Find Nearby Plumbers In Spartanburg, South Carolina

Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is severely dragged down by multiple explicit accounts of rude, dismissive, and hostile behavior from the owner — including hanging up on customers, berating a caller, and ignoring callbacks. Positive professionalism mentions exist but are outnumbered and largely come from very old reviews. Pricing drew mixed signals: one reviewer found pricing reasonable while another objected strongly to the non-refundable diagnostic fee structure and inability to supply their own parts. Project completion and experience scores are modestly positive, with a few reviewers noting successful repairs and technical competence with older plumbing systems, but the sample is small and skewed old.

• Two reviews dated 2006-04-27 and 2006-05-03 are written entirely in ALL CAPS with generic, non-specific praise and no job details — these show possible fake review patterns and have been weighted with caution.
• Six of eight reviews are more than 10 years old (pre-2014), and the most recent review is from 2019. This data is significantly outdated and may not reflect current business practices.
• The owner is personally named in multiple negative reviews for direct rudeness and hostility, which is a strong and specific negative signal for professionalism.
• Review volume is very low (8 total), which limits statistical reliability across all dimensions.

This WW Score should be treated with LOW trust due to a very small review pool, heavily outdated data (most reviews are 5–17 years old), and two potentially fake generic positive reviews that inflate the positive signal.

The overwhelming majority of reviews describe severe, repeated failures across every dimension. Project completion is the most critically damaged dimension, with 13 of 14 reviews describing abandoned work, incorrect installations, missing parts, broken promises on return visits, and jobs left in dangerous states such as open gas lines. Professionalism scores are devastated by consistent reports of unresponsive staff, condescending customer service representatives, owners sending hostile emails, technicians arriving late or not at all, and blocking customer phone numbers. Experience scores reflect multiple accounts of incorrect diagnoses, improperly leveled units, unchecked refrigerant levels, dirty refrigerant lines, and failed installations that caused water and structural damage. Pricing concerns include allegations of fraudulent upselling of unnecessary units and components, hidden charges, and failure to honor warranty commitments despite collecting payment. Only three 5-star reviews exist, all from a narrow window in early 2020, which partially offset the score but carry minimal weight against the volume and severity of negative evidence.

• SUSPECTED FAKE OR SOLICITED REVIEWS: The three 5-star reviews (March–June 2020) are notably brief, generic, and clustered in a very short time window. Two of them were posted within one day of each other (March 23–24, 2020) and use nearly identical praise language ('fast and dependable', 'fantastic job'). These reviews lack the specificity and detail present in all negative reviews and may not reflect genuine independent customer experiences.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024) continue to reflect the same patterns of poor service as reviews from 2017–2022, indicating no meaningful improvement over time. The negative pattern spans at least 7 years.
• SAFETY CONCERN FLAGGED: At least one review (July 2021) describes technicians leaving an open, disconnected gas line without informing the homeowner, which represents a serious safety hazard. Another review describes flooding caused by an improperly leveled AC unit causing ceiling damage.
• LEGAL AND REGULATORY COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviewers explicitly state they have filed or intend to file complaints with the BBB, FTC, and South Carolina consumer affairs, and at least one reviewer mentions pursuing legal action.
• DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES ALLEGED: Multiple independent reviewers allege the company sells unnecessary equipment, fabricates repair needs, removes customer-owned parts from homes without disclosure, blocks customer phone numbers selectively, and fails to honor warranty and service agreements after collecting payment.

This WW Score is based on 14 reviews spanning 2017 to 2024 with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, and the score of 22.1 should be considered a reliable and conservative reflection of this contractor's documented performance history.

These reviews are for Gateway, a plumbing supply retailer, not a contractor or plumber. The reviews discuss product selection, pricing, and customer service at a showroom/store level, not field service work, installation, or trade work. Only pricing is explicitly mentioned across multiple reviews (4 mentions), with fair and reasonable pricing noted. No reviews address punctuality, workmanship quality, project completion, or on-site professionalism—the core dimensions for evaluating a contractor or plumber. This dataset is fundamentally mismatched to the WW Score framework.

• CRITICAL: Reviews are for a plumbing supply retailer (Gateway), not a contractor or plumber. WW Score is designed to evaluate trade service providers, not retail businesses.
• No reviews mention on-site work, installation, punctuality, or project completion—essential dimensions for contractor evaluation.
• Reviews span 2008–2015 (9+ years old); no recent data available.
• Only pricing dimension has sufficient explicit mentions; other dimensions cannot be scored due to absence of relevant evidence.
• One negative review (2015) about return policy is unrelated to contractor services.

This WW Score cannot be reliably calculated because the reviews evaluate a retail supplier, not a contractor or plumber, and lack evidence on the core dimensions of professionalism, project completion, and experience that define trade service quality.

This contractor presents a highly contradictory profile with severe red flags that prevent reliable scoring. Two reviews (2021 and 2024-03) praise professionalism, timeliness, and expertise, while a damaging 2024-01 review alleges unauthorized expensive work, failed refund promises, number blocking, and potential fraudulent business practices. The 2021 review is over 2.5 years old and may not reflect current operations. The extreme polarity between reviews, combined with serious allegations of financial misconduct and customer service failure in the most recent review, creates substantial uncertainty about trustworthiness.

• CRITICAL: Severe contradiction between reviews — two highly positive vs. one extremely negative with specific fraud allegations (unauthorized work, blocked refund, number blocking)
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive review is from October 2021 (2.5+ years old); most recent review (January 2024) contains serious misconduct allegations
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW: The 2021 review uses generic praise language ('meticulous,' 'customer focused,' 'knowledgeable') with no specific project details and reads as promotional copy
• FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: January 2024 review explicitly alleges unauthorized work, failed refund, credit card risk, and customer blocking — these are serious red flags requiring investigation
• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 3 reviews total; cannot establish reliable pattern or confidence in any dimension

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient reviews (n=3) and extreme contradictions between positive and serious fraud allegations. The most recent review contains specific, detailed misconduct claims that directly contradict older praise. Do not rely on this assessment without independent verification of the January 2024 complaint and refund claim.

Both available reviews are highly negative and were posted on the same date in August 2024, suggesting a recent incident that prompted multiple complaints. Professionalism scores extremely low due to explicit reports of cursing, name-calling via text, and aggressive behavior toward customers. Project completion also scores very low, as one review explicitly describes contracted work (lawn clipping cleanup) that was not completed as agreed. Pricing and experience dimensions cannot be scored as neither review addresses those topics. With only two reviews total, no reliable WW Score can be calculated, but the available signals are strongly negative.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules.
• Both reviews were posted on the same day (2024-08-13) within hours of each other, which may indicate they stem from the same incident or a coordinated response. However, the content is specific and non-repetitive, suggesting they may be from two different individuals (e.g., the affected neighbor and another witness or party).
• No positive reviews are present to provide balance. The dataset is too small to draw broad conclusions about overall contractor quality.
• Explicit misconduct reported: cursing and name-calling via text message in response to a legitimate customer complaint about incomplete work.

This score report has very low reliability due to the critically small sample size of only 2 reviews; while the negative signals are specific and credible, no statistically meaningful WW Score can be produced until more reviews are available.

With only two reviews spanning a wide date range (2013 and 2017), the data is far too thin to draw reliable conclusions. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension but is sharply divided: one reviewer describes exceptional responsiveness and same-day service, while the other documents a repeated failure to return calls across multiple attempts. Pricing received a single positive mention noting competitive rates and no excessive fees, but this comes from a 2013 review and carries very low confidence. Project completion received one positive signal from the 2013 review but no corroborating evidence. Experience was never explicitly addressed in either review.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are significantly outdated: the most recent is from November 2017, over 7 years ago. Current service quality is entirely unknown.
• The two reviews are in direct conflict on professionalism, suggesting inconsistent service quality or significant changes over time.
• The positive review (2013) is generic in some respects and predates the negative review by over 4 years — it may not reflect the contractor's current practices.
• No reviews mention workmanship, technical skill, or job completion in detail — Experience dimension has no data at all.

This score report should not be trusted for decision-making purposes — only 2 reviews exist, both are more than 7 years old, and they directly contradict each other on the most heavily weighted dimension.