Find Nearby Plumbers In Huntington, West Virginia

Mr. Morgan demonstrates strong technical skill and willingness to exceed scope (evidenced by the sump pump review), but critical failures in project completion and professionalism severely undermine overall trustworthiness. One customer reports incomplete work despite full payment and broken promises to return; another describes reckless and unprofessional behavior in a company vehicle. The single positive review is outweighed by two serious negative incidents involving non-completion and dangerous conduct. The WW Score reflects these severe gaps in reliability and follow-through.

• CRITICAL: Project completion failure — customer paid in full but work was abandoned with unfulfilled promises to return (2022 review)
• CRITICAL: Professionalism concern — report of dangerous driving behavior in company vehicle (speeding, reckless maneuvers, childish gestures) representing the business poorly (2023 review)
• Recency issue: Two of three reviews are from 2022–2023; only one recent review from 2024. Limited current data.
• Small sample size (3 reviews total) limits statistical reliability; recommend gathering more recent feedback before making hiring decision

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size, but the severity of the project completion failure and unprofessional conduct allegations are serious red flags that warrant careful consideration before engaging this contractor.

The review set is deeply mixed, with a significant number of negative experiences pulling scores down across all dimensions. Professionalism suffers from multiple accounts of rude phone staff, a plumber arriving 4 hours late, and a manager who blamed the customer for a miscommunication. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with several reviewers explicitly calling out excessive charges — including $450 to fix a drip, $546 for a cartridge and handle, and hundreds spent on unnecessary pipe replacement — though a small number of reviewers praised fair or competitive pricing. Project completion is inconsistent: some jobs required callbacks because the first technician did not complete the work properly, while others praised fast and thorough service. Experience scores moderately, with a handful of reviewers praising skilled and knowledgeable technicians like Ryan and Todd, but offset by accounts of misdiagnosis, misinformation, and incomplete work.

• Three reviews contain only 'unknown' or a single period ('.') as review text with no usable content — these were excluded from scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• Two reviews are dated 2016 or earlier and several others range from 2011–2019, meaning the majority of reviews are older than 12 months relative to the most recent review date (2024-01-27). Only 2 reviews fall within the past 12 months of the most recent review. Scores may not reflect current service quality.
• No strong fake review patterns detected, though several 5-star reviews are vague or lack specific detail. The presence of detailed negative reviews adds credibility to the overall dataset.
• One review references a specific employee ('Dennis') engaging in potentially deceptive pricing practices and misrepresenting warranty coverage — this is a serious ethical flag.
• One review alleges a plumber took advantage of a resident with an intellectual disability to authorize unauthorized work — this is a significant ethical and legal concern that warrants serious attention.
• One review alleges a promised refund was later rescinded by the owner after a manager had committed to it — indicating potential management integrity issues.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: while the mention counts are sufficient for statistical confidence across all dimensions, the heavy skew toward older reviews (many from 2011–2019) and only 2 reviews within the past 12 months means this score may not accurately reflect the contractor's current performance.

This contractor shows highly inconsistent performance across reviews. The 2022 review documents severe professionalism and project completion failures—chronic postponements, broken commitments, and failure to respect customer scheduling. However, two older reviews (2021 and 2016) praise work quality, fair pricing, and customer service. The stark contradiction suggests either significant operational changes or inconsistent service delivery. All scores are based on limited mention counts (1–2 per dimension), and the most recent review is substantially negative, which carries greater weight for current reliability assessment.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent review (2022) is highly negative and describes systematic failures in professionalism and project completion. Two positive reviews are from 2021 and 2016—significantly older.
• INCONSISTENCY ALERT: Extreme polarity between reviews suggests either major service degradation over time or highly variable performance depending on technician/circumstances.
• LIMITED DATA: Only 3 reviews total. Confidence in any dimension is constrained by low mention counts.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: 2022 review explicitly documents postponements, broken promises, failure to follow customer instructions, and scheduling disrespect—serious professional failures.

This score should be treated with caution due to only 3 reviews and extreme inconsistency between recent negative feedback and older positive reviews; the 2022 complaint raises serious concerns about current reliability that outweigh older praise.

Perry's Plumbing receives deeply mixed reviews, but the negative feedback is both more numerous and more detailed, dragging scores down significantly across all dimensions. Professionalism is the most damaged dimension, with at least 7 reviews explicitly describing rude, disrespectful, or hostile behavior — including one reviewer quoting the contractor saying 'Kiss my a$$' and another describing sloppy, destructive work inside their home. Pricing is also a serious concern, with multiple reviewers citing surprise charges, quotes that ballooned significantly upon completion, and at least one charge of $179.23 for reattaching a toilet chain that the contractor himself admitted was the only work performed. Project completion is mixed: several positive reviewers confirm jobs were finished and problems resolved, but negative reviewers describe incomplete diagnostics, property damage during the job, and a refusal to commit to any estimate. Experience scores moderately because a handful of reviewers do confirm successful repairs and technical knowledge, but this is undercut by accounts of a contractor who could not locate a frozen pipe for hours and ultimately caused ceiling and panel damage in the process.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: The positive reviews are notably sparse in detail compared to the negative reviews. Several 5-star reviews contain only one or two generic sentences with no specifics (e.g., 'Perry was terrific! very nice man who did a great job for a fair price'). One reviewer explicitly alleges that Google reviews for this contractor are manipulated ('Don't believe Google reviews — they have to be fixed').
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2023–2024) are predominantly negative (1-star), suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time. Positive reviews are concentrated in 2018 and earlier. This recency pattern is a significant red flag.
• PRICING INTEGRITY FLAG: At least two reviews describe quotes that were significantly exceeded upon job completion without clear justification — one from $225–$250 to $380, and another from $350 to $1,030.94. This pattern suggests a systemic issue with pricing transparency.
• ATTITUDE/CONDUCT FLAG: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2016, 2018, 2019, 2023, 2024) describe the same hostile, dismissive, or rude behavior. The consistency of this complaint across unrelated reviewers and time periods lends it high credibility.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE FLAG: One reviewer explicitly describes the contractor ripping part of their ceiling and removing panels without care or consent while searching for a frozen pipe, indicating a potential workmanship and liability concern.

This WW Score is based on 13 reviews spanning 2016–2024 with strong mention coverage across all four dimensions, making it a HIGH confidence assessment; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given credible allegations of review manipulation and a clear negative trend in the most recent reviews.

TR Johnson and Son receives a critically low WW Score of 32.8, driven by overwhelmingly negative feedback across all dimensions. Professionalism is severely compromised by documented rudeness, poor communication, failure to return calls, and unprofessional office staff behavior (12 mentions). Pricing is a major complaint with 10 mentions of overcharging, hidden fees, inflated travel charges, and billing discrepancies far exceeding initial quotes. Project completion suffers from incomplete work, repeated failures requiring callbacks, and in one case catastrophic flooding from faulty repairs (11 mentions). While some older reviews (2009-2010) acknowledge decent workmanship, recent reviews (2012-2023) consistently report poor quality and incompetence. The company's pattern of defensive behavior when questioned and refusal to address customer concerns further undermines trust.

• SEVERE PATTERN OF COMPLAINTS: 11 of 16 reviews are 1-star ratings with detailed negative experiences spanning 2013-2023, indicating systemic operational failures rather than isolated incidents.
• PRICING FRAUD INDICATORS: Multiple reviews document significant billing discrepancies, undisclosed charges (travel time, second technician fees, fuel surcharges, finance charges), and quotes that do not match final invoices. This suggests intentional deceptive pricing practices.
• QUALITY AND SAFETY CONCERNS: Two reviews document catastrophic failures—basement flooding from faulty repairs requiring insurance claims and repeated flooding from the same company's work. One review documents damage to customer property (broken drainage tile, water line) that customer was charged for.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Consistent pattern across 8+ reviews of failure to return calls, no-shows without notification, broken promises to reschedule, and office staff rudeness when customers attempt to address issues.
• DEFENSIVE CUSTOMER SERVICE: Multiple reviews document office staff refusing to discuss charges, being dismissive of customer concerns, and immediately terminating relationships when questioned rather than attempting resolution.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2012-2023 (recent decade), while the only moderately positive reviews are from 2009-2010 and 2016, suggesting company quality has deteriorated significantly over time.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Older reviews (2009-2010, 2016) mention 'good work' and 'trustworthy' service, but recent reviews (2012-2023) describe incompetence, incomplete work, and repeated failures on same jobs, indicating either company decline or reviewer selection bias.

This WW Score of 32.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 16 reviews with extensive detail across all four dimensions, with HIGH confidence on three dimensions and MODERATE on experience. The overwhelming consistency of negative feedback, specific documentation of failures and billing practices, and the severity of complaints (property damage, repeated failures, safety issues) create a clear and damning picture. However, the presence of a few older positive reviews suggests the company may have been more reliable 10+ years ago, so historical context matters for customers considering this contractor.

This contractor's review profile is deeply mixed and spans a wide date range (2011–2019), with the most recent usable review from 2019. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is severely dragged down by multiple credible, detailed negative accounts: a reviewer reported the plumber left alcohol bottles at the property, another described unprofessional language, smelling of cigarettes, and inappropriate comments about the homeowner's valuables, and a fifth reviewer was simply never called back after providing contact information. Positive professionalism mentions exist but are outnumbered and less specific. Pricing received its lowest score due to one highly detailed account of an alleged $864 estimate for work the reviewer completed themselves for $16 in parts, plus a mandatory $89 estimate fee — a strong indicator of predatory pricing practices. Project completion is mixed: one reviewer reports a toilet leaking after service, another says work was top-notch and guaranteed, and one review ('It didn't.') strongly implies the job was not completed satisfactorily. Experience scores modestly due to one strong positive account of multi-year repeat work and one account of a successful repair, offset by the failed toilet repair and the pricing-manipulation behavior suggesting upselling over honest diagnosis.

• One review ('unknown', 5 stars, 2016) contains no usable content and was excluded from scoring.
• One review ('It didn't.', 2 stars, 2017) is extremely vague — it implies failure but provides no detail; scored conservatively as a negative project completion signal.
• The review corpus spans 2011–2019; no reviews are within the past 12 months relative to a current evaluation, significantly reducing recency reliability.
• The most detailed negative reviews (2011 and 2018) are older but contain highly specific, credible details (dollar amounts, part names, behavioral descriptions) that increase their credibility weight.
• No fake review patterns detected; reviews show natural variation in tone, length, rating, and detail. The positive reviews are not suspiciously generic enough to flag as coordinated.
• Alcohol consumption on the job site (empty liquor bottle and empty beer case left behind) is a serious professionalism and liability concern explicitly mentioned in one review.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to a small review pool of only 7 reviews, all older than 12 months, with one unusable entry — however, the presence of multiple detailed, specific negative reviews across independent dimensions (professionalism, pricing, and project completion) lends meaningful signal to the low score.