Find Nearby Plumbers In Charlottesville, Virginia

Earl demonstrates strong professionalism across all three reviews, with consistent mentions of punctuality, patience, and responsiveness. His technical skill is evident from successful completion of complex jobs including home re-piping and various installations. Pricing is noted positively but mentioned in only one review, limiting confidence in that dimension. All reviews are from 2012–2014 (10+ years old), which significantly reduces the reliability of this assessment for current performance evaluation.

• CRITICAL: All three reviews are from 2012–2014, over 10 years old. No recent data available to assess current performance, staffing, or business practices.
• Very small sample size (n=3). Scores should be treated as preliminary indicators only.
• Pricing dimension based on single mention ('great prices') with no specifics on quotes, transparency, or hidden charges.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the extremely limited and outdated review data; a minimum of 5–10 recent reviews (within past 12 months) would be needed to produce a trustworthy assessment of current contractor performance.

Veteran Built Homes demonstrates solid technical capability and generally responsive communication, but professionalism and project completion show meaningful inconsistency. Two recent reviews (2024) praise punctuality, team expertise, and customer service, while a detailed 2021 review documents significant execution problems including poor crew supervision, communication breakdowns, missed cleanup, and extended timelines. Pricing appears fair when discussed. The company's strengths in skill and initial responsiveness are offset by operational inconsistencies in crew management and follow-through.

• RECENCY CONCERN: One highly detailed negative review from 2021 (3 years old) documents systemic issues with crew supervision, communication, and cleanup. Two recent positive reviews (2024) suggest possible improvements, but limited recent data prevents confirmation of sustained change.
• REVIEW QUALITY VARIANCE: Two recent reviews (2024) contain generic praise language ('amazing,' 'exceptional') with minimal specific detail, contrasting sharply with the 2021 review's granular documentation of problems. This asymmetry warrants caution.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews analyzed. Score reliability is limited and vulnerable to individual review weight.
• PROFESSIONALISM MIXED: Positive mentions of responsiveness and politeness are directly contradicted by documented poor supervision, crew communication failures, and lack of final follow-up in the 2021 review.

This WW Score should be treated as provisional due to small sample size (4 reviews) and significant recency gap between the detailed 2021 negative review and recent 2024 positive reviews. The score reflects genuine inconsistency in execution quality rather than data weakness alone; recommend requesting recent client references to assess whether documented 2021 operational issues have been resolved.

All Around Home Air has a strong overall track record built across many years of repeat customers, with multiple reviewers citing long-term loyalty and satisfaction across complex jobs including full system installs, coil replacements, and manufacturer defect resolution. Pricing is a notable strength, with at least two reviews explicitly citing competitive or below-market quotes compared to competitors. Professionalism scores are tempered by one credible 1-star review describing a technician (Billy) with a poor attitude and a failed first repair attempt that required a callback, which is a meaningful signal given the small review pool. Project completion is generally strong but the same negative review introduces a documented instance of incomplete troubleshooting and a required return visit, preventing a top-tier score. The majority of reviews are older than 12 months, with only one review from the past 12 months, which limits confidence in the current state of the business.

• Two reviews contain no usable content ('unknown' and 'job Well done.' and 'Excellent service') and were excluded from dimension scoring — they contribute only to raw review count.
• Most reviews are more than 3 years old. Only one review (June 2023) falls within the past 12 months. The score may not reflect current service quality.
• One credible 1-star review (June 2018) describes a specific technician (Billy) with a documented attitude problem and a failed first repair requiring a callback. This is a meaningful negative data point in a small review pool and has been weighted accordingly.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, specificity, and tone, including one negative review, which increases authenticity confidence.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-limited reliability due to the small total review pool, the age of most reviews (majority pre-2021), and only one data point from the past 12 months — prospective customers should seek more recent references before making a hiring decision.

Chuck Ferris demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous demeanor across multiple reviews. Pricing is viewed favorably with mentions of fair costs and no upselling. However, project completion shows significant concern: one review explicitly states incomplete work (water heater still leaking after repair), and another reports lack of follow-up communication and abandoned service. Experience is rated highly based on technical knowledge and long-term client retention, but the completion issues undermine overall reliability. The score reflects strong interpersonal and technical skills offset by documented execution failures.

• RECENCY ISSUE: All reviews are 6+ years old (2014-2018). No recent data available to assess current service quality or whether issues have been addressed.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: Review from 2016-08-17 explicitly documents incomplete work (water heater repair with ongoing leak) and dishonesty claim. Review from 2018-02-08 documents non-responsiveness and abandoned service inquiry.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: Review dated 2015-08-11 contains only a period (.) with 5-star rating—unusable and suggests possible review manipulation.
• CONFLICTING EVIDENCE: Strong positive reviews (5-star, detailed praise) conflict sharply with documented failures in completion and communication. This inconsistency warrants caution.

This score should be treated with LIMITED-TO-MODERATE trust due to age of data (all reviews 6+ years old), documented project completion failures, and unresolved communication issues that suggest systemic problems rather than isolated incidents.

WA Sherman demonstrates solid professionalism with strong punctuality and responsiveness across 22 mentions, earning a 76 score. However, significant concerns emerge in project completion (68/100, 15 mentions) with multiple documented cases of incomplete repairs, incorrect installations, and failure to fix problems on first visit. Pricing shows mixed sentiment (68/100, 9 mentions)—some customers praise fair rates while others report high labor charges and unexpected bills. Experience scores 72/100 (13 mentions) with notable technical competency but several serious incidents including improper wiring, incorrect installations, and one dangerous HVAC malfunction. The company shows strong customer service fundamentals but struggles with execution quality and follow-through.

• CRITICAL: Multiple severe incidents documented—dangerous HVAC malfunction (2023), improper electrical wiring (2021), failed plumbing repairs requiring customer to pay twice (2016), and heat system damage (2023). These are not isolated complaints but pattern evidence of quality control failures.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Cluster of 5-star reviews from 2024-12-11 (8 reviews same date) with generic praise ('Great service', 'Highly recommend', 'Professional') and minimal specifics. One review is completely blank (5-star, 2025-05-10). These lack the detail and narrative depth of legitimate reviews.
• POLARIZATION: Extreme bimodal distribution—predominantly 5-star reviews (40+ reviews) clustered with multiple 1-star reviews (7 reviews) describing serious failures. This pattern suggests either fake positive reviews or genuine service inconsistency across technicians.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most detailed negative reviews are from 2023-2016 (older), while recent reviews (2024-2025) are predominantly generic 5-star praise. This temporal clustering raises authenticity concerns.
• GENDER BIAS ALLEGATION: One 2016 review explicitly states technician did not listen to female customer but complied when husband called. This is a documented professionalism concern.
• TECHNICIAN INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews reference specific technicians (Rick, Randy, George, Charles, Tim, Julie) with highly variable quality. Suggests inconsistent hiring, training, or quality control.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the 72.8 WW Score reflects genuine data from 56 reviews, the presence of suspicious 5-star clustering, documented serious safety incidents (HVAC explosion, improper wiring), and multiple project completion failures indicate this company has significant quality control and execution problems that may not be fully captured by the aggregate score. The company appears to deliver inconsistent service quality depending on technician assignment. Customers should request specific experienced technicians and obtain detailed written warranties before engaging services.

This contractor demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with multiple reviews praising punctuality, friendliness, and skilled problem-solving. However, pricing is a significant weakness, with explicit complaints about high hourly rates ($275/hr) and overall cost concerns appearing across multiple reviews. Project completion shows a critical red flag: one detailed 1-star review explicitly states jobs were not finished and work was abandoned, contradicting the positive completion narratives in other reviews. The data is mixed and somewhat dated (most reviews from 2012-2018), making the overall score moderately reliable but concerning.

• Two reviews contain minimal/no text ('unknown' and '.'), reducing data quality
• Significant contradiction between positive reviews claiming thorough work and one detailed 1-star review alleging incomplete jobs and abandoned work
• Pricing complaints appear in 3 reviews with consistent theme of high costs; one review explicitly states $275/hour is 'absolutely ridiculous'
• Most reviews are older than 5 years (2012-2016); only 2 reviews from 2017-2018, limiting recency assessment
• Positive reviews lack specificity on pricing details in some cases, while negative pricing feedback is explicit and detailed
• One 1-star review provides detailed allegations of incomplete work and potential upselling tactics that warrant serious consideration

This score should be treated with caution due to contradictory evidence on project completion, consistent pricing complaints, and predominantly older reviews; the 1-star review's specific allegations of unfinished work significantly undermine confidence in the overall rating.