Find Nearby Plumbers In Sumter, South Carolina

This contractor shows severe inconsistency across reviews. Two positive reviews (2021) praise quick response, professionalism, and technical skill, while three negative reviews (2020-2022) document repeated failure to complete work, broken promises on scheduling, and poor communication. The most damaging pattern is project non-completion: multiple customers report being left hanging for weeks with excuses ranging from illness to warranty company delays. Professionalism scores are dragged down by unreliability and communication failures, though the positive reviews acknowledge friendly demeanor. Experience appears solid when work is actually performed, but this is overshadowed by systemic follow-through failures.

• CRITICAL: Three of five reviews document identical failure pattern—promised callbacks never materialized over 1-2 week periods (Dec 2020-Jan 2021 and Dec 2022). Two of these reviews reference the same warranty company and similar excuses, suggesting systemic operational issues rather than isolated incidents.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2020-2021, but a recent 1-star review from Dec 2022 shows the problem persists, indicating no improvement over time.
• RELIABILITY RED FLAG: Multiple reviews mention the company claiming to have only one employee and inability to dispatch alternative technicians, suggesting severe understaffing or operational dysfunction.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Stark contrast between 5-star reviews praising same-day service and technical skill versus 1-star reviews documenting weeks of non-response suggests either data inconsistency or dramatic service degradation over time.

This score should be treated with caution due to conflicting evidence and recency concerns. While positive reviews are detailed and specific, the pattern of repeated project abandonment documented across multiple independent reviews from different time periods is a serious red flag that outweighs the positive feedback. The WW Score of 42.3 reflects this unreliability, but potential customers should prioritize the project completion failures as the primary concern.

The review set is dominated by strongly negative experiences. Three of four reviews explicitly describe rude, dismissive, or unhelpful staff — including a technician, a supervisor, and a receptionist — driving professionalism to a very low score. Two reviews note that the problem was never resolved or that technicians were inexperienced, pulling project completion and experience scores down sharply. The single positive review (from 2011) describes a professional, efficient, and fairly priced repair, which provides the only upward data points across pricing and experience, but it is over a decade old and carries limited weight. Overall, the pattern is one of consistent service failure with one isolated positive outlier.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as highly unreliable and indicative only.
• The sole positive review is dated 2011, making it over 13 years old. It receives significantly reduced recency weight.
• Three of four reviews are from 2015–2016, also outside the preferred 12-month recency window. No recent reviews are present.
• Three separate reviewers independently used the phrase 'if I could leave 0 stars I would' — while this may reflect a common idiom, it is worth noting as a pattern. No evidence of fake positive reviews detected, but the review volume is too low to assess fake review risk meaningfully.
• Pricing score of 85 is based on a single review from 2011 and should be treated with extreme caution.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, all older than 8 years, with no data from the past 12 months — it should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of current service quality.

With only two reviews, meaningful scoring is extremely limited. Professionalism is dragged down significantly by one reviewer explicitly stating their calls were not returned over four days, suggesting poor responsiveness and possible selective client treatment. The second review praises customer service and the quality of a wrap job, contributing positively to both professionalism and experience dimensions. Project completion receives a mixed score reflecting one completed job with positive feedback and one situation where the contractor never engaged at all. Overall, the data is far too sparse to draw reliable conclusions about this contractor.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The two reviews are sharply polarized (1-star vs 5-star), which may reflect inconsistent service quality or selective client prioritization.
• The 5-star review is somewhat generic ('great customer service', 'love the wrap job') with limited specific detail, which warrants mild caution.
• Both reviews are from 2021–2022, meaning all data is older than 12 months from a typical 2024–2025 evaluation window. Recency is poor and current performance cannot be assessed.
• One reviewer explicitly states the contractor did not return calls for 4 days, suggesting potential responsiveness issues for smaller residential jobs.

This score report has very low reliability due to only 2 reviews being available, both of which are over 2 years old, making it impossible to assess current contractor performance with any confidence.

Both reviews explicitly praise professionalism (on-time arrival, professional demeanor), project completion (jobs finished completely, callbacks honored), and experience (knowledgeable, excellent workmanship). However, with only 2 reviews total, the sample size is too small to calculate a reliable WW Score. Pricing is not mentioned in either review, so no assessment is possible. All scores are based on LIMITED evidence and should not be treated as definitive.

• Insufficient review volume: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• Both reviews are from March 2022 — over 2 years old. No recent data available to assess current performance.
• No pricing feedback provided in any review — cannot evaluate Price Friendly dimension.
• Small sample size makes it impossible to detect patterns or validate consistency of service quality.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. With only 2 reviews from over 2 years ago and no pricing information, this analysis cannot support a trustworthy overall score. At least 3 recent reviews are needed.

Both reviews explicitly praise professionalism (punctuality, respectfulness, responsiveness), project completion (work finished quickly and completely), and experience (quality of work described as 'fantastic'). One review mentions fair pricing relative to competitor quotes. However, with only 2 reviews total, all dimensions carry LIMITED confidence. The sample size is too small to produce a reliable WW Score calculation.

• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — cannot calculate WW Score reliably per Step 4 threshold
• One review is from 2021 (3+ years old); only one review from past 12 months
• Both reviews are 5-star with generic praise language ('highly recommended', 'best service'); limited specific technical detail
• No negative feedback or balanced perspective provided

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. With only 2 reviews, all dimensions carry LIMITED confidence. A minimum of 3 reviews is required, and ideally 5+ recent reviews per dimension for trustworthy scoring.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a statistically meaningful WW Score. The single review mentions professionalism (courteous staff), project completion (job done well, quick service), and experience (job done well), but provides no information on pricing. All scores are based on extremely limited evidence.

• Only 1 review available — far below minimum threshold of 3 reviews for reliable scoring
• Review is generic and lacks specific details about the work performed, materials used, or actual problems solved
• No pricing information provided in review
• Cannot assess reliability of contractor based on single data point

This score cannot be trusted. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a meaningful WW Score; only 1 review was provided.