Find Nearby Plumbers In Florence, South Carolina

Palmetto State Plumbing, led primarily by Gavin, earns strong marks across all four dimensions based on a large volume of detailed reviews spanning roughly 2011–2019. Professionalism is the most consistently praised attribute, with dozens of reviewers explicitly citing punctuality, communication, courtesy, and responsiveness. Pricing is frequently described as reasonable, fair, or better than competitors, with multiple reviewers noting a 10% Angie's List discount and no surprise charges. Project completion scores slightly lower due to three notable negative reviews describing unanswered calls, failure to follow through on scheduled appointments, and one instance of faulty installation that was never corrected by the company — these are meaningful red flags that prevent a higher score. Experience is well-supported, with reviewers describing accurate diagnoses, skilled problem-solving, and quality workmanship across a wide variety of plumbing jobs.

• 6 reviews contain only the word 'unknown' or a single punctuation mark and provide no usable data — these were excluded from dimension scoring.
• Three reviews (dated 2015-11-30, 2016-03-01, and 2017-10-24) describe serious responsiveness and follow-through failures: no callbacks, ignored reschedule requests, and an incorrectly installed faucet that was never remedied. These materially reduce the project_completion score.
• The majority of reviews are dated 2013–2019, with the most recent being May 2019. No reviews from the past 12 months (relative to a 2024/2025 evaluation date) are present. Current performance cannot be assessed from this data.
• Several older reviews (2011–2013) use very enthusiastic language and are all 5-star, which could reflect platform-era review culture rather than fake reviews. No strong evidence of coordinated fake reviews, but the uniformity of positive sentiment in early reviews warrants mild caution.
• The three negative reviews are substantive and specific, lending them high credibility. They should be weighted seriously despite being a minority of total reviews.

This WW Score is based on a large and mostly detailed review set, giving it HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be treated with caution given that all reviews are more than 5 years old and three credible negative reviews reveal a pattern of communication and follow-through failures that may not be fully captured in the aggregate score.

Urquhart Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions, with particular strengths in professionalism and technical expertise. Eight reviews explicitly praise punctuality, responsiveness, and professional demeanor, with technicians arriving quickly and communicating clearly. Pricing is consistently described as fair and reasonable across six reviews, though one customer paid a premium holiday rate. Project completion is solid across seven reviews, with jobs finished efficiently and follow-up service honored over multiple years. However, two negative reviews (from 2017 and 2019) reveal significant operational inconsistencies: one crew failed to diagnose a broken waterline and still charged a service fee, and another missed a 9 AM appointment by 5 hours without adequate communication. These failures prevent a higher score despite the predominance of positive feedback.

• Two significant negative reviews (2017, 2019) indicate operational inconsistency and potential quality control issues that contradict the overwhelmingly positive narrative
• The 2019 review describes a crew unable to fix a broken waterline, then charging $100 for the failed visit—this suggests either skill gaps or poor job assignment
• The 2017 review documents a 5-hour delay with poor communication, indicating scheduling/coordination problems despite recent reviews showing improved responsiveness
• Most recent reviews (2024, 2023) are positive, suggesting possible improvement over time, but the pattern of failures warrants caution
• No fake review patterns detected; reviews contain specific details, varied language, and include both praise and criticism

This score should be trusted with moderate-to-high confidence for recent service (2023 onward), but customers should be aware that this company has demonstrated significant operational failures in the past, particularly around scheduling reliability and technical problem-solving consistency. The company appears to have improved recently, but the historical pattern suggests risk.

Anderson Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across a very large review base spanning many years and what appears to be multiple locations or franchises operating under the same name. Professionalism is the most frequently praised dimension, with dozens of reviewers citing punctuality, courteous technicians, clear communication, and clean workmanship. Project completion scores are solid but are meaningfully dragged down by a recurring pattern of no-shows, abandoned jobs, and at least one case of faulty workmanship requiring a third-party fix — these negative signals are explicit and credible. Pricing receives mixed signals: many reviewers praise fair or below-market rates, while a notable cluster of negative reviews specifically cite hidden charges, misquoted prices, and billing for invoice-writing time, reducing confidence in consistent pricing transparency. Experience scores are generally high, with many reviewers praising diagnostic accuracy and problem-solving, though a handful of reviews describe technicians who failed to identify root causes or created new problems, preventing a higher score.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews reference a very large number of different named technicians (Sam, Neil, Chris, Greg, Mark, Andrew, Justin, Francisco, Richard, Carson, Andre, Jimmy, James, Norbert, Caleb, Ryan, Wes, Dale, Zane, Pat, Craig, Gilbert, Bill, Tim, Tony, and others) across dates spanning 2004–2025. This strongly suggests these reviews aggregate multiple distinct Anderson Plumbing businesses in different cities/states rather than a single contractor. Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may not reflect any one business accurately.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — UNDATED REVIEWS: Approximately 20+ reviews have no date (Date: None). Several of these are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Great work and great price!', 'I highly Recommend them and will definitely be using them again.', 'These gentlemen were the absolute best.'). These undated reviews lack specifics and may inflate positive sentiment. Confidence in undated reviews is reduced.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with dates fall between 2020 and 2025, with a meaningful tail going back to 2004. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) may not reflect current service quality and have been weighted less heavily in scoring.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY FLAG: Multiple explicit negative reviews describe hidden charges, billing for travel/invoice time, misquoted prices, and charges significantly above initial estimates. Two reviews describe being charged $400+ more than quoted without authorization. This creates a meaningful downward pressure on the pricing score despite many positive pricing mentions.
• PROJECT COMPLETION NEGATIVES: At least 6 reviews describe explicit no-shows or abandoned work (2010, 2016, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024). One review describes faulty installation of a p-trap that failed twice and was installed backwards. One review describes a PRV installation that broke and was never remedied. These are serious completion failures that materially reduce the project completion score.
• WORKMANSHIP NEGATIVES: At least 3 reviews describe technicians who failed to diagnose the correct problem, with a subsequent plumber identifying the real issue. One review describes a technician who created a new leak while fixing another. These reduce the experience score from what would otherwise be very high.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 20 reviews contain no text, only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed. Several blank 1-star and 2-star reviews suggest dissatisfied customers who did not elaborate.

This WW Score is based on a very large review corpus (296 reviews) with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, giving the score strong statistical weight; however, reliability is meaningfully reduced by the strong likelihood that these reviews represent multiple distinct businesses operating under the Anderson Plumbing name across different cities and states, by a recurring pattern of no-show and pricing complaints that are explicit and credible, and by a cluster of undated generic reviews that may artificially inflate positive sentiment.

Dan demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism across most dimensions, with consistently positive feedback on work quality, communication, and fair pricing. However, a significant pattern of no-shows, ghosting, and responsiveness failures emerges across multiple reviews spanning 2007–2018, which materially impacts the project completion score. While recent reviews (2019–2025) show improved reliability, the historical pattern of broken commitments and missed appointments creates legitimate concern about consistency. The WW Score of 78.2 reflects strong capabilities offset by documented follow-through issues.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document no-shows and ghosting (1.0 ratings on 2007-04-03, 2007-07-12, 2009-03-17, 2016-12-05, 2018-05-23, 2018-12-03). This pattern spans over a decade and directly contradicts claims of 100% responsiveness.
• One detailed 1.0 star review (2022-03-10) documents serious electrical work errors requiring expensive professional remediation. Reviewer paid $600+ for faulty work that took 8 hours to troubleshoot but was fixed by a licensed electrician in 15 minutes. This raises questions about technical competency in specialized areas.
• Recency bias noted: Most negative reviews (no-shows, ghosting) are from 2007–2018. Recent reviews (2019–2025) are predominantly 5-star with no documented issues. This suggests either improved performance or potential selection bias in recent reviews.
• One review (2018-12-21) explicitly acknowledges Dan 'books two weeks out,' suggesting capacity constraints that may correlate with earlier responsiveness failures.
• Review from 2022-03-10 explicitly recommends verifying licensing before hiring, indicating unlicensed work on electrical systems.
• Two reviews with 'unknown' text content (2015-10-21, 2015-03-11) cannot be validated but are counted as 5-star ratings.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with MODERATE-to-HIGH confidence for recent work (2019+) but with CAUTION regarding historical reliability. The strong technical scores are undermined by documented patterns of no-shows and at least one serious quality failure in electrical work. Prospective customers should verify licensing, confirm appointment details in writing, and consider the 10+ year history of responsiveness issues before committing to larger projects.

JC Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently praised punctuality, politeness, and responsiveness across 89 mentions. Project completion shows solid performance (75.5/100) but is tempered by multiple documented instances of incomplete work, callbacks required, and follow-through failures. Experience/workmanship is well-regarded (80.0/100) with skilled technicians, though some reviews cite quality issues and shortcuts. Pricing receives a moderate score (74.0/100) with complaints about unexpected charges, high minimums, and payment method inflexibility, though many reviews praise fair pricing. The overall WW Score of 76.8 reflects a contractor with reliable responsiveness and professional demeanor but meaningful concerns about job completion reliability and pricing transparency.

• CRITICAL: Multiple severe negative reviews document incomplete work, including sewage line replacement left partially unfinished (2017), water heater installation issues (2019), and pipe replacement that only covered visible sections (2020). These are not minor complaints but substantive project failures.
• PATTERN: At least 8 reviews explicitly mention communication/follow-up failures: no-shows without notice, failure to return calls, broken promises to schedule callbacks, and unresponsiveness after payment received.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews cite unexpected charges, payment method restrictions (cash-only demands), weekend surcharges not disclosed upfront, and charges perceived as excessive for time spent. At least 6 reviews specifically flag pricing issues.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Reviews span from 5-star praise to 1-star condemnation for similar services, suggesting highly variable workmanship or crew quality. Some reviews note work had to be redone or was done improperly on first visit.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (2024-2025) are predominantly 5-star with generic praise. Older reviews (2006-2019) contain more detailed negative accounts of serious failures. This temporal pattern warrants caution.
• FAKE REVIEW INDICATORS: Multiple empty reviews with only 5-star ratings (dates 2023-06-10, 2022-06-10, 2021-06-10) suggest possible review manipulation. Several 5-star reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('quick response,' 'professional,' 'reasonable price') without specifics.
• SERIOUS INCIDENTS: One review documents employee theft of firearm from customer property (2018). Another describes gas line damage and lack of disclosure (2017). These represent liability and safety concerns beyond normal service quality.
• PAYMENT DISPUTES: Multiple reviews cite aggressive payment collection tactics, payment method restrictions not disclosed upfront, and disputes over charges for parts or labor.
• OWNER COMMUNICATION: Several reviews specifically criticize owner 'Jason' or 'JC' for rudeness, defensiveness, and poor phone etiquette. This suggests leadership/culture issues affecting service consistency.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While the score reflects genuinely strong professionalism and responsiveness metrics, it masks serious underlying issues with project completion reliability, pricing transparency, and follow-through that emerge clearly in detailed negative reviews. The contractor excels at initial response and customer interaction but has documented failures in completing complex jobs properly and honoring commitments. Customers should expect responsive service but should verify all work meets code, get pricing in writing with no hidden fees, and establish clear follow-up protocols before hiring.

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.