2020-12-09) explicitly states the problem was NOT fixed but Frank still charged full price — a direct project completion and professionalism failure.
• Extreme pricing outlier: one reviewer (2023-12-20) was quoted $1,061 for a toilet wax ring reset that a competitor quoted at ~$300. This is a 3x markup and may indicate inconsistent or opportunistic pricing practices.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months. Only one review (2023-12-20) falls within the past 12 months from a typical 2024 evaluation date, and that review is the most negative one. The bulk of positive reviews are from 2019–2021, meaning recent performance may be worse than the historical average suggests.
• No strong fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, detail, and sentiment, which supports authenticity.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to 13 reviews with usable signals across all four dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given that the most recent review is strongly negative, the majority of positive reviews are 3–5 years old, and there are documented failures in both reliability and job completion.

Blitch Plumbing has a long operating history with many loyal repeat customers who praise individual technicians by name and describe genuinely positive experiences. However, the review record — spanning over 15 years — reveals a consistent and recurring pattern of pricing complaints, with numerous customers across different eras describing charges as excessive, misleading, or far above competitor quotes. Project completion is mixed: many jobs are completed well and on time, but several reviews describe failed first attempts, abandoned diagnostics, incorrect repairs, and one case where a tenant was left with an unresolved leak and an unnecessary hole in the ceiling. Professionalism scores are dragged down by recent complaints about no call-backs, scheduling failures, rude technicians, and a driver-behavior complaint. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) skew more negative than older ones, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact duplicates submitted on the same date with identical text and ratings. These duplicates were identified and deduplicated for scoring purposes to avoid inflating mention counts. This pattern may indicate a platform data export issue or potential review manipulation.
• FAKE/IRRELEVANT REVIEWS: At least 3 reviews are clearly not about plumbing service quality — two reference a driver cutting someone off in traffic, and one asks if anyone knows a person named Jeff Wragg who lives near the company. These were excluded from all dimension scoring.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 15 reviews contained no text whatsoever (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent reviews from 2024–2025 are disproportionately negative compared to the older review base (2007–2020), which was predominantly positive. This suggests a meaningful decline in service quality in recent years. The WW Score should be interpreted with this trend in mind.
• PRICING PATTERN: Pricing complaints are not isolated incidents — they span the entire review history from 2007 to 2025 and include specific allegations of misquoting, hidden diagnostic fees, charges for incomplete or failed work, and prices described as 2–4x what competitors charge. This is a systemic concern, not an outlier.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians failing to complete or correctly diagnose jobs on the first visit, requiring return trips, and in some cases leaving customers worse off than before (e.g., stripped screws, unnecessary holes cut in ceilings, incorrect diagnoses).

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over 15 years, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in direction and magnitude; however, prospective customers should weight the 2024–2025 reviews most heavily, as they suggest a notable decline in consistency, and should be especially cautious about pricing transparency before authorizing any work.

Preferred Home Services presents a deeply split profile: a large volume of positive reviews praising individual technicians as knowledgeable, professional, and courteous is substantially offset by a persistent and serious pattern of negative experiences. Pricing is the single most damaging dimension, with dozens of reviewers explicitly describing charges as grossly inflated, non-transparent, or predatory — including multiple accounts of quotes being cut in half on the spot when challenged, and charges for estimates that competitors provide free. Project completion is also significantly impaired by a recurring pattern of last-minute appointment cancellations, rescheduling failures, and in several cases work left incomplete or out of code compliance. Professionalism scores moderately because individual technician conduct is frequently praised, but is dragged down by documented incidents of rude management, unauthorized credit card charges, and failure to follow through on callbacks and remediation. Experience scores highest among the four dimensions, as many reviewers specifically cite technician skill and diagnostic ability, though this is countered by serious incidents of incorrect installations, code violations, and at least one documented case of a technician dramatically misdiagnosing a system to upsell a $13,000 replacement.

• PRICING PATTERN — SEVERE: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe quotes being reduced by 40–60% when challenged, strongly suggesting systematic price inflation as a sales tactic rather than honest quoting.
• APPOINTMENT RELIABILITY — SEVERE: A high volume of reviews (estimated 15+) explicitly describe last-minute cancellations, repeated rescheduling, and no-shows. This is a structural operational problem, not isolated incidents.
• BILLING INTEGRITY CONCERN: At least one reviewer reported unauthorized credit card charges of $1,438 after moving out of a property, with slow resolution. Another reported being enrolled in a membership plan without consent.
• INCOMPLETE/NON-CODE-COMPLIANT WORK: Multiple reviews describe work left unfinished or failing county/home inspection (incorrect breaker, wiring not to code, unit installed at wrong angle). One review describes an electrical fire caused by the company's installation.
• MANAGEMENT CONDUCT: Multiple reviews describe rude or dismissive behavior from management (Jamaal specifically named twice), including hanging up on a customer and refusing to correct their own code violations without additional charge.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A significant cluster of reviews dated 2025-05-09 and 2025-05-10 are extremely brief, generic, and lack specifics (e.g., 'Corey was great!', 'Great service.', 'Great people great service'). Several blank-text reviews with 5-star ratings also appear. These inflate the positive signal and should be treated with skepticism.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (May–June 2025) are mixed but skew positive for individual technicians. However, the structural complaints about pricing, cancellations, and billing integrity span from 2017 through 2025, indicating these are not legacy issues but ongoing patterns.
• UPSELLING CONCERN: Multiple reviewers across multiple years describe technicians finding expensive problems during routine maintenance visits, with several explicitly stating they felt pressured or that the findings were fabricated or exaggerated to generate revenue.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (155 reviews) spanning 2012–2025 and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously because the positive reviews are heavily influenced by a cluster of brief, potentially solicited 5-star reviews, while the negative reviews are detailed, specific, and describe serious recurring operational and ethical concerns that meaningfully reduce trustworthiness of this contractor.

Suncoast Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 2016–2023. While positive reviews praise Mike's professionalism, fair pricing, and quality workmanship on water heater and valve jobs, multiple negative reviews document serious failures: incomplete work left unfinished for weeks, missed callbacks, unprofessional communication (hanging up on customers), incorrect diagnoses (gas leak misidentified), damaged property (dishwasher door), and overcharging for warranty work. Professionalism scores are dragged down by documented rudeness, poor phone responsiveness, and scheduling failures. Project completion is compromised by abandoned jobs and unresolved issues. Experience is supported by successful technical work when completed, but undermined by diagnostic errors and incomplete repairs. The company appears to deliver quality when engaged but struggles with follow-through, accountability, and customer respect.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are 2017–2021; recent reviews (2023) are predominantly positive. This suggests either improved operations or a shift in customer base, but older complaints are severe and documented.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Same company name but vastly different outcomes across reviews. Some jobs praised as 'impeccable,' others left incomplete for 3+ weeks with no callback.
• CALLBACK FAILURES: Multiple reviews explicitly mention ignored calls, missed follow-up appointments, and lack of communication after initial service.
• DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS: Gas leak case (2018) shows technician failed to identify actual problem, creating safety hazard. Dishwasher case (2020) shows wrong part ordered and damage caused.
• UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT: Documented instances of hanging up on customers, cursing, refusing to provide inspection footage, and dismissive tone ('No Mama this is not an error').
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY: Mixed signals—some reviews praise 'fair pricing,' others report shock at estimates and overcharging for warranty work. Travel time and minimum hour charges not always disclosed upfront.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While based on 16 reviews with substantial mentions across all dimensions, the extreme polarization (five 5-star reviews vs. five 1-star reviews) and documented service failures—particularly incomplete work, missed callbacks, and safety issues—indicate this company is unreliable despite occasional excellence. Recent positive trend is noted but does not offset pattern of accountability failures and unprofessional conduct documented in earlier reviews.

Mike's Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is undermined by repeated failures to show up on time, no-call lateness, and unresponsiveness to follow-up complaints — though several reviews do praise punctuality and communication. Pricing is a significant concern: multiple reviews cite charges that exceeded quoted amounts, a $140 charge for a $1.08 part, and a $325 charge for work a prior plumber completed for $99, dragging the price score down considerably despite a few reviews praising fair or competitive pricing. Project completion is similarly split — some jobs were completed well and callbacks were honored, but there are documented cases of abandoned follow-through, unanswered texts, and a recurring toilet issue that was never resolved. Experience scores moderately, with several reviewers praising quality workmanship and problem-solving, but offset by at least two reviews describing inexperienced technicians sent in Mike's place who lacked the skill to complete the job efficiently.

• Multiple reviews describe a pattern of Mike sending less-experienced assistants or technicians instead of coming out himself, without informing the customer in advance.
• At least three reviews document charges that exceeded the original quoted price, which is a significant transparency and trust concern.
• The 1-star review from 2021 describes a repair that failed within two days with no response to follow-up contact — a serious project completion and professionalism failure.
• The 1-star review from 2016 describes a $325 charge for a job a prior plumber completed for $99, and Mike never followed up after promising an adjustment.
• One 5-star review (2015-11-24) was written before any work was performed and should be treated as non-evidential for actual service quality — it was excluded from dimension scoring.
• Most reviews are dated between 2015 and 2021, with no reviews from the past 12 months relative to a 2024/2025 analysis date. Recency of data is low and the contractor's current service quality cannot be confirmed.
• Several 5-star reviews use enthusiastic but somewhat generic praise. While not conclusively fake, the contrast between glowing 5-star reviews and detailed 1-star complaints warrants caution.

This WW Score is based on 12 reviews spanning 2015–2021 with no recent data, and the score should be treated with moderate caution — the mixed record of pricing disputes, punctuality failures, and unresolved complaints meaningfully offsets the positive reviews, and the absence of any reviews in the past several years makes it impossible to assess the contractor's current performance.

Island Plumbing exhibits a highly polarized performance profile with significant inconsistency across reviews. While positive reviews consistently praise individual technicians (Raul, Gustavo, Zach, Glen, Kim) for punctuality, professionalism, and quality work, negative reviews reveal systemic issues with responsiveness, follow-through, and accountability. The company struggles most with project completion and reliability—multiple customers report no-shows, missed callbacks, and abandoned work. Pricing transparency is a major concern, with numerous complaints about hidden charges, excessive markups, and failure to honor quoted estimates. The professionalism score is dragged down by dispatcher rudeness, poor communication, and lack of remorse when service failures occur.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The water heater complaint ($2,985 charge with no hot water on Friday) appears identically 3 times (2022-06-10, 2021-10-16 twice), suggesting either fake reviews or a single customer posting repeatedly. This inflates negative sentiment artificially.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The toilet installation no-show with Erica C. appears twice identically (2022-06-10 and 2021-06-09), further suggesting review manipulation or duplicate posting.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The water valve callout charge ($130 for non-plumbing issue) appears 3 times identically (2021-06-10, 2020-09-11 twice), indicating potential fake review pattern.
• SUSPICIOUS GENERIC REVIEWS: Multiple 5-star reviews with minimal detail ('Amazing experience!', 'Great', 'Very Professional and efficient', 'Reasonable service and accommodating team') lack specificity and may be placeholder or fake reviews.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEW: 'La comida muy deliciosa' (The food is very delicious) dated 2020-06-10 is clearly not about plumbing services and appears to be misplaced or spam.
• EMPTY/MINIMAL REVIEWS: Multiple reviews contain only ratings with no text (blank reviews dated 2022-06-10, 2021-06-10, 2020-06-10, 2019-06-11, 2018-06-11, 2016-01-22, 2015-12-03, 2013-02-11), suggesting data quality issues.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most reviews are from 2018-2022 (older than 1 year). Only 5 reviews are from 2025 and 2 from 2024, limiting ability to assess current performance. Recent reviews (2025, early 2024) are predominantly 5-star, while older reviews show more balanced criticism.
• PATTERN OF NO-SHOWS: At least 6 distinct reviews mention failure to show up, missed appointments, or broken promises regarding arrival times—this is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• PATTERN OF POOR FOLLOW-UP: Multiple reviews (at least 8) explicitly mention unanswered calls, unreturned voicemails, and lack of callback—indicating a chronic communication/accountability problem.
• PATTERN OF PRICING COMPLAINTS: At least 12 reviews mention overcharging, hidden fees, lack of transparency, or excessive markups—this is a consistent complaint across different time periods.

This WW Score of 62.3 should be treated with CAUTION due to significant data quality issues (duplicate reviews, empty reviews, irrelevant entries) and a highly polarized review distribution that suggests either inconsistent service delivery or review manipulation. The score reflects genuine customer experiences but is inflated negatively by duplicate complaints and lacks sufficient recent data (only 7 reviews from past 12 months) to confidently assess current performance. The company appears to have strong individual technicians but systemic operational failures in scheduling, communication, and accountability. Prospective customers should request specific technician assignments and obtain written guarantees before committing.