Find Nearby Plumbers In Greenville, South Carolina

Plumbing Heroes presents a deeply divided record across a large review set. Positive reviewers consistently praise Ulises and other technicians for friendliness, reasonable pricing, and technical competence — with multiple reviewers noting they saved significant money compared to competitor quotes. However, a substantial and credible body of negative reviews documents a recurring pattern of no-shows, broken promises, failure to honor warranties, non-delivery of promised documentation (invoices, camera inspection reports), and in several cases allegations of unlicensed work, fraudulent billing, and abandoned jobs after partial payment. The no-show and ghosting complaints span from 2018 through 2025, indicating this is not an isolated or historical issue but a persistent operational failure. Pricing scores are tempered by multiple accounts of bait-and-switch tactics, undisclosed charges, and charges for services not rendered. Project completion scores are severely penalized by numerous explicit accounts of unfinished work, warranty abandonment, and jobs made worse.

• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: A cluster of 5-star reviews share the exact same date (2024-06-09) with generic, brief, and non-specific praise. Multiple reviews dated 2022-06-10 and 2023-06-10 also cluster suspiciously. Several of these contain no detail whatsoever (blank text with a 5-star rating). This pattern is consistent with review manipulation and reduces confidence in the positive review pool.
• UNLICENSED CONTRACTOR ALLEGATION: Multiple independent reviewers (2021, 2024) explicitly state they checked the California State Licensing Bureau and could not find a valid license for this contractor. One reviewer (2024) states the company refused to provide a license number or proof of bonding/insurance.
• FRAUD AND FINANCIAL MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS: One reviewer (2024) reports a $1,500 charge for a hydrojet that did not work, followed by a fraudulent $9,000 invoice sent to intimidate an elderly customer. Another reviewer (2019) reports $2,000 taken for an unfinished job. Another reports $3,800 in remediation costs after a botched water heater install. These are serious allegations.
• RECURRING NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 8 separate reviews across multiple years (2018–2025) explicitly describe confirmed appointments where the contractor failed to appear, did not call, and became unreachable. This is a systemic reliability failure, not isolated incidents.
• WARRANTY ABANDONMENT: Multiple reviewers (2019, 2022, 2024) report that written or verbal warranties were not honored, with the contractor going silent after the initial paid job was complete.
• BAIT-AND-SWITCH PRICING: At least 2 reviews describe a pattern of offering a free estimate, beginning diagnostic work, then charging for the diagnostic visit without prior clear disclosure.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED FROM SCORING: 6 reviews contained no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable qualitative data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent review (2025-06-02) is a 1-star complaint describing no-shows and unfinished work, indicating problems persist to the present day.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (72 reviews) with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but confidence in the positive scores is materially reduced by credible and repeated allegations of fraud, unlicensed operation, fake review manipulation, and a persistent multi-year pattern of no-shows and abandoned work — prospective customers should treat this score with significant caution and independently verify licensing before engaging this contractor.

Champion Comfort Experts shows significant inconsistency across service quality and pricing practices. While professionalism scores reasonably well (72) with multiple mentions of punctuality, courtesy, and respectful technicians, this is heavily undermined by severe pricing concerns (38) with consistent complaints of overcharging, lack of transparency, and aggressive upselling tactics. Project completion is problematic (58), with multiple reports of delayed callbacks, unresolved issues, warranty disputes, and poor follow-through on customer concerns. Experience/workmanship is moderate (75), with some positive technical feedback offset by installation defects and miscommunication about system limitations. The company demonstrates a pattern of strong initial impressions followed by disappointing execution and customer service failures.

• CRITICAL: Systematic pricing complaints across 10 reviews spanning 2015-2024, including allegations of overcharging for simple tasks ($400 for vent installation with $50 parts; $250 for thermostat installation; $200+ for diagnostics), lack of upfront pricing transparency, and aggressive upselling
• CRITICAL: Multiple reports of poor follow-up and unresponsiveness—customers report calling 5-6 times for basic information, month-long delays for appointments, technician no-shows, and owner non-responsiveness to complaints and refund requests
• CRITICAL: Warranty and accountability issues—customers report being charged dispatch/service fees despite warranty coverage, installation defects requiring replacement, and conflicting information from different technicians
• Pattern of initial positive service followed by deterioration—several reviews note good first impressions but subsequent poor experiences, suggesting inconsistent quality control
• Recency concern: Most negative reviews are from 2017-2024, with recent reviews (2024, 2023) showing both extreme satisfaction and extreme dissatisfaction, indicating ongoing operational inconsistency
• Two 5-star reviews from 2024 and 2023 are detailed and specific (mentioning technician names, specific services, timeline details), suggesting authenticity; however, they are heavily outweighed by detailed negative reviews with specific dollar amounts and documented grievances

This WW Score of 54.8 should be treated with caution but is directionally accurate—the company demonstrates competent technicians and punctuality but is severely compromised by predatory pricing practices, poor communication, and weak follow-through on customer issues. The score reflects a business that may perform adequately on initial service delivery but fails significantly on transparency, fairness, and accountability. Customers should expect professional initial contact but should be prepared for pricing disputes and difficulty obtaining refunds or corrections.

This company shows significant inconsistency across reviews. While some customers praise responsiveness, punctuality, and technical knowledge, a detailed 1-star review documents serious failures in project completion, follow-through on warranty work, and professionalism. The owner's alleged refusal to apologize or take responsibility for installation defects (improper thermostat setup, missing concrete pad, cosmetic damage) directly contradicts positive feedback from other customers. The low project completion score reflects incomplete work, delayed callbacks, and failure to honor warranty obligations. Pricing concerns are noted but limited in mention count.

• CRITICAL: One detailed negative review (2021-04-08) describes systematic failures in project completion, warranty service, and professionalism that directly contradict positive reviews. This suggests inconsistent service quality or potential service model issues.
• The negative review includes specific names (John Barry Chisholm, Dale Kemp), dates, and technical details (thermostat installation error, missing concrete pad, warping), lending credibility to the complaint rather than suggesting it is fabricated.
• Positive reviews lack specificity about actual work quality and are relatively generic in praise, while the negative review is highly detailed and specific about failures.
• All reviews are from 2021 (oldest data available). No recent reviews provided to assess current performance or whether issues have been addressed.
• The company appears to operate in both plumbing and HVAC services based on reviews, which may indicate service quality variability across disciplines.

This score should be treated with caution. While based on 4 reviews, the stark contradiction between positive and negative feedback—particularly the detailed documentation of project completion failures and unprofessional conduct in the 1-star review—suggests either significant inconsistency in service delivery or potential issues with accountability. The absence of recent reviews (all from 2021) prevents assessment of whether problems have been corrected. A score of 54.3 reflects serious concerns that warrant independent verification before engaging this contractor.

This contractor exhibits a stark bifurcation in performance. Older reviews (2010–2015) consistently praise professionalism, fair pricing, punctuality, and skilled workmanship, with Duane Duckett receiving high marks across all dimensions. However, recent reviews (2022–2024) reveal severe deterioration: the owner is described as rude, confrontational, and threatening; technicians fail to diagnose problems correctly, perform unnecessary repairs, and abandon incomplete work; and the owner has allegedly threatened legal action against customers who leave negative reviews. The BBB rating of F and licensing concerns corroborate customer complaints. The dramatic shift suggests either a change in ownership/management or a fundamental breakdown in business practices. Pricing remains competitive based on historical data, but this is overshadowed by professionalism failures and incomplete project delivery in recent cases.

• CRITICAL: Temporal bifurcation detected. Pre-2016 reviews (65 reviews) are uniformly 5-star with detailed, specific praise. Post-2022 reviews (5 reviews) are uniformly 1-star with detailed, specific complaints. This pattern is highly unusual and suggests either a genuine operational collapse or potential review manipulation.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK (older reviews): Multiple 5-star reviews from 2015–2016 contain only 'unknown' text or single-word praise ('A+++'), which lack specificity and may indicate placeholder or auto-generated content. However, the detailed reviews from 2010–2015 appear authentic with specific job descriptions and named individuals (Duane, Patrick).
• RECENT REVIEWS ARE CREDIBLE: The two detailed 1-star reviews from 2024 and 2023 are nearly identical in structure and content, suggesting they may be from the same customer or household reporting the same incident twice. However, the specificity (technician name 'William,' Square transaction notes, BBB F rating, LLR licensing issues, threat of litigation) is verifiable and corroborates external sources (BBB link provided).
• LEGAL/REPUTATIONAL RISK: Owner allegedly threatened to sue customers for posting negative reviews and demanded removal of transaction notes as condition for service. This is a serious red flag for business conduct and may violate consumer protection laws.
• BBB ACCREDITATION FRAUD: Reviews cite that company uses BBB Accredited Business Logo despite having F rating and not being accredited. This is a separate compliance violation.
• RECENCY BIAS: 5 recent reviews (2022–2024) show catastrophic failure; 65 older reviews (2010–2015) show excellence. The company appears to have undergone a dramatic change. Recent reviews should be weighted heavily as they reflect current operations.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. The extreme temporal divergence between historical and recent reviews, combined with corroborating external evidence (BBB F rating, licensing complaints, legal threats), suggests the company's current operations are fundamentally different from its historical performance. The score of 52.3 reflects a weighted average that is heavily dragged down by recent failures in professionalism and project completion, but the presence of 65 older positive reviews inflates the overall score artificially. If evaluating for current service, recent reviews (2022–2024) are far more predictive than historical data; a score based only on recent reviews would be approximately 15–25. Recommend requesting recent customer references and verifying current licensing status before engaging this contractor.

Wade's Plumbing demonstrates severe and consistent deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is critically weak, with overwhelming evidence of no-shows, failure to return calls/texts, missed appointments, and poor communication—issues cited in 52 reviews. Project completion is equally problematic, with numerous reports of incomplete work, abandoned jobs, multiple failed visits, and failure to follow through on promised callbacks. Pricing concerns emerge in 18 reviews, including allegations of overcharging, unnecessary upsells, scams, and inflated quotes. Experience shows mixed results (48 mentions), with some positive technical feedback offset by serious quality failures, code violations, and damage caused during installation. The company's reputation has deteriorated significantly over time, with recent reviews (2024) showing the same critical failures as older reviews (2020–2022).

• CRITICAL: Fake review pattern detected. Multiple 5-star reviews from 2022-06-10 and 2018-06-11 with identical or near-identical generic praise ('Great plumber', 'The nicest people', empty text fields) clustered on same dates. These appear to be artificially generated to inflate ratings. One reviewer explicitly flagged this: 'they have three five star reviews. Two from California residents and 1 from New Jersey. It's a plumber serving just this area of South Carolina! How desperate can a company be to pay for fake reviews?'
• CRITICAL: Possible identity confusion. Reviews mention both 'Wade's Plumbing' and 'Staggs Plumbing' interchangeably, with some positive Staggs reviews appearing in Wade's dataset. This may indicate two separate entities or a name change. Staggs reviews (consistently 5-star, older dates 2017-2022) show dramatically different quality than Wade's reviews. Analysis treats all as single entity per dataset provided, but this inconsistency warrants clarification.
• CRITICAL: Systematic non-responsiveness. 31+ reviews explicitly mention failure to return calls, texts, or voicemails. This is the single most damaging pattern and suggests systemic operational failure, not isolated incidents.
• CRITICAL: No-show and late arrival epidemic. 25+ reviews document no-shows, 4-5 hour late arrivals without notification, and broken appointment promises. This pattern is consistent across 2020-2024.
• CRITICAL: Incomplete work and abandonment. 20+ reviews report jobs left unfinished, parts never delivered, multiple failed visits for same issue, and technicians ghosting after initial assessment.
• CRITICAL: Quality and safety failures. Multiple reviews document code violations, fire hazards (cut ground prongs, unsecured gas regulators), damaged property (holes in ceiling, wall damage), and work that caused more problems than it solved.
• CRITICAL: Alleged theft and fraud. One review alleges $80 cash missing during service; multiple reviews allege overcharging for work not performed, unnecessary upsells, and false claims of completed work to insurance.
• RECENCY: Most damaging reviews are from 2024 (6 reviews) and 2022-2023 (20+ reviews), indicating problems are ongoing and not historical. Recent reviews show identical complaints to older ones.
• CONFIDENCE IMPACT: Fake review cluster reduces overall confidence slightly, but HIGH confidence is maintained because negative reviews vastly outnumber positive ones (60+ negative vs. 20+ positive) and negative reviews are detailed, specific, and consistent across years.

This WW Score of 42.3 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong warning signal. The score is based on 80 reviews with consistent, specific, and corroborated complaints spanning 2012–2024. The company exhibits systemic failures in communication, reliability, and work quality. While fake positive reviews are present, they do not materially affect the score because negative reviews are so numerous and detailed. Customers should avoid this contractor.

Bill Harlow's performance is highly inconsistent across the three reviews analyzed. Two recent positive reviews (2023, 2020) praise his professionalism, fair pricing, technical knowledge, and responsiveness. However, a critical 1-star review from October 2024 documents a severe project failure where improper tub sealing caused water damage and flooding to walls. This recent failure significantly undermines confidence in project completion quality. The WW Score of 56.7 reflects the serious impact of the documented failure, despite positive feedback on other dimensions.

• CRITICAL: Most recent review (2024-10-14) documents catastrophic project failure with water damage and flooding — this is a major red flag for project completion reliability
• Two positive reviews are dated 2023 and 2020, suggesting potential recency bias in favor of older testimonials
• Only 3 total reviews limits statistical confidence in any dimension
• Positive reviews contain some generic praise language ('AMAZING JOB', 'ONLY plumber I'd hire') but do include specific details (PRV replacement, union design, contractor recommendations), so not flagged as fake
• Significant quality variance between reviews suggests inconsistent workmanship or service delivery

This score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size (3 reviews) and the presence of a recent catastrophic failure that contradicts earlier positive feedback. The WW Score of 56.7 is driven primarily by the documented flooding incident and should not be considered reliable for decision-making without additional recent reviews.