Find Nearby Plumbers In North Charleston, South Carolina

Analysis is severely limited by only 2 reviews with conflicting narratives spanning 7 years (2012–2019). The 2012 review praises Bryan Kelly's professionalism, punctuality, experience, and fair pricing, but the 2019 review describes complete service failure: non-responsive callbacks on a water heater purchase and no follow-up over a week. The extreme recency gap and contradictory evidence prevent reliable scoring. With fewer than 3 substantive data points and such polarized outcomes, no WW Score can be calculated responsibly.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed — insufficient for reliable WW Score calculation per Rule 4 (minimum 3 reviews required).
• SEVERE RECENCY ISSUE: 2012 review is 12+ years old; 2019 review is 5+ years old. No recent data (past 12 months) available.
• CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE: 2012 review (5-star) describes excellent professionalism and responsiveness; 2019 review (1-star) describes complete non-responsiveness and abandoned callback. Suggests either significant business decline, inconsistent service, or different service lines (gas vs. water heater sales).
• POSSIBLE BUSINESS CHANGE: 2012 review references 'Bryan Kelly' as sole operator; 2019 review references 'Lowcountry Plumbing and Gas' as entity. May indicate business restructuring or different service quality standards.
• WATER HEATER SALE vs. SERVICE: 2019 complaint involves product purchase (water heater), not installation/repair service. Unclear if callback failure is sales/warranty issue or service department failure.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2), extreme age of data (oldest 12 years, newest 5 years), and directly contradictory evidence suggesting either significant service degradation or inconsistent quality across service lines. Any score derived would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

Only a single review is available, dated July 2013, making it over 11 years old and of very limited reliability. The review indicates the contractor successfully located and resolved a water problem, suggesting baseline competence and problem-solving ability. Pricing is favorable — he charged only for parts when helping a neighbor, which reflects generosity but may not represent standard commercial pricing practices. No detail is provided about communication, punctuality, appearance, or workmanship quality beyond the basic task completion. All dimension scores are conservative due to the single mention and significant age of the review.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The sole review is dated July 3, 2013 — over 11 years old. This data is severely outdated and should not be used to assess current contractor quality.
• The review describes a neighbor-helping scenario rather than a standard paid job, which may not reflect typical professional service behavior or pricing.
• No detail on communication, punctuality, appearance, or workmanship quality — most dimension scores are inferred from minimal context and should be treated with extreme caution.

This WW Score cannot be calculated and should not be trusted for decision-making — it is based on a single, highly outdated review from 2013 with minimal detail across all scoring dimensions.

Only one review is available, which limits the reliability of any scoring. That single review speaks positively to professionalism — the contractor arrived promptly, communicated proactively by asking for a photo before the visit, and accommodated an urgent request despite a full schedule. Project completion is supported by the reviewer's repeated use of the company across multiple jobs since 2020, implying consistent follow-through. Experience is inferred modestly from the contractor's ability to assess the job remotely and complete it efficiently, though no specific technical detail is provided. Pricing was not mentioned at all and cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension has no data.
• Single review from November 2023 is within the past 12 months and carries recency weight, but one data point is insufficient for confident scoring.
• Review is detailed and specific (multiple service visits, concrete scenario described), reducing fake review concern, but a single 5-star review with no counterbalancing data should still be treated with caution.

This score report is based on a single review and should not be considered a reliable representation of the contractor's overall performance — significantly more reviews are needed before the WW Score can be calculated with any meaningful confidence.

This single review is strongly negative across all dimensions. The reviewer explicitly describes rude and dismissive communication from the office manager, indicating very poor professionalism. Pricing is flagged as the most expensive in the area with a lack of transparency — $375 to snake a drain plus a $65 service call fee with no upfront estimate provided. Project completion is questionable as the reviewer immediately hired another plumber for $30 who resolved the issue successfully, implying the Mr. Rooter service either failed or was refused before completion. The reviewer has escalated to legal action, which is a serious indicator of a deeply negative customer experience.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Review is from 2018 — this is over 6 years old and may not reflect current service quality.
• Reviewer mentions legal action against the company, which is a significant red flag.
• No positive reviews provided to balance assessment — all scores are based solely on one highly negative account.
• Scores assigned are conservative given the single-review limitation and should be treated with very low confidence.

This score is based on a single review from 2018 and should not be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's overall quality — additional recent reviews are essential before drawing any meaningful conclusions.

Insufficient data — only 1 review provided. The single review mentions professionalism (professional, clean work) and experience (reliable work), but provides no information on pricing or project completion specifics. The review is generic and lacks concrete details about specific work performed or outcomes. A WW Score cannot be reliably calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.

• Only 1 review analyzed — insufficient for reliable scoring
• Review is generic and lacks specific details about work performed
• Review date is from 2022 (over 2 years old) — recency concern
• No pricing information mentioned
• No project completion details provided

This analysis is unreliable and cannot support a WW Score. A minimum of 3 reviews with substantive detail is required to produce a trustworthy assessment.

Insufficient data — only 1 review provided. This single review contains severe criticism across professionalism (missed appointments, no communication), project completion (incomplete work, created new problems), and experience (poor workmanship requiring remediation). However, a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single review, as it does not represent a statistically meaningful sample.

• Only 1 review analyzed — insufficient for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2013 (over 10 years old) — not recent data
• Single negative review cannot establish contractor pattern or reliability

This analysis is unreliable and should not be used to make contractor decisions. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to calculate a meaningful WW Score.