Find Nearby Plumbers In Charleston, West Virginia

ELCO Mechanical Contractors exhibits severe deficiencies across all dimensions, with the most critical failures in pricing and project completion. Six reviews explicitly document systematic overbilling and invoice padding, with charges ranging from $600–$700 for work that should cost a fraction of that amount. Eight reviews detail incomplete work, unresolved issues, and failure to follow through on callbacks—including a plumbing job billed at $2,000+ while still leaking, and HVAC systems that required multiple visits without resolution. Professionalism is compromised by rude management, refusal to address customer concerns, and dismissive attitudes toward legitimate complaints. While technicians occasionally demonstrate competence (5 positive mentions), this is overshadowed by careless workmanship (damaged flooring, crooked installations, hazardous material left accessible) and poor problem-solving (spending hours on wrong diagnostics before checking obvious issues). The company's pattern of behavior suggests intentional billing fraud rather than isolated errors.

• CRITICAL: Multiple independent reviews (2024, 2019, 2010) document nearly identical billing fraud patterns—excessive hours charged for simple jobs, padding of service time, and refusal to adjust invoices. This is not coincidental variation but systematic overcharging.
• PATTERN: Six of ten reviews explicitly mention pricing abuse; five mention incomplete work or unresolved issues. This is not anecdotal—it reflects core business practice.
• MANAGEMENT RESPONSE: Owner/management consistently refuses to address legitimate complaints, dismisses concerns with implausible explanations ('needle in a haystack'), and prioritizes payment collection over customer satisfaction.
• SAFETY CONCERN: Review from 2017 documents hazardous chemicals left accessible to pets; review from 2024 documents property damage (flooring torn up) left unrepaired.
• RECENCY: Most damaging reviews are recent (2024, 2023, 2019), indicating ongoing problems, not historical issues. Older positive reviews (2014, 2009) lack detail and may not reflect current operations.
• NOT FAKE REVIEWS: Despite negative tone, reviews are highly specific with dates, dollar amounts, names, and detailed technical descriptions. They read as authentic customer frustration, not coordinated attacks.

This WW Score of 38.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong warning signal. The score is grounded in eight detailed, specific reviews spanning 14 years with consistent patterns of billing fraud, incomplete work, and poor customer service. The MODERATE overall confidence reflects that some positive reviews exist, but they are vastly outweighed by credible evidence of systematic misconduct. Consumers should treat this company as high-risk.

This contractor shows severe deficiencies in project completion and follow-through, with a critical failure to complete ceiling fan and light installation work over a 10-day period despite customer contact attempts. Professionalism is mixed: while one review praises responsiveness and helpfulness, the primary review documents complete communication breakdown and abandonment of work mid-project. Pricing appears fair based on limited evidence, but value is undermined by incomplete service delivery. The stark contradiction between the two reviews (1-star vs 5-star) suggests either highly inconsistent service quality or potential data reliability issues.

• CRITICAL: Extreme polarity between reviews (1-star vs 5-star) with no middle ground suggests either severe inconsistency in service delivery or potential review authenticity concerns.
• The 5-star review is generic and lacks specific detail about the work performed, while the 1-star review is highly detailed and credible with specific dates and follow-up attempts.
• Primary review documents abandoned work (half-installed ceiling fan after 10 days with no communication), which is a severe project completion failure.
• Only 2 reviews total — insufficient volume to establish reliable patterns. Recommend collecting additional reviews before making hiring decisions.
• Review dates span 3 months (Nov 2023 to Feb 2024), both within past 12 months but limited recency data.

This score should be treated with significant caution due to only 2 reviews with extreme polarity and insufficient data volume to establish reliable patterns; the documented project abandonment in the detailed 1-star review is credible and concerning, but the overall assessment cannot be considered trustworthy without additional independent reviews.

This contractor shows severe inconsistency across the two reviews. The May 2024 review documents critical failures in project completion (job not finished, leak persisted), professionalism (poor communication, unresponsiveness, lack of insurance, dismissive attitude toward feedback), and experience (improper tool use, inadequate testing, failed diagnosis). The April 2023 review praises efficiency and weekend availability for a water main backup. The stark contradiction suggests either significant service degradation over time or highly variable performance. The detailed, specific complaints in the recent review carry substantial weight, while the older positive review lacks detail. The contractor's refusal to stand behind work and dismissive response to legitimate complaints are serious red flags.

• CRITICAL: Extreme contradiction between reviews (1-star vs 5-star) suggests either severe service inconsistency or deterioration. Recent review (May 2024) is far more detailed and specific with documented damages.
• CRITICAL: Contractor lacks insurance and refused to address customer damage claims, then became unresponsive and dismissive.
• CRITICAL: Primary complaint (May 2024) documents incomplete work—the core job (fixing leak) was not accomplished; leak persisted after service.
• CRITICAL: Contractor's response to negative feedback was hostile ('I don't care' about reviews) rather than professional or remedial.
• Recency concern: Positive review is from April 2023 (13 months old); negative review is from May 2024 (recent). Recent performance appears significantly worse.
• The May 2024 review is exceptionally detailed with specific evidence (receipts, timeline, secondary damages), lending it high credibility. The April 2023 review is generic and lacks specifics.

This score should be treated with caution due to only 2 reviews, but the recent detailed complaint with documented failures and the contractor's unprofessional response to legitimate concerns suggest serious reliability issues. The WW Score of 32.1 reflects the weight of the recent, detailed negative review and the contractor's refusal to stand behind work or maintain professional communication.

The overwhelming majority of reviews describe severely negative experiences across all four dimensions. Professionalism is rated extremely low due to repeated no-shows, broken promises, unresponsive communication, aggressive behavior, and deceptive practices documented across multiple reviews spanning several years. Project completion is critically poor, with multiple reviewers explicitly stating work was abandoned, left incomplete, or took far longer than promised — including one account of a $70,000 job that was never finished. Pricing is flagged as a major concern, with allegations of fraud, hidden charges, upfront payment demands followed by disappearance, and one court-adjudicated case of financial deception against an elderly customer. Experience scores are also very low, with reviewers citing incompetent workmanship, code violations (e.g., improper gas line placement near electrical sockets), and other contractors refusing to touch their unfinished work. The only positive reviews (2 out of 9) describe a different worker named Josh and a separate crew, suggesting inconsistent staffing quality, but these are insufficient to offset the volume and severity of negative feedback.

• SEVERE PATTERN OF FRAUD AND DECEPTION: Multiple independent reviews allege deliberate deception, including a court-adjudicated civil judgment (Case No. 08-C-1474, Cabell County WV) for $3,780 against the company for defrauding an elderly customer.
• ABANDONED WORK: At least three reviews explicitly describe jobs being started and then abandoned without completion, with the contractor becoming unreachable.
• ATTORNEY GENERAL COMPLAINTS: Two separate reviews reference complaints filed with state Attorney General offices (West Virginia and Ohio), and BBB complaints are also mentioned.
• UPFRONT PAYMENT RISK: Multiple reviewers warn that the company demands payment upfront and then fails to deliver services, a pattern consistent with predatory business practices.
• REVIEW SPAN CONCERN: Negative reviews span from 2008 to 2021, indicating this is not an isolated incident but a long-term pattern of behavior.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS ARE OUTLIERS: The two 5-star reviews reference different named workers (Josh, unnamed crew) and describe entirely different service experiences, suggesting they may reflect different personnel or business units rather than the contractor primarily described in negative reviews.
• ONE REVIEW UNUSABLE: The review dated 2015-07-30 contains only the word 'unknown' and was excluded from scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent negative review is from 2021. The most recent positive review is from 2020. No reviews from the past 12 months (relative to a 2024 analysis date) are present, limiting recency confidence.

This WW Score is based on 8 usable reviews with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but the score should be treated with serious caution given the extreme severity of allegations, documented legal action, and multi-year pattern of misconduct — the low score is well-supported and likely understates the risk to prospective customers.

This contractor demonstrates severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by unresponsiveness, failure to return calls, apparent number blocking, and misleading communication about service area availability. Project completion is the most damaging dimension, with evidence of incomplete work (backflow valve installation delayed 6+ months), abandoned jobs, and failure to honor warranties. Pricing concerns are substantial, with customers reporting inflated labor costs ($1000+ for heat pump repair that another company completed for $80, $1015 for water tank replacement deemed excessive). Technical competence is questionable, evidenced by incorrect load calculations, oversized equipment installation, and faulty measurements that forced unnecessary equipment changes. All five reviews are uniformly negative with specific, detailed complaints rather than vague criticism.

• All 5 reviews are 1-star ratings with detailed, specific complaints—not generic praise or vague criticism. This pattern suggests genuine customer dissatisfaction rather than fake reviews.
• Four of five reviews are from 2018-2022 (older than 12 months); only one is from 2022. Recency is limited, but pattern of complaints is consistent across years.
• Multiple reviews explicitly mention failure to follow up, return calls, or honor commitments—a systemic professionalism issue.
• Evidence of technical incompetence (incorrect measurements, oversized equipment, warranty denial) suggests skill gaps beyond isolated incidents.
• Pricing complaints are consistent: customers report labor costs significantly higher than market rate and feel overcharged relative to work performed.

This WW Score of 15.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong indicator of serious contractor deficiencies. The score is based on 5 detailed, specific reviews with consistent patterns of failure across all dimensions, particularly in responsiveness, project completion, and technical competence. This contractor should be avoided.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. The two reviews provided do not appear to be for a plumber or contractor service. Review 1 describes a rental property dispute with deposit and personal conduct issues unrelated to construction or plumbing work. Review 2 mentions 'Classic Construction Company' and home inspection projects, but lacks specific detail on any of the four scored dimensions (professionalism, pricing, project completion, experience). No actionable evidence exists to score any dimension.

• Review 1 appears to be about a rental property landlord dispute, not a contractor/plumber service — likely mismatched data
• Review 2 is generic praise with no specific details about workmanship, timeline, pricing, or communication — insufficient evidence for scoring
• Both reviews are older than 12 months (2022–2023)
• No reviews explicitly address plumbing or contractor work quality, pricing transparency, or project completion specifics

This dataset cannot support a reliable WW Score. The reviews do not clearly pertain to plumbing or contractor services, lack specific evidence for any dimension, and are too few and too old to establish confidence in any scoring.