Find Nearby Plumbers In Charleston, West Virginia

This contractor shows a stark divide between positive and negative experiences. Three older reviews (2014–2018) praise professionalism, responsiveness, and technical skill, with same-day service and friendly technicians. However, the most recent review from November 2022 documents severe project completion failures: incomplete work, safety hazards (gas leak, damaged vapor barrier, removed structural brace), and improperly installed systems (drain line buried and unconnected). The 2016 review also indicates failure to respond to multiple AC service calls. The pattern suggests either significant service degradation over time or inconsistent quality control. The WW Score is heavily penalized by critical project completion failures that pose safety and functional risks.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 6–10 years old (2014–2018). The most recent review (Nov 2022) is severely negative, suggesting possible service quality decline.
• SAFETY HAZARDS DOCUMENTED: The 2022 review explicitly mentions a gas leak, structural damage (removed floor brace), and damaged vapor barrier—these are serious safety and code violations.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Multiple systems left non-functional or improperly installed (drain line buried and unconnected, gas connections leaking, half-finished work).
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE: 2016 review documents multiple unanswered service calls for AC malfunction; customer switched to competitor.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: The three positive reviews (2014, 2014, 2018) use similar generic praise language ('wonderful job,' 'highly recommend,' 'very friendly, professional and knowledgeable') with no specific technical details, while the negative reviews are highly specific about failures. This asymmetry warrants caution.

This score should be treated with caution due to extreme recency bias: older positive reviews conflict sharply with recent documented failures involving safety hazards and incomplete work. The WW Score reflects the most recent evidence, but the small sample size and age disparity of positive reviews limit overall confidence. Do not rely on this score alone—the 2022 review's specific safety concerns should be independently verified before engaging this contractor.

This contractor shows highly polarized performance with severe inconsistency across reviews. Positive reviews (2016–2017) praise promptness, fair pricing, and quality work. However, a detailed 2017 horror story documents serious failures: unprofessional behavior (refusing to work, attitude problems), billing disputes (charging for time not worked), incomplete estimates, and failure to resolve a critical sewage issue that caused $1,500+ in additional damage. The most recent 2024 review reports defective parts (flapper failure within 2 months) and warranty denial. Professionalism and pricing scores are dragged down by documented communication failures, billing disputes, and attitude problems. Project completion is severely compromised by incomplete work and unresolved callbacks.

• CRITICAL: Severe quality and reliability concerns documented in detailed 2017 review alleging billing fraud, incomplete work, and refusal to honor callbacks. Customer reports escalation to magistrate court.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2016–2017 (7+ years old). Most recent review (2024) is negative, suggesting deterioration in service quality.
• WARRANTY/DURABILITY ISSUE: 2024 review reports defective parts (flapper) failing within 2 months with warranty denial despite short timeframe.
• PATTERN OF INCOMPLETE WORK: Multiple reviews mention unresolved issues, refused service, and failure to complete estimates or callbacks.
• BILLING DISPUTE: 2017 review documents alleged fraudulent billing practices (charging for time before work began). Company owner allegedly refused to address complaint.

This score should be treated with caution due to extreme polarization and recency bias toward negative outcomes. The detailed 2017 complaint and 2024 defect report suggest systemic issues that outweigh older positive reviews. Recommend independent verification before hiring.

Adkins Plumbing and Contracting presents a deeply divided review profile. Positive reviews praise knowledgeable crews, timely project completion, and respectful conduct, while a significant cluster of negative reviews describes serious misconduct including no-shows, predatory pricing changes targeting elderly customers, billing for time not worked, and work that failed shortly after completion. Pricing is the most damaged dimension, with multiple detailed accounts of hidden fees, inflated hours, and quotes that bore no resemblance to final invoices. Project completion is also heavily penalized by a documented case of a sewage repair that failed and a pattern of missed appointments. Professionalism scores low due to repeated no-shows, dishonest billing practices, and at least one allegation of attempted financial exploitation of a vulnerable customer. Experience scores modestly higher as some positive reviewers do describe competent, skilled work, but a failed sewage repair undermines confidence in technical quality.

• SERIOUS CONCERN: Multiple reviews describe billing practices that changed after work began, with final invoices far exceeding quoted prices — including one case where the final bill was $1,000 over a $400 estimate.
• SERIOUS CONCERN: Two separate reviews allege that pricing changed or that the contractor behaved exploitatively when the customer was identified as elderly or female, suggesting a pattern of predatory conduct.
• SERIOUS CONCERN: One reviewer filed a complaint with the WV Attorney General's office, indicating the dispute escalated to a formal consumer protection complaint.
• RELIABILITY CONCERN: One reviewer paid $2,300 for sewage line and pipe repairs that failed, with the sewage line later repaired by friends after Adkins declared it was flowing fine — indicating a potential quality and honesty failure.
• PUNCTUALITY CONCERN: One reviewer reports two consecutive no-shows with what they describe as a fabricated excuse for the first and no explanation for the second.
• REVIEW SPLIT: Of 10 reviews, 5 are 5-star and 5 are 1-star with no middle-ground ratings. This binary split may reflect genuine polarization in service quality or selective review solicitation from satisfied customers.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (late 2024) are positive, while several of the most damaging negative reviews are from 2022–2023. It is unclear whether practices have improved or whether the positive reviews reflect a different type of project scope.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the mention counts are sufficient for statistical grounding, but the extreme polarization of the review set, serious allegations of fraud and billing manipulation, and a formal consumer protection complaint introduce significant uncertainty that prevents this score from being treated as a stable indicator of consistent service quality.

Mullen Plumbing's review record is dominated by serious, specific complaints across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is heavily damaged by multiple no-show incidents, a technician who failed basic hygiene standards, an estimator who spat tobacco and rambled about personal medical history, and rude office staff — with only a handful of positive mentions of friendly or timely technicians. Pricing is a consistent pain point, with multiple reviewers citing estimates dramatically higher than competitors (one reviewer was quoted $7,200 for a job done elsewhere for $900, another $4,000 vs. $2,500 market rate), and one reviewer alleging deliberate upselling and possible sabotage of an AC unit. Project completion is arguably the weakest area, with reviewers describing unfinished jobs, repeat visits that failed to resolve issues, debris left behind, and in one case a ladder taken from the customer's home — offset only slightly by a few positive accounts of responsive emergency service. Experience scores modestly higher due to a few credible accounts of correct diagnosis and competent repair, but is undermined by cases of misdiagnosis (unnecessary water heater replacement), a sewer line that required a competitor to fix after two failed Mullen attempts, and an AC installation left incomplete.

• No fake review patterns detected — reviews are highly specific, varied in detail, and span multiple years with a range of ratings.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of negative reviews are from 2023–2024, suggesting the company's service quality may have declined over time. Positive reviews are more concentrated in older years (2012, 2016, 2017, 2020).
• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple reviewers independently report estimates 3x–8x higher than competitors for the same job, which is a significant and recurring red flag beyond normal market variation.
• INTEGRITY CONCERN: One reviewer (2018) alleges deliberate sabotage of an AC unit to force a sale. While unverified, this is a serious allegation that warrants caution.
• PROJECT ABANDONMENT: At least two reviews explicitly describe jobs that were not completed as agreed, with demands for additional payment to finish work covered in the original estimate.
• RECENCY WEIGHT APPLIED: Reviews from 2024 and 2023 (10 reviews) were given higher weight in scoring. The pattern in recent reviews is predominantly negative.

This WW Score of 38.2 is based on 21 reviews with strong mention counts across all four dimensions and HIGH confidence ratings throughout, making it a reliable reflection of customer experience — the low score is well-supported by specific, credible, and recurring complaints rather than isolated incidents.

Montani Mechanical Group presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most consistently mentioned dimension, with two reviews praising responsiveness and technician conduct, one review sharply criticizing the office manager's attitude and poor communication (texting instead of calling to cancel), and the most recent review (2023) describing a pattern of misdiagnosis and overcharging that reflects poorly on overall conduct. Pricing is a significant concern: the 2023 review documents a $393 charge for a $43 part, a $1,260 single-hour labor quote, and a diagnosis that a competing company resolved in five minutes for far less — this heavily drags the pricing score down despite one reviewer noting their service agreement was reasonably priced. Project completion is also problematic, as the 2023 review describes a repair that failed within a week and required a second visit, and the 2020 review notes work was not yet finished pending parts. Experience scores low-to-moderate: one technician was praised for tracking down a warranty and solving a problem quickly, while another is accused of misdiagnosing a pump issue that another company resolved trivially, suggesting inconsistent skill levels across technicians.

• Small sample size of only 4 reviews — WW Score should be treated as highly preliminary and not representative of long-term performance.
• The most recent review (2023) is the most detailed and damaging, describing potential overcharging on parts (900%+ markup) and a misdiagnosis. This review carries the most recency weight.
• Two of the four reviews are older than 3 years (2019, 2020), and one is from 2022. Only one review falls within the past 12 months (2023). Recency weighting favors the negative 2023 review.
• The 2022 five-star review is primarily written to rebut another reviewer's complaint rather than describe the reviewer's own service experience in detail. Its usefulness as a quality signal is limited.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in tone, detail level, and rating, which is consistent with authentic feedback.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning 4 years and should be considered LOW reliability — the score directionally suggests below-average performance, particularly on pricing and project completion, but cannot be statistically trusted until a much larger review sample is available.

The review set is small and deeply divided, making reliable scoring difficult. Professionalism received one strongly positive review praising politeness and dedication, one positive review noting kind and professional technicians, and one severely negative review citing late arrival, unresponsiveness, smoking in the home, and disrespectful behavior — resulting in a middling score. Project completion is similarly split: one reviewer praised the contractor for staying until the job was done and going above and beyond, while another explicitly stated plumbing jobs were not completed. Experience shows some positive signals — technicians correctly diagnosed heating and refrigerator issues and a dangerous breaker problem was identified and resolved — but the small sample limits confidence. Pricing was mentioned positively in only one review, earning a conservative but favorable score.

• Review 1 (1-star, 2024-03-26) appears to be a complaint about a lead-generation platform or referral service, not about a specific contractor's work. It has been excluded from dimension scoring as it contains no usable data about workmanship, professionalism, pricing, or project completion.
• Only 4 total reviews are available, with only 3 containing usable contractor-specific data. This is below the threshold for high reliability.
• The review pool spans from 2022 to 2024. The most recent usable review is from February 2023, meaning no reviews fall within the past 12 months relative to a mid-2025 evaluation date. Recency is a concern.
• There is a stark conflict between positive and negative reviews with no middle-ground ratings, which may indicate either genuinely inconsistent service quality or the possibility that some reviews do not reflect the same contractor or time period.

This WW Score should be treated with very low confidence — the sample size is critically small, the reviews are sharply polarized, the most recent usable review is over two years old, and one review was entirely off-topic, leaving only three data points on which to base any assessment.