Find Nearby Plumbers In Rock Hill, South Carolina

Panthers Plumbing has a deeply troubled review profile across all four dimensions. Professionalism is severely damaged by repeated no-call/no-show incidents, an instance of cursing a customer at their workplace, and chronic unresponsiveness — with only one positive reviewer praising responsiveness. Project completion is a critical failure point: multiple reviews describe abandoned jobs, work left incomplete, deposits taken with no work performed, and a customer who had to hire a second plumber to fix Panthers' mistakes. On pricing, the pattern of requesting large upfront deposits followed by non-performance or non-refund is a serious red flag that goes beyond mere pricing concerns into potential fraud. Experience scores marginally higher due to one reviewer praising competent installation work, but this is heavily offset by documented code violations (copper piping on a gas line), improper valve installation, and a plumber who abandoned a job because he did not know how to repair a shower knob.

• SERIOUS PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews describe taking large upfront deposits ($900–$2200) and then failing to complete work or refund money — this is a recurring and consistent pattern suggesting systemic misconduct.
• CODE VIOLATION DOCUMENTED: One reviewer explicitly states Paul used copper piping on a gas tankless water heater, which is not to code, and did not obtain required inspection — a safety and legal concern.
• WORKMANSHIP DEFECT: One reviewer found both hot and cold shutoff valves installed upside down on a Rinnai tankless water heater, discovered two years after installation.
• ABANDONED WORK: At least two reviews describe Paul completely abandoning jobs mid-project and becoming unreachable after partial or full payment was received.
• NO-CALL/NO-SHOW: One reviewer documents four separate no-call/no-show incidents over five weeks before Paul finally appeared, with no apology offered.
• RECENCY NOTE: The two most recent reviews (2022 and 2023) are both negative, suggesting problems have persisted or worsened over time. The only positive reviews are from 2019–2020 and are now 4–5+ years old.
• REVIEW SPREAD: Only 2 of 7 reviews are positive (5-star), and both positive reviews are older. The 5 negative reviews span multiple years and describe distinct, specific incidents — this pattern does not suggest fake reviews but does suggest a genuinely poor service record.
• CUSTOMER SAFETY RISK: The combination of code violations, gas line work, and improper installations represents a potential safety hazard to homeowners.

This WW Score is based on 7 reviews with strong cross-dimensional coverage and HIGH confidence on all scored dimensions; the score of 28.4 should be treated as a reliable and conservative reflection of a contractor with serious, documented, and recurring issues across professionalism, project completion, pricing integrity, and workmanship quality.

The overwhelming majority of recent reviews (5 out of 7, all from 2023–2024) describe severe failures across nearly every dimension, including no-shows, extreme lateness, hostile and inappropriate text messages after cancellations, and a request for money via Cash App before work began. The one completed job (2024) resulted in mismatched parts, multiple pipe colors, wrong materials, and a 1-day job stretching to 5 days — indicating poor workmanship and poor project execution. The two positive reviews are from 2019 and 2020 and reference a different named individual (Steve, Pat Anderson), raising questions about whether they describe the same operator being reviewed in the negative posts. Pricing appears deceptively low as a hook, with follow-through and quality being deeply problematic.

• RECENCY WARNING: The two positive reviews are from 2019 and 2020 — over 4 years old. All 5 negative reviews are from 2023–2024, suggesting a significant and recent decline in service quality.
• POSSIBLE DIFFERENT OPERATOR: Positive reviews reference 'Steve' and 'Pat Anderson and his team,' while negative reviews reference 'Don' and 'Don Anderson.' These may describe different individuals operating under the same or similar business name, making the positive reviews potentially irrelevant to the current operator.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews indicate a low-ball quote is used to secure the job, followed by non-completion, no-shows, or poor quality work — suggesting a bait-and-switch dynamic.
• FINANCIAL MISCONDUCT FLAG: One reviewer reports the contractor requested $20 via Cash App before arriving, citing a forgotten wallet. This is a red flag for consumer fraud.
• HARASSMENT FLAG: Multiple reviewers independently report receiving inappropriate or hostile text messages after canceling or complaining. This is a serious professionalism and safety concern.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION (POSITIVE REVIEWS): The two 5-star reviews are generic in praise, reference different named individuals than the negative reviews, and are significantly older. They may not reflect the current business or operator and should be weighted minimally.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to the small review pool, a stark split between very old positive reviews and very recent negative ones, possible operator identity discrepancies, and multiple serious misconduct flags — the score of 18.9 should be treated as a strong warning signal rather than a precise measurement.

Only 2 of 6 reviews contain substantive information; 4 reviews are either empty, single punctuation marks, or generic statements with no detail. The two usable reviews mention punctuality (10 minutes early), fair pricing, good workmanship, and long-term customer relationship. However, with fewer than 3 reviews containing actionable data and all reviews older than 10 years (2012–2014), this dataset is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score.

• Four of six reviews contain no usable data: two are marked 'unknown', one is a single period, and one is a single sentence with no specifics
• All reviews are 10+ years old (2012–2014); no recent performance data available
• Extremely limited sample size with substantive detail (n=2); cannot establish reliable patterns
• Generic praise language ('Everything went fine', 'It went very well') without specific examples limits confidence

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient usable data (fewer than 3 substantive reviews) and extreme age of all reviews; any scoring would be speculative and should not be trusted for decision-making.

This contractor exhibits severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Three of four reviews (75%) are 1-star ratings documenting critical failures in communication, punctuality, follow-through, and workmanship quality. Customers report non-appearance at scheduled appointments, unresponsiveness to calls, failure to provide receipts, and substandard installation work resulting in property damage. The single 5-star review from 2019 is generic and lacks specificity, making it difficult to weigh against detailed negative accounts. The pattern of complaints is consistent and specific rather than vague, suggesting authentic customer experiences rather than fabricated reviews.

• CRITICAL: Three of four reviews are 1-star ratings with detailed, specific complaints about the same contractor (Frank). This is not a balanced dataset.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are from 2020-2022 (3-4 years old). Only one review is from 2019. No recent reviews available to assess if issues have been corrected.
• SUSPICIOUS POSITIVE REVIEW: The single 5-star review (2019) is extremely generic ('Fantastic full service assistance...quick and efficient') with no specific details, contrasting sharply with the detailed negative reviews. This may be a fake or unverified review.
• PATTERN ALERT: All three negative reviews mention the same individual (Frank/owner) and describe consistent behavioral patterns: poor communication, no-shows, unresponsiveness, and failure to provide documentation. This consistency suggests systemic business practice issues rather than isolated incidents.
• LEGAL/COMPLIANCE ISSUES: Reviews mention BBB complaints, home warranty company reports, and property damage claims. This suggests potential regulatory or legal exposure.

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume (only 4 reviews), but the available data strongly suggests this contractor should be avoided; three detailed negative reviews from 2020-2022 document serious failures in professionalism, project completion, and workmanship, while the single positive review lacks credibility and specificity.

This contractor shows severe and consistent problems across multiple dimensions. Three of four reviews are highly negative (1-star and 2-star ratings from 2016-2022), citing critical failures in project completion (wrong work performed, no-shows), professionalism (missed appointments, no communication), and pricing (excessive charges not justified by time). Only one positive review from 2014 mentions quick response and good work, but it is isolated and dated. The pattern of explicit complaints about incomplete/incorrect work, broken commitments, and unfair pricing substantially outweighs the single positive mention. With only 4 reviews total and 3 being severely negative, confidence in any positive assessment is extremely limited.

• CRITICAL: Three of four reviews are 1-2 star ratings describing serious service failures (no-shows, wrong work performed, broken water line caused by contractor)
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2016-2022; only one positive review from 2014 (9+ years old)
• PATTERN OF FAILURE: Multiple reviews cite lack of communication, missed appointments, and work not matching customer requests
• PRICING COMPLAINT: 2016 review explicitly states charges are excessive and do not correlate with time worked ('highway robbery')
• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews total; cannot reliably calculate WW Score per protocol

This assessment should be treated with extreme caution due to very small sample size (4 reviews), but the consistency of severe negative feedback across professionalism and project completion dimensions suggests genuine service quality issues rather than isolated incidents.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. Both reviews are from 2020 (3+ years old) and contain only positive feedback with limited specificity about actual work outcomes. While professionalism and pricing are mentioned favorably in both reviews, project completion details are absent, and experience is mentioned in only one review. The small sample size and age of reviews prevent reliable scoring.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring
• Both reviews are from 2020 (3+ years old) — recency is a concern; no recent data available
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback — limited critical perspective
• Project completion dimension has zero mentions — cannot assess on-time delivery, follow-through, or callbacks
• Review language is somewhat flowery and generic in places (e.g., 'urban angel,' 'defied gravity') — limited concrete detail about actual work quality or process

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (only 2 reviews, minimum 3 required) and significant recency concerns (all reviews from 2020). Any score derived would be speculative and should not be trusted for decision-making.