Find Nearby Plumbers In Charleston, South Carolina

This company shows significant inconsistency in service delivery. While two reviews praise employee professionalism, knowledge, and consideration (5-star ratings from 2020), three more recent reviews (2022, 2019, 2018) document serious failures in responsiveness, follow-through, and communication. The 2022 emergency call went completely unanswered for a week, and the 2019 review details a pattern of non-responsiveness and incomplete service delivery despite payment of consultation fees. Project completion and professionalism scores are dragged down by these documented failures in callbacks and follow-through. Pricing concerns emerge from the $79 consultation fee that yielded no quote and limited service scope.

• CRITICAL: Three of five reviews (60%) document severe communication failures and non-responsiveness, including a complete failure to return emergency calls and a week-long delay in follow-up.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2019-2022, while positive reviews are from 2018-2020. Recent pattern suggests deterioration in service quality.
• PRICING RED FLAG: Review from 2019 explicitly describes the company as potentially fraudulent, citing collection of $79 consultation fee without delivery of promised quote or service.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews praising employee quality and detailed 1-2 star reviews documenting systemic failures in the same company.
• INCOMPLETE SERVICE: 2019 review notes company cannot perform half the requested work due to internal rules, raising questions about scope clarity and honesty in initial assessment.

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (5 reviews) and significant inconsistency in reported experiences; however, the pattern of documented communication failures and non-responsiveness across multiple recent reviews suggests genuine operational problems that warrant serious consideration before engaging this contractor.

Charleston Heating and Air demonstrates significant and consistent problems across all dimensions. While some older reviews (2013-2017) and a few recent ones praise professionalism and installation quality, the overwhelming majority of reviews document serious issues: chronic equipment failures within 1-4 years of installation, repeated service calls for the same problems, poor follow-through on warranty claims, and refusal to take responsibility for faulty workmanship. Pricing is a major complaint, with customers reporting markups of 2-3x competitor rates, aggressive upselling of unnecessary units, and inflated labor charges. Project completion suffers from missed callbacks, incomplete diagnoses, and unresolved issues. The company's business model appears designed to generate repeat service revenue rather than deliver lasting solutions.

• CRITICAL: Pattern of chronic equipment failure — multiple customers report new units failing within 1-4 years with 5+ service calls each, suggesting either defective products or systemic installation/commissioning failures
• CRITICAL: Aggressive upselling documented in at least 4 reviews — customers report being pressured to buy new units when repairs were viable, and discovering competitor quotes $2,000-$3,000 lower for identical equipment
• CRITICAL: Refusal to honor warranties and take responsibility — multiple reviews document warranty claims denied, improper installations not corrected, and damage to homes not repaired
• CRITICAL: Pricing significantly above market — documented overcharges include $807 for a 20-minute pump replacement (customer found part for $134), $1,000 crane fee (market rate $350), freon at 3x competitor rates, and labor rates appearing to exceed $250/hour
• CRITICAL: Poor follow-through on service — missed callbacks, no-shows, failure to return calls over weekends, appointment no-shows with no record, and non-responsive management
• CRITICAL: Inconsistent quality and unprofessional technician behavior — one technician installed wrong thermostat, tried to hide it, wired components incorrectly, and left without completing work; another failed to diagnose correctly and misrepresented freon leak
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2014-2022, but the most recent review (June 2024) is extremely negative and documents ongoing pattern of failures on a unit installed in 2020
• POSITIVE REVIEWS PATTERN: Positive reviews (5 stars) are concentrated in 2013-2019 and focus on installation quality and individual technician professionalism; they do NOT address long-term reliability or post-sale service, which is where the company fails most severely
• CONFLICT OF INTEREST SIGNAL: Company appears to benefit financially from equipment failures — customers explicitly note that more service calls correlate with more problems, suggesting possible incentive misalignment

This WW Score of 42.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong warning signal. The score is based on 25 detailed reviews with consistent patterns of failure across all dimensions, particularly in pricing, project completion, and long-term reliability. The company's own customers document a clear business model of selling expensive equipment that fails repeatedly, then charging premium rates for repairs while refusing warranty claims. This is not a case of isolated complaints — it is a systematic pattern documented across 15+ years of reviews.

Delk Plumbing receives a critically low WW Score of 42.8, driven by severe and consistent deficiencies across all dimensions. Professionalism is undermined by poor communication, unresponsive office staff, unprofessional behavior on-site, and dismissive attitudes toward customer concerns. Pricing is a major red flag, with numerous reports of excessive quotes, bait-and-switch tactics, inflated charges for minimal work, and failure to honor quoted prices. Project completion is compromised by incomplete work, poor craftsmanship requiring callbacks, failure to follow through on commitments, and refusal to address defects. Experience is questionable, with documented installation errors (improper crimping, code violations, incorrect leveling), misdiagnosis of problems, and inability to complete jobs properly on first attempt. While 3 positive reviews exist (2022-2023), they are vastly outweighed by 16 negative reviews spanning 2013-2023, indicating systemic and persistent issues rather than isolated incidents.

• CRITICAL: 16 of 20 reviews (80%) are 1-star ratings with detailed complaints. This is not a pattern of isolated bad experiences but systematic failure.
• PRICING FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe bait-and-switch tactics (initial quote followed by 2-3x price increase), inflated quotes for simple jobs ($200 for 6-10 minute work, $5,000 quote for 15-minute repair), and refusal to honor quoted prices.
• QUALITY CONTROL FAILURE: Repeated documentation of improper installation (uncrimped fittings, code violations, improper leveling, missing grouting), defects discovered post-installation, and refusal to warranty or fix work.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Multiple reports of unresponsive office staff, failure to follow up on estimates, weeks-long delays, and difficulty reaching the company.
• DISHONESTY CONCERN: One review documents false reporting (claiming feminine hygiene products caused clog when roots were actual cause), and another describes refusal to acknowledge installation errors.
• RECENCY: While 3 positive reviews exist from 2014-2022, negative reviews span entire timeline (2013-2023) with recent negative review from 2019-2023, suggesting ongoing issues.
• POTENTIAL FAKE POSITIVE REVIEWS: The 2014 review (5-star) uses generic enthusiastic language ('SO thankful', 'ROCK!!!') with no specific details about work performed. The 2016 review (4-star) is notably more detailed and credible, mentioning specific price discrepancy issue.
• OWNER BIAS: One review explicitly notes that the only 5-star review on file was written by owner Terry Delk, raising credibility concerns about positive reviews.

This WW Score of 42.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 20 reviews with consistent, detailed, and corroborated complaints across all four dimensions, spanning a 10-year period. The overwhelming majority (80%) of reviews are 1-star with specific, verifiable claims (pricing discrepancies, installation defects, communication failures, false reporting). The few positive reviews lack detail and show signs of potential bias. This score accurately reflects a contractor with severe systemic problems in professionalism, pricing practices, project completion, and technical competence.

Bishop & Sons shows a deeply mixed record across all dimensions, with professionalism and project completion being the most heavily documented and most concerning areas. Multiple reviews explicitly describe no-shows, failure to follow instructions, poor follow-through, and dismissive customer service responses — dragging professionalism and project completion scores well below average. Pricing transparency received limited positive mention (a senior discount noted once, prompt arrival in one case) but is offset by complaints about being charged $125 for no work performed and 2.5 hours of labor for an unfixed problem. Experience scores slightly higher due to a handful of older reviews praising technical knowledge and quality workmanship, but a notable incident of a plumber borrowing tools, rigging a fix, and admitting the problem was not resolved undermines confidence in skill consistency. The majority of positive reviews are from 2016 or earlier, while the most recent reviews (2023–2024) are uniformly negative, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.

• RECENCY CONCERN: All reviews from 2022 onward are negative (1-star). The two most recent reviews (2023, 2024) both describe serious failures in responsiveness and follow-through. Positive reviews are predominantly from 2016 and earlier, indicating a likely decline in service quality.
• PATTERN WARNING: Multiple reviews describe the same failure mode — technician no-shows or late arrivals with no callback — suggesting a systemic scheduling and communication problem rather than isolated incidents.
• CHARGE WITHOUT SERVICE: Two separate reviews describe being charged for service visits where no work was completed or the problem was not fixed, raising concerns about billing practices.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE FAILURE: One reviewer explicitly describes a follow-up call where the representative said 'alright I apologize' and hung up without attempting resolution — a documented customer service failure.
• DATA LIMITATION: Only 10 reviews total span nearly a decade (2014–2024). Score confidence is moderate at best and should not be treated as a comprehensive picture of current performance.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a small but consistently detailed review set; however, the strong recency trend toward negative reviews and documented systemic issues with scheduling, follow-through, and billing suggest the score may still be overstating current performance quality.

This company shows mixed performance across a very small sample of reviews. Two positive reviews from 2020 praise efficiency, thoroughness, and staff performance (Tristan and Justin), suggesting solid workmanship and professionalism. However, a recent 1-star review (April 2024) makes serious allegations of deception and dishonest practices, describing the company as willing to 'swindle' and 'lie' to customers. The stark contradiction between the 2020 praise and the 2024 complaint raises concerns about either service degradation or potential reliability issues. With only 3 reviews total and conflicting signals, confidence in this score is inherently limited.

• CRITICAL: Extreme polarity detected — two 5-star reviews (2020) vs. one 1-star review (2024) with serious fraud allegations. No middle-ground reviews to triangulate.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Positive reviews are 4+ years old (2020); the most recent review (April 2024) is highly negative and alleges deceptive practices. This suggests possible service decline or change in operations.
• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews total. Scoring is unreliable and vulnerable to outliers.
• UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS: The 1-star review makes serious claims ('swindle,' 'lie') but provides no specific details, dates, or context. Cannot verify legitimacy without additional information.
• PROFESSIONALISM DIMENSION: Positive reviews mention staff by name and praise attitude/efficiency; negative review attacks honesty and integrity. These are contradictory signals on the same dimension.

This WW Score should be treated with extreme caution. With only 3 reviews, significant time gap between positive (2020) and negative (2024) feedback, and unsubstantiated but serious allegations in the most recent review, this score does not reliably represent current contractor performance. Additional recent reviews are essential before making a hiring decision.

Professionalism is the most frequently discussed dimension and paints a deeply divided picture: several reviews praise specific staff members (the tattooed employee, Frank, Harry, and an older gentleman) for being polite, patient, and helpful, while a near-equal number of reviews describe rude, dismissive, or unhelpful staff — particularly toward non-trade customers. Pricing is a significant concern, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out prices as far higher than competitors (one citing a 400% markup versus a nearby hardware store) and one review alleging daily price manipulation for extra profit. Project completion scores modestly, as a handful of positive reviews note that staff helped customers gather everything needed to finish their projects, but return/refund experiences were consistently poor and frustrating. Experience scores in the middle range: some staff demonstrated genuine trade knowledge and problem-solving ability, while others were described as clueless or unwilling to assist, suggesting inconsistency across the team.

• Several reviews are older than 1 year, with the majority dating from 2013–2020; only two reviews are within the past 12 months (2023), limiting recency reliability.
• The business appears to be a plumbing supply house/wholesaler rather than a contractor or plumber — some negative reviews stem from a policy of serving trade professionals only, which may skew ratings from general public reviewers unfairly.
• One review (1-star, 2020-01-18) alleges deliberate daily price manipulation and uses the word 'scammers' without specific detail, which may be an exaggerated or emotionally driven review rather than a factual account — treated with reduced weight.
• No patterns of fake reviews detected; reviews vary in tone, detail level, rating, and date, suggesting authentic submissions.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: professionalism, pricing, and experience are each supported by 5+ mentions giving HIGH confidence in those dimensions, but the score is significantly dragged down by a consistent pattern of negative pricing and staff conduct complaints, and the recency of data is limited with only 2 reviews from the past 12 months.