Find Nearby Plumbers In Roanoke, Virginia

Southern Air exhibits highly inconsistent performance across all dimensions. While some reviews praise exceptional professionalism, technical expertise, and timely service (particularly from named technicians like Tommy, James Brown, and Seth), numerous recent reviews document serious failures: no-shows without communication, unprofessional behavior, incomplete work, and safety hazards (leaking gas lines). Pricing complaints are frequent and severe, with customers reporting surprise billing, overcharges, and aggressive upselling tactics. Project completion is undermined by abandoned work, unfinished installations, and failure to honor callbacks. The company's motto—'fixed right or it's free'—is explicitly contradicted by multiple customers. Recent reviews (2023-2024) are predominantly negative, suggesting deteriorating service quality.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2023-2024 (recent), while positive reviews cluster in 2015-2022. This indicates significant service degradation over time.
• SAFETY HAZARD REPORTED: Multiple reviews mention dangerous conditions—leaking gas lines, water heater near explosion, incomplete work creating hazards. This is a critical red flag.
• PRICING FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Several reviews allege unauthorized recurring charges, surprise billing, and aggressive upselling (e.g., $8,000 water heater quote). Pattern suggests systemic pricing abuse.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 3 reviews document technicians failing to arrive at scheduled appointments without communication. This is a recurring professionalism failure.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Multiple reviews describe unfinished installations (shower/tub with exposed drywall, missing screws, fence not replaced, condensation line misplaced). Suggests quality control breakdown.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY BY TECHNICIAN: Reviews frequently praise specific named technicians (Tommy, James Brown, Seth, Chris Martin) while criticizing others. Suggests highly variable training/oversight.
• CONTRADICTORY MESSAGING: Company warranty/guarantee claims are contradicted by customer experiences. One review explicitly states the 'fixed right or it's free' guarantee is 'a bold face lie.'
• UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT: One review documents expletive-laden conversation in background during customer call, suggesting workplace culture issues.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 28 reviews with adequate mention counts, the dramatic divergence between older positive reviews and recent negative reviews, combined with allegations of safety hazards, billing fraud, and systemic no-shows, suggests the company's current performance is significantly worse than the overall score indicates. Recent reviews (past 12 months) should be weighted more heavily than this score reflects—a customer considering this company should prioritize 2023-2024 feedback, which is predominantly negative.

Jason shows strong technical capability and project completion based on two positive reviews praising his knowledge, follow-through, and willingness to stay until work is done correctly. However, a recent 1-star review raises serious concerns about pricing practices, alleging $200/hour labor rates and overcharges totaling $1,000 for a 5-hour job, with accusations of inefficient work. The stark contradiction between the 5-star reviews (2019, 2022) and the 1-star review (2018) creates significant uncertainty. With only 3 reviews total and conflicting evidence on pricing and work efficiency, confidence in this score is limited.

• Critical contradiction: Two 5-star reviews praise 'extremely reasonable prices' while one 1-star review accuses price gouging at $200/hour. This suggests either significant service inconsistency, pricing changes over time, or potential dispute over value perception.
• Review recency concern: Two positive reviews are from 2019 and 2022, but the negative review is from 2018. Timeline suggests possible service quality improvement or deterioration—unclear which direction.
• Insufficient sample size: Only 3 reviews total. Confidence in any dimension is inherently limited and cannot be considered reliable for decision-making.
• Pricing dimension shows extreme polarization (one review: 'extremely reasonable'; another: 'price gauges'). This is a red flag for either inconsistent pricing practices or highly subjective value perception.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size (3 reviews) and direct contradiction between reviews on pricing. The score reflects a mathematical average but does not reliably represent Jason's typical service quality or pricing practices. Additional recent reviews are needed before making a confident recommendation.

Southern Trust Home Services demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with technicians consistently praised for courtesy, punctuality, and knowledge. However, the company is severely undermined by pervasive and extreme pricing practices that dominate customer dissatisfaction. Across 52 reviews explicitly mentioning pricing, customers report charges 2–4× higher than competitors for identical work, with numerous examples of $1,000+ markups on simple repairs. While project completion is generally adequate when work is performed, the pricing issues are so severe and consistent that they substantially depress the overall WW Score despite strong individual technician performance.

• CRITICAL: Systematic price-gouging pattern across 52+ reviews spanning 2012–2025. Customers report identical services costing 2–4× more than competitors (e.g., $1,891 vs. $442 for water heater; $2,800 vs. $98 for drain line; $441 vs. ~$105 for breaker replacement).
• PATTERN: Company uses flat-rate pricing model that inflates costs for simple tasks. Multiple reviews note technicians lack pricing flexibility and cannot itemize charges.
• PATTERN: Aggressive upselling of service memberships, warranty plans, and unnecessary replacements. Technicians work on commission, creating incentive misalignment with customer interests.
• PATTERN: Dishonest diagnostic practices documented in multiple reviews (e.g., false CO readings, misdiagnosed HVAC systems, fabricated photos of dirty coils that were actually clean).
• PATTERN: Poor follow-up and unresponsiveness to complaints. Multiple customers report calls/emails to management ignored; promised refunds never materialized.
• PATTERN: Inconsistent service quality. Same company has both 5-star reviews praising individual technicians (Devae Goins, James Bassett, Kenny, Craig Smith, Brad) and 1-star reviews from same time periods citing identical company practices.
• RECENCY: Recent reviews (2025, 2024) show continued 5-star praise for technicians but also continued 1-star complaints about pricing and aggressive sales tactics, indicating systemic issues persist.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: Multiple 5-star reviews from June 2025 are extremely brief, generic, and lack specifics (e.g., 'Excellent service', empty review text). However, these are balanced by detailed negative reviews, so overall fake review risk is MODERATE rather than HIGH.
• OWNER RESPONSE PATTERN: Owner 'Ted' appears in multiple reviews claiming he will 'be in touch' to resolve complaints, but follow-up is rarely documented. One 2020 review alleges owner generated fake credit documentation.

This WW Score of 54.8 is highly reliable (HIGH confidence) due to large sample size (104 reviews) and consistent patterns across all dimensions. The company excels in professionalism and technical skill but is fundamentally compromised by systematic, documented price-gouging that affects the majority of customers. The score accurately reflects a company with excellent technicians operating under a business model designed to maximize revenue extraction rather than customer value. Customers should expect professional service but should obtain multiple quotes and be prepared for prices 2–4× above market rate.

Wisler Plumbing presents a deeply polarized profile. While technicians consistently demonstrate professionalism, punctuality, and courteous behavior (72/100), the company is severely hampered by aggressive pricing practices that dominate customer dissatisfaction. Pricing scores critically low at 28/100 due to systematic overcharging, excessive markups (16x on parts), and estimates 4-14x higher than competitors for identical work. Project completion is moderately concerning (62/100), with instances of incomplete diagnostics, callbacks with additional fees, and installation issues. Technical experience is solid (75/100) when work is completed, but poor diagnostic accuracy and unnecessary upselling undermine trust. The company's Christian values messaging contrasts sharply with customer reports of fraudulent billing and unresponsive management.

• SEVERE PRICING PATTERN: 20 of 33 reviews explicitly mention excessive pricing, with documented cases of 4-14x markup over competitor quotes for identical services. This is the dominant complaint across the entire dataset.
• DIAGNOSTIC FAILURES: Multiple reviews document incorrect problem identification (shower vs. electrical issues, A/C vs. plumbing), leading to unnecessary estimates and wasted service calls.
• CALLBACK ISSUES: Several customers report being charged additional service fees ($79) for returning to fix problems the company created or left unresolved on initial visit.
• BILLING INTEGRITY CONCERNS: One 2022 review alleges fraudulent charges to bank account after membership cancellation; another reports unauthorized stickers damaging customer property.
• UNRESPONSIVE MANAGEMENT: Multiple reviews cite difficulty obtaining return calls from management, particularly regarding billing disputes and membership issues.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most damaging reviews are from 2024 (8 reviews) and 2023 (3 reviews), indicating recent pattern continuation. Positive reviews skew older (2017-2019 primarily).
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Same company receives both 5-star reviews praising professionalism and 1-star reviews for identical service categories, suggesting high variability by technician or department.

This WW Score of 54.8 is highly reliable (HIGH confidence) due to 33 reviews with consistent, specific, documented evidence across all dimensions. The score accurately reflects a company with competent technicians undermined by predatory pricing practices and management responsiveness issues. Customers should expect professional service delivery but should obtain multiple quotes and verify pricing against local market rates before engaging Wisler.

S.J. Conner & Sons exhibits a deeply polarized performance profile with stark contrasts between positive and negative experiences. While recent reviews (2024-2025) show some strong professionalism and technical competence, the company is heavily burdened by persistent complaints spanning over a decade regarding incomplete work, billing disputes, poor communication, and unprofessional conduct by staff and drivers. Professionalism scores are dragged down by multiple reports of rude receptionists, dangerous driving behavior, and dismissive customer service. Project completion is significantly compromised by documented cases of incomplete repairs requiring multiple callbacks, work left unfinished, and billing for services not rendered. Pricing concerns are substantial, with numerous complaints about overcharging, hidden fees, and inflated labor charges. Technical experience shows promise in isolated cases but is undermined by repeated failures to diagnose problems correctly.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2025-05-10, 2025-02-09, 2024-06-27) describe dangerous and reckless driving behavior by company vehicles, including aggressive highway conduct and near-hit incidents. This represents a serious safety and liability concern.
• PATTERN: Receptionist 'Lukesha' is specifically named in multiple negative reviews (2025-02-09, 2024-01-11) for rude and dismissive customer service, suggesting systemic communication issues.
• PATTERN: Repeated complaints about incomplete work and multiple callbacks required (2015-08-21 describes 4 visits for same pipe leak; 2019-05-30 describes half-completed work with 9 unanswered callback requests).
• PATTERN: Billing disputes are pervasive across multiple years (2024-01-11 charges $920 for small leak; 2021-09-29 reports double-charging; 2019-08-09 warranty billing confusion; 2013-09-17 charges for travel time before arrival).
• PATTERN: Multiple reviews from 2019-2021 describe non-responsive office staff and failure to return calls or honor commitments.
• CONCERN: One review (2024-06-09) alleges workers used customer personal hygiene items—serious professionalism violation.
• CONCERN: One review (2022-06-10) appears unrelated to plumbing/HVAC services (rental property management dispute), suggesting possible business name confusion or multiple entities.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews are from 2015-2021 (older); more recent reviews (2024-2025) show mixed but somewhat improved quality, though serious safety concerns persist in 2025.
• FAKE REVIEW INDICATOR: Review dated 2024-05-31 uses extremely generic superlative language ('best experience I ever had', 'world best company', 'don't have enough words') with minimal specific detail—possible fake positive review.
• FAKE REVIEW INDICATOR: Two blank reviews with 5-star ratings (2025-03-11, 2022-06-10) provide no usable data.
• INCONSISTENCY: Company demonstrates capability for excellent service (multiple 5-star reviews with specific praise for technicians like Bob, Mark, Mike, Jackson) but fails to deliver consistently, suggesting management/quality control issues rather than universal incompetence.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 45 reviews with adequate mention counts, the extreme polarization (16 one-star reviews vs. 17 five-star reviews), persistent multi-year complaints about the same issues (billing, callbacks, communication), and recent safety concerns (2025 dangerous driving incidents) indicate systemic operational problems that are not fully captured by a single numerical score. The company appears capable of quality work but has severe and recurring failures in project completion follow-through, billing transparency, and professional conduct. Prospective customers should request detailed references and written contracts with explicit completion guarantees.

Tyree Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 2014–2022. Professionalism scores are mixed: positive reviews praise punctuality and courtesy, but negative reviews document rude behavior, inappropriate comments, and poor communication. Pricing is a major weakness, with complaints about hidden minimum charges, inflated service fees, and lack of transparency. Project completion is problematic—multiple reviews describe incomplete diagnostics, failure to identify root causes, and customers being charged without resolution. Experience ratings are moderate; some reviews highlight quick problem-solving, while others show lack of technical knowledge (e.g., failing to diagnose a coupling issue). The most recent review (2022) is positive, but the pattern of serious complaints about pricing and service quality is concerning.

• SERIOUS PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (2021, 2016) explicitly document hidden charges, minimum billing practices not disclosed upfront, and inflated service fees. This is a pattern, not isolated.
• INCOMPLETE DIAGNOSTICS: 2021 review documents failure to properly diagnose a water heater coupling issue despite customer mentioning it; customer had to hire another plumber. 2017 review reports being charged ~$200 for a job the plumber couldn't complete.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: 2016 review documents inappropriate comments about women and crude behavior by employee 'Chase,' with management showing apathy when complaint was made.
• ENVIRONMENTAL/ETHICAL CONCERN: 2020 review documents suspicious dumping of plumbing waste at residential trash bins, suggesting potential waste disposal violations.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews are 2016–2021 (older); most recent review (2022) is positive. However, the pattern of complaints is serious and substantive, not generic.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews vary in detail and tone; positive and negative reviews contain specific incidents and are not suspiciously identical.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 7 reviews with usable data, the company shows a stark pattern of serious complaints about pricing transparency, incomplete work, and unprofessional behavior that outweighs positive testimonials. The MODERATE overall confidence reflects genuine inconsistency in service quality and the presence of substantive, detailed complaints that cannot be dismissed. Potential customers should prioritize the pricing and project completion concerns documented in multiple reviews.