Find Nearby Plumbers In North Charleston, South Carolina

This contractor's review history reveals a deeply split profile: a cluster of strong, positive reviews from 2013–2017 and 2024 describing punctual, professional, fairly priced work, contrasted sharply with a wave of serious negative reviews primarily from 2018–2019 involving property damage, abandoned jobs, unresponsive communication, and refusal to accept responsibility for mistakes. The project completion dimension is the most heavily penalized, as multiple reviews describe cracked pipes, leaking faucets, flooded homes, incomplete installs, and workers fleeing the scene rather than addressing damage they caused. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by documented instances of unanswered phones, missed appointment windows, dishonest explanations, and in one case an owner reportedly cursing out a customer. Pricing and experience scores are modestly positive due to older reviews praising fair rates and skilled workmanship, but these are undermined by multiple recent accounts of substandard technical execution requiring third-party remediation.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of negative reviews are concentrated in 2018–2019 and describe a pattern of serious, repeated failures including property damage and abandonment of work. These are more recent than most positive reviews (2013–2017) and should be weighted more heavily.
• PATTERN FLAG: Several 2018 reviews describe nearly identical incidents — cracked pipes during installation, denial of responsibility, and workers leaving the scene. This pattern suggests a systemic operational failure during that period, not isolated incidents.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION (LOW-LEVEL): The 2022 review from someone claiming to refer customers to this company is vague, contains no specifics, and reads as a reputation-defense review. It cannot be verified and should be treated with caution.
• TWO 'UNKNOWN' REVIEWS with 5-star ratings and no text were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• THIRD-PARTY CONTEXT: Many negative reviews involve Lowe's as the contracting intermediary. While some blame may be shared with Lowe's, the contractor's own communication failures, workmanship defects, and refusal to remedy damage are independently documented.
• SPLIT IDENTITY CONCERN: Some reviews reference 'Serge' as the technician and others reference 'Bill Milligan' or 'Danny and Casey.' It is unclear whether this is one unified business or whether quality varies significantly by technician or time period.

This WW Score is based on 24 reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH data confidence due to mention volume, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the severe and well-documented failures concentrated in 2018–2019, which represent the most operationally significant period in the review history.

A-American Plumbing scores extremely poorly across all four dimensions, driven by an overwhelming volume of negative reviews spanning nearly a decade. Professionalism is the most-cited concern, with repeated complaints about a rude office receptionist, technicians arriving late or not at all, no-call no-shows, and in one case a technician yelling at a customer. Project completion is critically deficient — multiple reviewers describe jobs left unfinished, repairs that failed shortly after completion, technicians lacking proper tools or parts, and complete abandonment of work orders without follow-up. On the experience dimension, reviewers describe technicians admitting limited knowledge, misdiagnosing problems, performing unnecessary disassembly, and producing repairs that required a second plumber to correct. Pricing concerns are significant, with multiple accounts of inflated estimates, charges for work not performed, and attempts to upsell repairs that were either unnecessary or already covered under warranty. The handful of positive reviews (roughly 6 out of 35) describe specific technicians — Jerry, Jeff, Cody on rare occasions, and Richard in one instance — performing well, but these are clearly exceptions rather than the rule.

• STRONG NEGATIVE PATTERN: Approximately 29 of 35 reviews are 1-star. This is an unusually high concentration of negative feedback and is treated as genuine signal, not noise.
• AHS CONFOUND: The majority of reviews involve American Home Shield warranty assignments. Some negative experiences may be partially attributable to AHS coverage disputes rather than solely to A-American Plumbing. However, complaints about technician conduct, workmanship, and office rudeness are clearly attributable to the company itself.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2010 to 2021. The most recent reviews (2019–2021) continue to reflect the same negative patterns seen in older reviews, suggesting no meaningful improvement over time. No reviews are from 2022 or later, so current performance cannot be assessed.
• NAMED TECHNICIAN VARIANCE: Multiple reviews name specific technicians (Jerry, Jeff, Cody, Richard). Jerry and Jeff receive positive mentions; Cody and Richard receive predominantly negative mentions. This suggests inconsistent quality across staff rather than uniform performance.
• FAKE REVIEW CHECK: No fake review patterns detected. Positive reviews are specific, name technicians, and describe concrete scenarios. Negative reviews are highly detailed with unique circumstances. The review set appears authentic.
• OWNER CONDUCT: At least two reviews specifically name Richard as the company owner and describe him engaging in deceptive billing practices, yelling at customers, and misrepresenting AHS coverage — this is a significant reputational and ethical flag.

This WW Score of 28.4 is based on 35 reviews with strong mention counts across all four dimensions and carries HIGH confidence — the score reliably reflects a contractor with serious, consistent, and long-standing deficiencies in professionalism, workmanship, pricing transparency, and job completion.

The overwhelming majority of reviews describe deeply negative experiences with Acme Plumbing across all four dimensions. Professionalism is severely damaged by repeated no-shows, broken appointments, screaming at a prospective customer, threatening legal action, and failing to return calls — with only 3 of 12 reviews offering positive professionalism remarks. Project completion is the weakest area: multiple reviewers explicitly describe unfinished work, recurring leaks after payment, abandoned jobs, and work that had to be redone by other contractors. Experience scores are dragged down by accounts of misdiagnosis, causing electrical damage, inability to locate a gas leak, and a fireplace repair that required a competitor to resolve — though a small number of positive reviews do describe competent workmanship. Pricing receives a slightly higher score only because a few positive reviews mention fair quotes and value, but negative reviews describe paying for work that was never completed or had to be redone at additional cost. The three positive reviews (2009, 2011, 2012) are significantly older than the cluster of negative reviews and carry reduced weight under recency rules.

• RECENCY WARNING: All positive reviews date from 2009–2012. All negative reviews date from 2011–2015. The trend is clearly deteriorating over time, with no positive reviews in the most recent years of the dataset. Recent performance appears significantly worse than early performance.
• PATTERN FLAG: The three positive reviews are notably more detailed and specific than typical fake reviews, so fabrication is not strongly suspected — however, they are all more than 10 years old and should be weighted minimally.
• SERIOUS CONDUCT FLAG: Multiple reviews describe the owner (Jamy/Jamey Cote) personally screaming at a customer, threatening small claims court and the sheriff's office, abandoning jobs mid-service, and bad-mouthing customers to third parties. These are not isolated incidents.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE FLAG: One review credibly describes the contractor causing electrical damage (blowing out a 55-inch TV and receiver) and only partially compensating the customer after repeated follow-up.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: At least 5 separate reviews describe paying for work that was not completed or that failed immediately after the contractor left, which is a systemic project completion failure.

This WW Score is based on 12 reviews spanning 2009–2015 with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but the strong recency skew toward negative reviews and the consistent, specific, multi-reviewer pattern of complaints makes the low score highly credible and reliable — this contractor should be approached with serious caution.

Lucas Septic demonstrates severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. All three reviews document critical failures in professionalism, including non-responsive communication, broken promises, and repeated no-shows despite scheduled appointments. Project completion is severely compromised, with septic systems failing within 1–3 years and the contractor refusing to honor warranty obligations or callbacks. Pricing concerns are evident in two reviews citing substantial upfront costs ($9,000+) for systems that failed prematurely. Technical experience is questionable given the systemic failures and inadequate troubleshooting (e.g., suggesting topsoil as a solution that lasted only 6–8 months). The contractor's unwillingness to engage with customers or address failures is the dominant pattern across all reviews.

• CRITICAL: All three reviews are 1-star ratings with consistent, specific complaints about the same contractor behavior (non-responsiveness, no-shows, system failures). This is NOT a fake review pattern; rather, it reflects genuine, corroborated customer dissatisfaction.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Reviews span 2021–2023 (oldest is nearly 2 years old as of analysis date). However, the pattern of complaints is consistent across the entire timeframe, suggesting ongoing systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.
• WARRANTY VIOLATIONS: Multiple reviews reference broken warranty promises and failure to honor service callbacks, indicating potential legal liability for the contractor.
• FINANCIAL IMPACT: Customers report losses of $9,000+ with no remediation, escalating to consideration of small claims court and legal action.

This WW Score of 18.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong indicator of serious contractor deficiency. The score is based on three detailed, corroborated reviews with consistent evidence across all dimensions, and reflects genuine customer harm rather than isolated complaints.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 3 reviews provided, all from 2020–2022 with no recent data. All reviews are uniformly 5-star with generic praise and identical structural patterns (opening compliment, vague positive statements, closing recommendation). No specific details about actual work outcomes, timelines, or measurable service quality. Reviews lack concrete evidence of the four dimensions being evaluated.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: All three reviews are 5-star ratings with suspiciously similar structure and tone. Each follows pattern: compliment → vague praise → recommendation. No specifics about actual problems solved or measurable outcomes.
• RECENCY ISSUE: All reviews are 2+ years old (2020–2022). No recent reviews provided to assess current service quality.
• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews provided. Minimum 5 reviews recommended for reliable scoring.
• LACK OF SPECIFICITY: Reviews contain generic praise ('knows his stuff,' 'great job,' 'fair price') without concrete details about scope, timeline, or actual work completed.
• NO DIMENSION EVIDENCE: Despite positive language, reviews do not explicitly address punctuality, communication responsiveness, pricing transparency, project completion timelines, or technical problem-solving in measurable terms.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (3 reviews), suspected review authenticity issues (uniform 5-star pattern with generic phrasing), and complete absence of recent data. Any score derived from these reviews would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

All three reviews describe catastrophic business failures by Tri Square Construction/Anthony Boling. Customers report non-refundable deposits ($5,000–$5,730), zero work completion, repeated broken promises, false permit claims, and refusal to return funds. Two reviews explicitly mention complaints filed with SC Department of LLR and BBB, with the BBB canceling the company's accreditation. The pattern is consistent across all reviews: money taken, work abandoned, communication dishonest, and legal action initiated. No positive dimensions are evident in any review.

• CRITICAL: All three reviews are 1-star ratings describing identical patterns of fraud: deposit taken, work not started or abandoned, false promises, refund withheld. This is not a quality variance issue—this is systematic non-performance.
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews reference active legal complaints with SC Department of LLR and BBB accreditation cancellation. This suggests regulatory action and documented misconduct.
• CRITICAL: Two reviews explicitly state the contractor claimed to have permits but did not actually file them, indicating deliberate deception.
• CRITICAL: All reviews describe the same owner (Anthony Boling) and company (Tri Square Construction). The consistency and severity of complaints across independent reviewers strongly suggests genuine, documented failures rather than isolated disputes.
• CRITICAL: Customers describe severe emotional and financial distress, including a Vietnam veteran with leukemia. The impact described goes beyond typical service complaints.
• NOTE: While reviews are from mid-2022 (approximately 2 years old), the recency does not diminish the severity. The pattern and regulatory action are the primary concerns.

This score cannot be calculated reliably because the company exhibits systematic fraud patterns rather than quality variance. The WW Score methodology assumes normal business operations with variable performance; this case involves apparent criminal conduct (unrefunded deposits, false permits, abandoned work, regulatory complaints). Customers should not hire this contractor under any circumstances. Recommend consulting legal counsel and filing complaints with relevant state authorities.