Find Nearby Plumbers In Charleston, South Carolina

A+ Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a rude phone hang-up, a no-show after a promised callback, and coercive post-job billing behavior — despite several reviewers praising polite and respectful technicians. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with one detailed review documenting incomplete pipe replacement, broken walls, leftover debris, and abandoned old materials, plus a separate reviewer whose problem was never fixed and calls were ignored — these are serious failures that offset the positive completion experiences. Experience is similarly split: multiple reviewers praise efficient, knowledgeable technicians, but sloppy workmanship (misaligned faucet handles, loose toilet bolts, a wax ring failure, and smashed attic venting attributed to the company's work) raises real concerns about quality control. Pricing is the strongest dimension, with several reviewers noting fair quotes, no hidden charges, and no emergency surcharges, though the attempted double-billing incident in one review tempers this score.

• Several 5-star reviews use generic praise with limited specifics (e.g., 'FANTASTIC', 'completely satisfied'), which warrants mild fake review caution, though most do include some job-specific detail.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months; only 2 reviews fall within the past 12 months (2024). Recency weighting reduces confidence in current service quality.
• One reviewer explicitly notes the company 'no longer has Google Reviews,' suggesting possible review manipulation or removal history — this is a credibility flag.
• A pattern of serious misconduct appears across multiple independent negative reviews: abandoned work, ignored voicemails, coercive billing, and property damage. These are not isolated incidents.
• The 1-star reviews contain highly specific, detailed accounts of failures, which increases their credibility relative to the more generic 5-star reviews.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the mention counts are sufficient for statistical grounding, but the wide variance between detailed negative reviews and generic positive ones, combined with the predominantly older review set and a credible fake-review flag, means this score should be interpreted cautiously and weighted toward the negative findings.

This is a franchise brand with hundreds of locations, and the review pool reflects wildly inconsistent quality across different operators and technicians. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a large volume of reviews describing rude, condescending, or outright hostile technicians and office staff, though many positive reviews praise specific named technicians as courteous and professional. Pricing is the most damaging dimension: an enormous number of reviews describe a bait-and-switch pattern where a low advertised rate (often $49) is used to gain entry, followed by aggressive upselling to hydro-jetting, camera inspections, and pipe replacement at prices reviewers consistently describe as two to ten times market rate. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are completed satisfactorily and quickly, but a significant minority of reviews describe incomplete work, warranty refusals, no-shows, and jobs that required a second company to actually fix the problem. Experience scores reflect genuine skill from certain technicians but are undermined by repeated accounts of misdiagnosis, fabricated damage, and work that failed within days or weeks.

• STRONG BAIT-AND-SWITCH PATTERN DETECTED: Dozens of independent reviews across multiple years and locations describe an identical pattern — low advertised price ($49 drain special) used to gain entry, followed by claims the snake cannot work and escalating upsells to hydro-jetting ($500-$1200), camera inspection, and full pipe replacement ($3,000-$15,000+). This is a systemic business practice, not isolated incidents.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE SIDE: A notable cluster of short, generic 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'Good experience', 'Great service!', 'You guys great!', blank text with 5 stars) appear throughout the dataset, many dated in close proximity. These lack specificity and are consistent with review padding. Confidence in the positive score pool is reduced accordingly.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact duplicates submitted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., identical text for 'Many other contractors proposed to snake the sewer line', 'Very Pleased with results', 'Did a great job excellent work', 'Prompt, polite, professional', etc.). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate manipulation.
• MULTI-LOCATION FRANCHISE ISSUE: Reviews clearly reference dozens of different geographic locations (Sacramento, Orange County, Reno, Framingham MA, Spartanburg SC, Baton Rouge, etc.) and different named technicians. This is not a single contractor — it is a franchise brand. Scores reflect the aggregate brand, not any single operator. Individual location quality varies enormously.
• SERIOUS FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews allege criminal-level conduct including: charging for work not performed, fabricating damage on camera footage, partnering with restoration companies (Bolmer Restoration named repeatedly) to generate fraudulent insurance claims, opening credit cards in customers' names, placing mechanics liens on homes, and targeting elderly and vulnerable customers. One review references a revoked NV business license and cancelled contractor license.
• WARRANTY REFUSAL PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe the company refusing to honor stated warranties when problems recurred within the warranty period, often citing new reasons to charge again.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURE PATTERN: A significant number of reviews describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and calls were not returned, sometimes leaving customers without water or sewage service for days.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review dataset spans from approximately 2010 to June 2025. Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show a continued mix of strong positives for specific named technicians and serious negatives for pricing and scam-like upselling, suggesting the pattern has not materially changed. More recent reviews were weighted slightly higher in scoring.

This WW Score of 58.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-LOW trust as a hiring signal: while it accurately reflects the deeply polarized nature of this franchise brand, the score is based on a mixed pool that includes suspected fake positive reviews, duplicate submissions, and reviews from dozens of geographically distinct franchise locations — meaning the score does not reliably predict the quality of any single local operator, and the systemic pricing and upselling complaints documented across hundreds of independent reviews represent a material risk that any prospective customer should investigate carefully before engaging this company.

The review corpus spans nearly two decades and reveals a deeply polarized customer base. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by repeated accounts of rude, condescending, or dishonest technicians, no-shows, and poor communication from management, even though a meaningful subset of reviewers praised individual plumbers as courteous and punctual. Pricing is the single most damaging dimension: an overwhelming majority of reviewers — across all time periods and locations — explicitly describe charges as exorbitant, far above market rate, and in several cases potentially predatory, particularly toward elderly or first-time homeowners. Project completion is mixed: many jobs were finished satisfactorily, but a notable number of reviews describe repeat failures, unresolved callbacks, abandoned work, failed inspections, and warranty disputes. Technical experience is similarly split, with some reviewers praising problem-solving ability while others describe sloppy workmanship, incorrect installations, and technicians who misdiagnosed problems that other plumbers resolved cheaply and quickly.

• PRICING CONCERN: Pricing complaints are the single most consistent theme across the entire review set, spanning 2005–2024, with dozens of reviewers independently describing charges as 2x–5x market rate. This is a strong and credible pattern, not an outlier.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe a specific pattern of verbal low quotes followed by significantly higher charges on final invoices, upselling unnecessary work, and targeting vulnerable customers (elderly, emergency situations, first-time homeowners).
• FAKE/THIN REVIEW FLAG: Approximately 12 reviews consist solely of 'unknown' text with a star rating and provide zero usable data. These were excluded from scoring. Their presence inflates the raw review count and may represent padding.
• FAKE/THIN REVIEW FLAG: Several 5-star reviews contain only a period ('.') as text with no detail. These were excluded from scoring as they provide no verifiable information.
• GENERIC PRAISE FLAG: A cluster of short 5-star reviews (e.g., 'excellent very friendly', 'Very professional very friendly') lack any specifics and follow a suspiciously similar pattern. Confidence in these is reduced.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent detailed negative review (October 2024) describes the same predatory pricing and billing opacity patterns seen in reviews going back to 2006, suggesting these are systemic and ongoing issues rather than isolated incidents.
• MULTI-LOCATION ISSUE: Reviews appear to reference multiple Ben Franklin Plumbing franchise locations across different states (Florida, Ohio, New Jersey, etc.). Scores reflect the aggregate brand experience but individual franchise quality may vary significantly.
• MANAGEMENT CONDUCT: Multiple reviews specifically call out owner-level or management-level misconduct including threats, yelling, hanging up on customers, and refusing to honor warranties — this is a serious flag beyond technician-level issues.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES: At least 4 reviews describe installations that failed shortly after completion, including a gas leak from incorrect installation, cracked pipes, failed sump pumps, and leaking faucets — indicating quality control issues at the technical level.

This WW Score is based on 88 reviews with a large proportion containing substantive detail, spanning nearly 20 years, and the HIGH confidence rating across all four dimensions reflects strong evidentiary support — however, the multi-franchise nature of the reviews means this score represents a brand-level aggregate and prospective customers should seek location-specific reviews before hiring.

Beverly Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism is significantly dragged down by multiple serious complaints: a technician arriving 4 hours late with no apology, a company that never contacted a prospective customer, and a plumber who returned with attitude and left dirty marks — offset by several positive reviews praising punctuality, courtesy, and responsiveness. Pricing is a major concern, with one reviewer documenting a quote of $3,500 for a job completed elsewhere for $1,300, and another noting charges of $180 for no work performed; only a handful of positive reviews mention fair or great pricing. Project completion is the most damaging dimension, with documented cases of incomplete or botched work (a shower install with gaps and deceptive use of materials, a toilet left worse than before after two visits, a furnace appointment where nothing was serviced), partially offset by reviews praising timely and thorough job completion. Experience scores moderately, with some reviewers praising knowledgeable and skilled technicians, but the shower installation deception and repeated toilet failure raise serious competency concerns. The majority of positive reviews are from 2011–2017, while the most detailed and damaging negative reviews are more recent (2020–2024), suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The most detailed negative reviews are from 2020–2024, while the majority of positive reviews are from 2011–2017. Recent performance appears significantly worse than historical performance.
• THREE REVIEWS ('unknown', 'unknown', '.') contain no usable text and were excluded from scoring. These placeholder reviews with 5-star ratings may indicate review padding or data artifacts.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION (LOW-LEVEL): Several older 5-star reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'I would use their services again in the future.', 'Would recommend again the plumber that came was very nice and worked fast.') with no specific details, which reduces their evidentiary weight.
• DECEPTIVE PRACTICE FLAGGED: One reviewer (Dr. Hachem, 2023) documented that the installer used a PVC quarter round purchased after the shower kit's manufacturing date and falsely claimed it came with the kit — a specific and credible allegation of deception. The company also failed to respond to follow-up contact.
• NO-RESPONSE PATTERN: At least two reviews (2020, 2023) describe the company failing to respond to contact attempts, suggesting possible responsiveness issues in recent years.
• PRICING OUTLIER: The $3,500 quote for a water heater replacement (completed elsewhere for $1,300) is a significant red flag for price gouging, though it is a single data point.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: while mention counts are sufficient for statistical confidence in most dimensions, the heavy skew of positive reviews toward dates older than 5 years and the concentration of serious, detailed negative reviews in 2020–2024 means the score likely overstates current service quality, and prospective customers should weight recent negative reviews heavily.

Bobby's performance is highly inconsistent across reviews. Professionalism scores are dragged down by serious complaints about attitude, incompetence, and poor responsiveness to inquiries, though some reviews praise his punctuality and communication. Pricing is viewed favorably where mentioned, with customers noting affordability. Project completion shows critical gaps—one customer had to hire another plumber to fix work Bobby failed to complete properly. Experience ratings reflect mixed technical ability: some jobs completed efficiently, but a significant failure to diagnose and fix a leak undermines confidence. The 5-year age gap between older and recent reviews limits recency assessment.

• CRITICAL: Conflicting quality signals—two 5-star reviews vs. one 1-star review citing incompetence and incomplete work. The 1-star review explicitly states Bobby failed to find/fix a leak and another plumber was required.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two reviews are from 2019 (5+ years old); only two from 2023-2024. Older positive reviews may not reflect current service quality.
• RESPONSIVENESS ISSUE: 2023 review explicitly documents poor callback times and delayed responses to inquiries, despite acknowledging talent. This is a documented systemic problem.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews total limits statistical reliability. Recommend collecting more recent data before making high-confidence decisions.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (4 reviews), significant age of half the reviews, and stark contradictions between positive and negative feedback. The score reflects genuine inconsistency in service quality rather than measurement error, but more recent reviews are needed to assess current performance reliably.

ARS Rescue Rooter presents a deeply polarized review profile. A significant portion of positive reviews praise individual technicians as professional, courteous, knowledgeable, and timely, which elevates the professionalism and experience scores above what the negative reviews alone would suggest. However, the volume and severity of negative reviews is substantial: recurring themes include no-shows, missed appointment windows without notification, high-pressure sales tactics, price gouging on parts and labor (often 3-10x market rate), misdiagnosis of problems to upsell unnecessary repairs or full system replacements, and near-total failure of customer service escalation. Pricing receives the lowest score due to overwhelming and consistent evidence of extreme markups, bait-and-switch advertising, and refusal to provide itemized invoices. Project completion suffers from numerous accounts of incomplete work, failed inspections, return visits required, and jobs abandoned mid-project. The review set also contains a large number of brewery reviews (ARS Brewing in Philadelphia) and other clearly off-topic reviews that were excluded from scoring.

• MAJOR DATA CONTAMINATION: A significant number of reviews in this dataset are clearly for a different business — ARS Brewing, a craft brewery in Philadelphia, PA. These reviews reference beer, food trucks, taprooms, and brewery atmosphere and have no relevance to HVAC or plumbing services. These were excluded from scoring but inflate the raw review count significantly.
• SUSPECTED FAKE OR INFLATED POSITIVE REVIEWS: A large cluster of reviews dated 2025-06-06 through 2025-06-09 are near-identical in phrasing (e.g., multiple exact duplicates of 'Great service, very professional.', 'All went well; Very professional.', 'The tech arrived early for the appointment. He was courteous & professional and quickly completed the job.', 'Adam check everything, and got a/c back on.', 'Daniel was amazing', 'Not friend, right away started to charge me without inspection of the drain.'). These appear to be the same reviews submitted multiple times across different dates, strongly suggesting review manipulation or a data feed error. Confidence in the positive review pool is reduced accordingly.
• REVIEW DUPLICATION: Dozens of reviews appear verbatim multiple times across different dates (e.g., the Jeremy R Smith review, the Andy and Alex review, the Service men were efficient review, the Horrible experience review). This suggests either a data pipeline issue or deliberate review stuffing. Duplicate reviews were counted only once per unique text for scoring purposes.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW PATTERN: Across hundreds of unique negative reviews spanning 2011 to 2025, a consistent and severe pattern emerges of ARS failing to honor appointment windows, providing no notification of delays or cancellations, and offering no meaningful recourse through customer service. This is a systemic operational failure, not isolated incidents.
• PRICE GOUGING PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different cities and years report being quoted 3x to 10x market rate for parts and labor. Examples include $455/lb for refrigerant (market: $40-80), $650 for a $25 capacitor, $1,100 for a 30-minute warranty repair, and $10,000+ for sewer work completed by competitors for under $2,000. This pattern is too consistent and widespread to be coincidental.
• MISDIAGNOSIS AND UPSELL PATTERN: Numerous reviewers report being told they needed full system replacements or expensive repairs, only to have a second-opinion technician fix the actual problem for a fraction of the cost. In several cases, reviewers allege ARS technicians deliberately disabled or damaged equipment to create a sale opportunity.
• OFF-TOPIC REVIEWS EXCLUDED: Reviews referencing beer, breweries, food trucks, and taproom experiences were identified as belonging to ARS Brewing (Philadelphia) and were excluded from all dimension scoring. These reviews do not reflect the HVAC and plumbing contractor being evaluated.
• GEOGRAPHIC INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference ARS locations across many states (TX, FL, NC, SC, VA, IL, OH, TN, GA, etc.), suggesting this is a national franchise. Service quality appears highly variable by location, which limits the reliability of any aggregate score as a predictor for a specific local branch.

This WW Score of 52.1 should be treated with caution: while it is based on a very large number of substantive reviews providing HIGH confidence in the statistical sense, the score is significantly undermined by confirmed review duplication, suspected fake positive reviews, off-topic brewery reviews contaminating the dataset, and extreme geographic variability across a national franchise — consumers should research their specific local ARS branch independently before engaging services.