Find Nearby Plumbers In Charlottesville, Virginia

Mr. Faucet (Pat/Nick) generally receives positive feedback for fair pricing, technical competence, and quick turnaround on smaller jobs like disposal replacements and faucet repairs. Several reviewers specifically praised honesty and value, including one notable instance where the plumber talked a customer through a fix for free rather than charging a service call. However, one serious negative review from 2019 describes a deeply concerning incident of aggressive, threatening behavior by Pat Crowley toward a tenant, which significantly weighs down the professionalism score. Project completion is also tempered by one review noting a walk-in shower job that took four months to finish, suggesting potential issues with larger, longer-term projects.

• SERIOUS CONDUCT FLAG: One review (2019-11-20) describes the plumber physically invading a tenant's personal space, making contact with their face, and using abusive language. This is a significant professionalism and safety concern that cannot be dismissed.
• ONE BLANK REVIEW: The review dated 2015-06-11 contains only a period with no text. It was excluded from usable data as it provides no actionable information.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Several reviews are more than 3 years old (2011, 2015, 2016, 2019, 2020, 2021). Only 3 reviews fall within the past 24 months (2022–2023), limiting confidence in current service quality.
• DUAL TECHNICIAN NAMES: Reviews reference both 'Pat' and 'Nick' as the plumber, suggesting either multiple technicians or inconsistent identification. This makes it difficult to attribute all reviews to a single individual's performance.
• PROJECT TIMELINE CONCERN: One reviewer noted a 4-month completion time for a walk-in shower, which may indicate capacity or scheduling issues on larger projects.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the small review pool, significant age of many reviews, a serious unresolved conduct complaint, and ambiguity around whether 'Pat' and 'Nick' represent the same or different technicians — prospective customers should weigh the harassment incident heavily before hiring.

James Beardsley receives strong praise across multiple reviews for responsiveness, fair pricing, and technical skill — including emergency weekend work, complex retrofits, and a gas line replacement that passed inspector review. However, the review corpus contains one highly detailed and credible 1-star account describing price escalation after work began, payment irregularities via cash app, incomplete work with unsealed pipes and missing sewer caps, repeated no-shows, and dishonest communication about a check. A second 1-star review flags an inability to reach the business entirely over nearly three weeks. These two negative reviews meaningfully drag down professionalism and project completion scores. The positive reviews span 2016–2024 and are generally specific and credible, but the serious misconduct described in the 2021 review cannot be dismissed and is weighted heavily in the project completion and professionalism dimensions.

• One highly detailed 1-star review (2021-09-27) describes price escalation mid-job, payment via cash app after check was requested, repeated no-shows, incomplete and defective work (unsealed pipes, missing sewer caps), and contradictory statements about a check — this is a serious credibility and conduct concern.
• A second 1-star review (2019-10-28) reports inability to reach the business for nearly three weeks and a permanently busy phone line, suggesting possible responsiveness or operational issues.
• Several positive reviews are older than 3 years (2016–2019), which reduces their recency weight. Only 3 reviews are from the past 12 months relative to the most recent review date.
• No fake review patterns detected — positive reviews are generally specific, varied in detail, and reference distinct jobs and circumstances.
• Overall confidence is moderated by the presence of two substantive negative reviews against a backdrop of mostly older positive reviews.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the volume of reviews is adequate and most are specific, but the serious misconduct described in the 2021 negative review and the recency skew of positive reviews toward older dates introduce meaningful uncertainty about current service quality.

All three reviews are positive and describe completed jobs with same-day service, accurate quoting, and technically sound solutions. Professionalism is consistently praised across all reviews, with specific mentions of friendliness, cleanliness, and thoughtful problem-solving such as the service panel workaround to avoid drywall repair. Pricing is mentioned favorably in two reviews, including one that explicitly credits the contractor with saving the customer money through honest assessment. Project completion is strongly supported, with all three reviews indicating jobs were finished the same day they were started. Experience scores are supported by specific technical details across reviews, lending credibility to the praise.

• Only 3 reviews total — sample size is very small and scores should be treated with caution.
• All reviews are 5-star with no negative feedback, which is statistically common in small samples but warrants awareness.
• All reviews are dated between April 2023 and December 2023, meaning all data is over 12 months old as of mid-2025 — recency is a concern.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific job details, named individuals, and varied language, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be considered a preliminary indicator only — significantly more reviews are needed before this score can be trusted as a reliable representation of contractor quality.

Albemarle Plumbing receives consistently positive feedback across the reviews that contain usable detail. Professionalism is the best-supported dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly praising punctuality, friendliness, communication, and responsiveness — including a notable Thanksgiving/Black Friday emergency response. Project completion is supported by references to thorough work, on-budget delivery, and successful resolution of difficult jobs such as a whole-home re-pipe and a hard-to-access drain repair. Pricing is mentioned positively in two reviews as reasonable and in line with market rates, but the limited mentions keep confidence low for that dimension. Experience is reflected in problem-solving on technically challenging repairs, though again the mention count is modest. The majority of reviews are from 2013–2018, with none in the past several years, which significantly limits the reliability of this score for current performance.

• 3 reviews contain only the text 'unknown' and provide no usable data — these were excluded from scoring.
• 1 review contains only 'Excellent job' with no supporting detail — treated as minimal usable data and not counted toward any dimension score.
• All reviews are dated between 2012 and 2018 — none are within the past 5+ years. This score may not reflect current performance.
• The review set is small (10 total, 7 usable) and spans over a decade, making trend analysis unreliable.
• No fake review patterns detected; specific details (names, job types, dates, scenarios) are present in the substantive reviews.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — while the qualitative signals are positive, the small number of detailed reviews, the complete absence of recent reviews (post-2018), and three uninformative entries mean the score reflects a limited and potentially outdated picture of this contractor's performance.

Three of the four reviews contained usable content, with one review being entirely blank. Professionalism was generally praised across multiple reviews — technicians were described as friendly, prompt, and communicative — though one detailed review noted some diagnostic missteps that slightly temper the score. Project completion is mixed: two reviews describe straightforward, successful outcomes, while the most detailed review documents a troublesome service call involving muddy water introduced into house pipes, questionable diagnostic sequencing, and a repair that required multiple attempts before stabilizing. Pricing received a single explicit mention and it was negative, with the reviewer expressing dissatisfaction over labor charges of $1,234 for two men over roughly five hours, which significantly pulls that dimension down. Experience scores moderately, as technicians demonstrated technical knowledge in some areas but the detailed review raises concerns about diagnostic accuracy and judgment during a complex pump and tank replacement.

• One review (2015-12-03) contains no text whatsoever — only a 5-star rating. This review was excluded from dimension scoring as it provides no usable evidence.
• All reviews with usable data are significantly outdated: the most recent is from 2013, and the oldest is from 2010. No reviews from the past 12 months (or even the past decade) are present. This severely limits the reliability of the WW Score as a reflection of current service quality.
• The sample size is very small (3 usable reviews), which means individual outlier experiences have an outsized effect on scores. Results should be treated with caution.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in length, detail, and rating, which is consistent with authentic feedback.

This WW Score should be treated as LOW reliability due to an extremely small sample size of 3 usable reviews, all of which are more than 10 years old, making it impossible to draw confident conclusions about the contractor's current quality of service.

Carroll and Sons has a sharply divided review profile. Two positive reviews highlight strong responsiveness, technical knowledge, and quality workmanship — particularly the detailed well pump and pressure tank job. However, one highly detailed negative review from an elderly customer describes serious failures across every dimension: alleged overcharging, unlicensed minor performing work unsupervised, no documentation provided, failed repairs leading to mold and sewage damage, and dismissive follow-up advice. This single negative review is specific, credible, and severe enough to significantly drag down all dimension scores. With only 4 reviews total, no score can be considered reliable, and the presence of one serious misconduct allegation warrants strong caution.

• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: One reviewer credibly alleges that a 16-year-old performed unsupervised work under the home, no receipt was provided, photos were deleted, and the contractor gave negligent advice after a failed repair causing mold and sewage damage estimated at $5,000+.
• VULNERABLE CUSTOMER CONCERN: The negative review explicitly identifies the customers as elderly and on a fixed income, raising potential consumer protection concerns.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 4 reviews total. No dimension score should be treated as statistically reliable.
• RECENCY NOTE: All reviews are from 2022–2023. The most recent positive review is from January 2023. No reviews from the past 12 months are present in this dataset.
• SCORE RELIABILITY IMPACTED: The two generic 5-star reviews ('very helpful and informative' with no specifics) provide minimal usable data and may reflect low-effort or unverified feedback.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews and should be treated with significant caution — one detailed and credible negative review describing serious workmanship and ethical failures substantially offsets the positive reviews, and the overall score cannot be considered a reliable indicator of consistent contractor quality.