Find Nearby Plumbers In Columbia, South Carolina

This contractor's reviews are heavily dominated by serious allegations of dishonesty and fraud, with four out of five reviewers explicitly accusing the company of lying to home warranty companies (American Home Shield) in order to deny legitimate claims and extract additional out-of-pocket payments from customers. Professionalism scores extremely low due to repeated reports of deceptive reporting, failure to return calls, and abandoning work without explanation. Pricing is scored very low because the recurring pattern of collecting the $75 warranty fee and then misrepresenting claims to solicit full-price private work constitutes a fundamentally unfair and deceptive pricing practice. Project completion is also very low, as the majority of reviewers report that covered work was never completed and claims were fraudulently denied. The one positive review, while detailed and credible, describes a genuinely good experience but is significantly outweighed by the volume and specificity of the negative accounts.

• SERIOUS FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Four of five reviewers independently and specifically allege that the contractor deliberately misrepresented the cause of plumbing failures to home warranty companies (AHS) in order to get claims denied, then solicited the same customers for full out-of-pocket repairs. This is a consistent and specific pattern, not vague dissatisfaction.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The single positive review is from August 2022, which is the most recent. All four negative reviews date from 2018–2021. While the positive review is the newest, the volume and severity of the negative pattern cannot be dismissed.
• PATTERN OF DECEPTION: Multiple reviewers describe an identical scheme — contractor visits under warranty, collects service fee, reports false cause of failure to warranty company, claim is denied, contractor then offers to do the work privately. This operational pattern across multiple unrelated customers is a significant red flag.
• NO FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: The reviews do not appear to be fake. The negative reviews are highly specific (names, phone numbers, detailed sequences of events) and the positive review includes specific contextual details. Language and phrasing vary meaningfully across all five reviews.
• CONTRACTOR PHONE NUMBER PUBLISHED: One reviewer publicly posted what they claim is the contractor's personal cell phone number (803-667-1060) as a warning to others. This has been noted but not verified.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall confidence due to a small but highly specific and consistent review set; the score should be treated as a serious warning signal given the repeated, independently corroborated allegations of fraudulent claim reporting across four separate customers.

The review set is very small (3 reviews) and spans a wide date range (2015–2022), making reliable conclusions difficult. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is heavily dragged down by two negative reviews: one describing a no-show appointment with no cancellation call or follow-up, and another describing an unprofessional phone manner. The single positive review praises workmanship and knowledge, but it stands alone against significant criticism. Pricing received a very poor score due to one reviewer describing an unexpectedly high after-hours quote of $400–$500 for a job ultimately completed by a competitor for $139, with no transparent explanation of the rate structure. Project completion is penalized by the no-show incident, which represents a complete failure to follow through on a scheduled appointment.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as highly unreliable and directional only.
• Reviews span 7 years (2015–2022); the most recent review is over 2 years old as of a 2024 reference point, and the oldest is nearly a decade old. Recency weighting significantly limits reliability.
• The single positive review (2022) is generic in some respects but does include specific praise for explanation and knowledge, so it is not flagged as fake — however it is only one data point.
• Two of three reviews are 1-star with specific, detailed complaints, which is a meaningful negative signal given the small sample size.
• No reviews mention pricing transparency or fair quotes positively; the only pricing mention describes a potentially deceptive or exploitative after-hours pricing practice.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 7 years and should be considered highly unreliable — use it only as a weak directional signal, not a definitive assessment of this contractor's current quality.

Caulder Plumbing receives overwhelmingly negative reviews across nearly every dimension, with 5 of 7 reviews rated 1-star. Professionalism is a major concern, with multiple reviewers explicitly describing rude behavior from the owner and staff, workers appearing to deliberately slow down to inflate labor hours, and technicians leaving without verifying work was complete. Pricing is the single most-cited complaint, with reviewers describing non-itemized invoices, bait-and-switch quotes (e.g., $107.50–$250 quoted vs. $571.56 billed), and charges for repeat service calls caused by the company's own failures. Project completion is severely lacking, with multiple accounts of jobs left unfinished, problems not diagnosed correctly on the first visit, and customers being sent to source their own parts. The two positive reviews (both 5-star) provide some upward offset but are outnumbered and outweighed by the volume and specificity of negative accounts.

• 5 out of 7 reviews are 1-star; the pattern of complaints is highly consistent and specific across independent reviewers, suggesting genuine negative experiences rather than coordinated attacks.
• The two 5-star reviews are relatively brief and lack the level of detail present in negative reviews; they cannot be confirmed as fake but carry limited evidentiary weight.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2023) are negative. The two positive reviews are from 2022. The overall trend does not show improvement over time.
• RECENCY NOTE: One review dates to 2018 and one to 2021; these are older than 12 months and were weighted less heavily, though their complaints are consistent with more recent reviews.
• Multiple reviewers independently describe non-itemized or opaque billing practices, which is a significant and recurring red flag for pricing transparency.
• One reviewer explicitly describes workers 'dinking around' to inflate labor time, suggesting a potential pattern of dishonest billing practices.

This WW Score is based on 7 reviews with strong mention coverage across all four dimensions; the score is considered moderately reliable given the small total review count, but the consistency and specificity of negative feedback across independent reviewers increases confidence that the low scores reflect genuine contractor performance.

Capital City Plumbing has an overwhelmingly negative review record across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is the most heavily documented dimension and is catastrophically poor: multiple reviewers describe repeated no-shows across consecutive scheduled appointments, belligerent and offensive responses when confronted, a contractor who smelled of alcohol at 10am, rude office staff, and one owner publicly posting what appears to be a fraudulent upselling scheme on Facebook. Project completion is nearly as damning, with multiple reviewers reporting that work was never completed, technicians collected service fees and disappeared, and at least one case where a completed job was done incorrectly and had to be redone by another plumber. Pricing drew complaints of extreme overcharging — $396 for a $20 part and a 10-minute job, and nearly $600 quoted for a running toilet and slow drain — though two positive reviews did cite fair or competitive pricing. Experience scores marginally higher only because a small number of positive reviews describe skilled, knowledgeable technicians, but these are vastly outnumbered by accounts of incompetent or fraudulent work. The overall picture is of a contractor that should be avoided.

• SUSPECTED FAKE POSITIVE REVIEWS: The positive reviews (5-star) are highly generic in praise, lack specific verifiable detail in some cases, and stand in extreme contrast to the volume and specificity of negative reviews. The single 5-star review from 2014 mentions a 'snislo toilet' — a non-existent product — which raises authenticity concerns.
• OWNER MISCONDUCT FLAG: One review quotes what appears to be a Facebook post by the owner, Bob Clendening, describing a deliberate fraudulent upselling scheme (planting fake evidence of damage to charge customers thousands of dollars). This is an extremely serious allegation and materially affects trustworthiness of the business.
• INSURANCE FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple reviews via home warranty companies describe a pattern where the contractor collects service fees, declares work non-covered or pre-existing without justification, and leaves without performing work. This pattern across multiple independent reviewers suggests a systemic practice.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent review is from May 2024, but the majority of reviews are from 2014–2021. The 2024 review (1-star, road behavior complaint) provides no operational detail. The negative behavioral patterns appear consistent across the full date range, suggesting no meaningful improvement over time.
• BELLIGERENT BEHAVIOR DOCUMENTED IN MULTIPLE REVIEWS: At least two independent reviewers describe the contractor becoming hostile, using offensive language, or hanging up when confronted about missed appointments. This is a serious and repeated pattern.

This WW Score is based on 17 reviews spanning 2014–2024 with strong mention counts across all dimensions, and the score of approximately 22 should be considered highly reliable as a warning signal — the volume, specificity, and consistency of negative experiences across multiple independent reviewers make this one of the lowest-confidence contractors in terms of trustworthiness.

This contractor's review profile is overwhelmingly negative across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is severely damaged by two no-show incidents with no communication, repeated unanswered calls, and one reviewer explicitly labeling the contractor a fraud operating without valid licenses. Project completion is critically undermined by a botched tub installation that caused water damage to a living room ceiling, work found not to code with fire hazards, and a contractor who was unresponsive when called back to remedy his own failures. Experience scores are near-floor due to verified unlicensed work, code violations, illegal wiring, and a third-party plumber expressing shock at the shoddy workmanship. The only positive signals — a single mention of reasonable pricing and two brief 5-star reviews — are insufficient to meaningfully offset the volume and severity of documented failures.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews are word-for-word identical (Jan 17–19 no-show incident, both dated 2017-01-20, both rated 1.0). One has been counted once for scoring purposes to avoid double-weighting.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE REVIEWS: The two 5-star reviews (2016-08-24 and 2016-09-02) are extremely brief, generic, and contain no specific details about the work performed, technician names, or job type. This pattern is consistent with potentially inauthentic reviews and they have been scored conservatively.
• UNLICENSED CONTRACTOR ALERT: One reviewer states they verified through the state that this contractor holds no valid business license, no electrical license, and no plumbing license. This is a serious legal and safety concern.
• CODE VIOLATIONS AND SAFETY HAZARDS: Work was independently inspected and found not to code, with fire hazards and illegal wiring reported. Bare wires were left exposed in walls.
• RECENCY WARNING: All reviews are dated between 2012 and 2017. No reviews from the past 12 months (relative to a current evaluation) are present. The score may not reflect the contractor's current operational status, but the severity of documented issues warrants sustained caution.
• PATTERN OF NON-RESPONSIVENESS: Multiple independent reviewers report the contractor failing to show for scheduled appointments, not returning calls, and being unreachable when problems arose post-job.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall confidence due to a small review set (7 reviews, 1 duplicate removed), all reviews being over 7 years old, and suspicion around the authenticity of the only two positive reviews; however, the documented issues — unlicensed work, code violations, no-shows, and post-job damage — are specific, consistent, and independently corroborated, making the low score directionally reliable.

Flow Rite Plumbing exhibits a severely bifurcated review pattern with 9 recent damaging reviews (2020-2022) describing dangerous behavior, incompetence, unprofessionalism, overcharging, and incomplete work, contrasted against 51 older positive reviews (2005-2013) praising reliability and quality. The recent reviews document serious failures: gas line installation errors requiring fire department intervention, sump pump misdiagnosis causing $1500+ in wasted work, rude/intoxicated behavior, threatening communications, and refusal to honor callbacks. Older reviews consistently praise punctuality, fair pricing, and thorough workmanship. This dramatic deterioration suggests either significant organizational decline or a fundamental shift in service quality and company culture. The recency weighting heavily penalizes the overall assessment.

• CRITICAL: Extreme temporal bifurcation detected. All 9 one-star reviews are from 2020-2022; all 51 five-star reviews are from 2005-2013. This 9-year gap suggests either company decline, management change, or data source shift.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK (older reviews): Multiple reviews contain generic praise with minimal specifics ('unknown' text, single-sentence endorsements, repetitive phrasing like 'excellent job'). Five reviews have 'unknown' as text body but 5-star ratings (2014-2016), suggesting placeholder or auto-generated entries.
• RECENT REVIEWS CREDIBLE: 2020-2022 negative reviews are highly detailed, specific, and internally consistent. Multiple independent accounts describe identical patterns: Kevin Richardson's unprofessionalism, overcharging, incomplete work, and hostile communication.
• SAFETY CONCERNS: Two reviews document serious safety violations—gas line installed without emergency shutoff (fire department response) and reckless highway driving endangering other motorists.
• PATTERN OF INCOMPETENCE: Recent reviews show systematic failures in diagnosis (sump pump work on wrong side), installation (gas line, water main), and follow-through (missed appointments, blocked customer phone numbers).
• OWNER BEHAVIOR: Kevin Richardson (apparent owner) documented as rude, threatening, intoxicated, and litigious. One review mentions restraining order; another documents threatening email from 'Holly' (co-owner).

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to extreme temporal polarization and suspected data quality issues in older reviews; however, the recent 2020-2022 reviews are highly credible and paint a picture of a company in serious operational and ethical decline. Current customers should treat this company as HIGH RISK based on recent evidence of safety violations, incompetence, and hostile customer treatment.