Find Nearby Plumbers In Mobile, Alabama

W.C. Waltman Plumbing demonstrates severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by non-responsiveness to phone calls, missed appointment times (3 hours late), and hanging up on customers. Project completion is the most damaging factor, with evidence of abandoned work, incomplete jobs lasting weeks beyond promised timelines, and failure to honor callbacks. Pricing is substantially above market rate with one customer charged $374.50 for one hour of work versus competitor estimates of $99-$200 for identical services. The single positive mention (quick response and fair pricing from Enos Treece in 2016) is heavily outweighed by multiple severe complaints spanning 2015-2017, and the company appears to be defunct or non-operational as of the most recent review.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews indicate business may be defunct or non-operational — phone numbers listed as non-functional, physical locations appeared deserted, no response to customer contact attempts
• CRITICAL: Severe pattern of non-responsiveness — customers unable to reach company by phone, voicemails unreturned for days, hung up on when identified
• CRITICAL: Project completion failures — work abandoned mid-project, timelines grossly exceeded (6 hours promised, 3 weeks actual), temporary fixes without follow-through, safety hazards created (open ditch)
• CRITICAL: Pricing significantly above market — $374.50 charged for 1 hour drain snaking vs. competitor range of $99-$200
• MODERATE: One positive review (2016) from Enos Treece taking over business contradicts later negative reviews, suggesting business instability or management changes
• MODERATE: One review (spam complaint) is not substantive and excluded from scoring
• NOTE: All reviews are 8+ years old (2015-2017); no recent data available to assess current status

This score should be treated with caution due to age of reviews (8+ years old) and apparent business closure, but the consistency and severity of complaints across multiple independent reviews regarding non-responsiveness, project abandonment, and overpricing provide moderate confidence that this company has serious operational and ethical issues.

The overwhelming majority of reviews across all four dimensions are deeply negative, with recurring complaints about overcharging, upselling, incomplete or botched work, and poor communication. Project completion is the most heavily penalized dimension, with numerous accounts of failed repairs, return visits that still did not resolve issues, property damage caused during service, and outright refusal to honor warranties or take responsibility. Pricing complaints are pervasive and severe, with multiple reviewers describing charges that were many multiples of competitor quotes, aggressive membership upselling, and hidden fees contradicting advertised 'no service call fee' policies. Professionalism scores are dragged down by reports of unresponsive management, racist employee conduct, technicians photographing homes without consent, and forged customer documents. The handful of positive reviews — mostly from 2014–2015 and a few isolated cases — are insufficient to meaningfully offset the volume and severity of negative feedback from 2020 onward.

• RECENCY WARNING: The positive reviews are heavily skewed toward older dates (2014, 2015, 2021) while the negative reviews dominate the 2022–2024 period, strongly suggesting a significant and sustained decline in service quality over recent years.
• PATTERN WARNING: Several 5-star reviews are brief, generic, and lack specific detail (e.g., 'very professional and have excellent customer service'), which is consistent with potentially inflated or incentivized reviews. These were scored conservatively.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAG: One review alleges a forged customer signature on a disclosure form used to deny liability for damage caused by the company. This is a significant legal and ethical red flag.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAG: One review alleges a technician dumped sewage waste onto the customer's front lawn, which may constitute a biohazard violation.
• FRAUD/DECEPTION FLAG: Multiple reviews describe technicians deliberately misdiagnosing or worsening problems to upsell expensive replacements, including a possible deliberate HVAC sabotage and a garage door opener misdiagnosis that a competitor fixed for $165 versus the $1,100 replacement quoted.
• FINANCIAL HARM FLAG: Multiple senior citizens and vulnerable customers explicitly report being targeted with high-pressure upselling and inflated pricing, with one reporting a withheld $800 refund for months.
• RELIABILITY FLAG: The single resolved-complaint 5-star review (2024-11-08) acknowledges a prior bad experience was corrected, which confirms the pattern of initial failures rather than offsetting it.

This WW Score is based on 27 reviews with strong cross-dimensional coverage and HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, making it a reliable and conservative reflection of this contractor's recent performance, which is consistently poor.

This contractor's reviews are overwhelmingly negative across all four scored dimensions, with only 3 of 13 reviews being positive. Professionalism is a major pain point, with multiple reviewers citing no-shows, failure to return calls, rude managers, technicians arriving without notice, and poor customer service when complaints were raised. Pricing drew heavy criticism for hidden charges, bait-and-switch quoting, and billing customers for time technicians spent off-site retrieving parts. Project completion is similarly poor, with documented cases of abandoned work, unresolved follow-ups, misdiagnosis, and jobs left incomplete or done inadequately. Experience concerns are significant, including a technician who misdiagnosed a plumbing issue that cost the customer $219 for nothing, and a toilet installation that was described as poorly done and left a mess. The three positive reviews do acknowledge good service in specific instances, preventing scores from reaching zero, but they are insufficient to offset the volume and severity of negative feedback.

• 10 of 13 reviews are 1-star; only 3 are 5-star. The ratio strongly suggests systemic service problems rather than isolated incidents.
• The single positive review on an external platform (Yelp) was flagged by another reviewer as potentially written by the company president (Greg Smith), which raises authenticity concerns for that review.
• Several reviews are older than 12 months (some dating back to 2012, 2015, 2017, 2019); only 2 reviews are from within the past 12 months relative to late 2023. Recency weighting favors the two most recent reviews, one of which is positive (2023-11-30) and one negative (2023-03-10), suggesting problems may be ongoing.
• The 3 positive reviews are relatively generic in praise compared to the highly specific and detailed negative reviews, which reduces confidence in the positive signals.
• One reviewer explicitly alleges this location operates as an independent franchise and is not affiliated with the Roto-Rooter corporation, which may affect brand-level accountability.

This WW Score is based on 13 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions at HIGH confidence, but the score should be treated with moderate overall trust due to the age of many reviews, a potential fake positive review flagged by another customer, and the small absolute number of total reviews; the directional signal — that this contractor performs poorly — is consistent and credible.

The review set is extremely small, heavily dated, and contains one highly damaging review describing work so poorly executed it required a complete $1,500 redo by another contractor. The single recent review (2018) is a 1-star complaint about workmanship quality and follow-through, which carries the most recency weight and significantly drags down professionalism, project completion, and experience scores. Two older 5-star reviews from 2012 and one from 2009 offer minimal detail and cannot meaningfully offset the documented failure. One review noted work was completed on time and below estimate, providing the only positive pricing signal, but it is over 15 years old and carries very low reliability.

• Four of five reviews are more than 10 years old (2009–2015); only one review is from the past 7 years. This score should not be considered representative of current performance.
• One review contains only the word 'unknown' with a 5-star rating and no usable content — excluded from scoring.
• The most recent and detailed review (2018) describes a serious workmanship failure requiring full remediation at significant cost, which is a strong negative signal.
• The older 5-star reviews are extremely vague ('The work went smoothly and well') with no specifics, limiting their evidentiary value.
• Total usable review count is only 4, which is insufficient for high-confidence scoring across any dimension.

This WW Score carries very low reliability due to a critically small and predominantly outdated review set; the only recent review is a serious complaint, and no confident conclusions about current contractor quality can be drawn from this data.

Port City's review record is deeply concerning across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is heavily dragged down by two separate instances of complete failure to return calls or follow up with customers, with only one older review noting responsiveness positively. Project completion is similarly troubled — the most recent and detailed review (2023) describes a $995 charge for work that not only failed to clear the clog but appears to have been performed incorrectly, with a second company finding the clog at 30ft where Port City claimed to have snaked 100ft. Experience scores are low due to that same 2023 incident, which raises serious questions about technical competence or integrity. Pricing receives a slightly higher but still poor score, as the one positive pricing mention is from 2013 and is outweighed by a nearly $1,000 charge for ineffective work.

• One review (2016) contains only the word 'unknown' with a 5-star rating and was excluded from scoring as it provides no usable data.
• The sole positive review mentioning price and responsiveness is from 2013 — over 10 years old — and should be weighted very lightly.
• The most recent review (2023) is the most detailed and credible, and it describes potential incompetence or deliberate overcharging, which is a serious red flag.
• Three of the four usable negative reviews span 2015–2023, suggesting persistent issues with responsiveness and follow-through over many years.
• Low total review count (5 reviews over ~10 years) limits reliability significantly. Score should be treated with caution.

This WW Score is based on only 4 usable reviews spanning a decade, with the most recent and detailed review being strongly negative — the score should be treated as LOW CONFIDENCE and prospective customers are advised to seek additional references before hiring.

This contractor's score is severely dragged down by two detailed, credible negative reviews describing abandoned work, unresponsive communication, and failure to return after accepting full payment — both hallmarks of serious professional and project completion failures. The sole positive review is a 5-star rating that contains no specific job details and includes an attack on a named negative reviewer, which significantly undermines its credibility. Project completion is the lowest-scoring dimension because two reviewers explicitly describe contracted work that was started but never finished, with phones going unanswered and voiceboxes full. Professionalism scores are also very low due to documented ghosting behavior, broken promises to return, and one review raising licensing concerns. The experience dimension receives a slightly higher but still poor score because one reviewer acknowledged the contractor signed a contract and began work, and the positive review claims technical knowledge, though neither provides enough substance to offset the documented failures.

• SUSPECTED FAKE OR BIASED REVIEW: The 5-star review (2024-03-03) contains no specific job details, no description of work performed, and is largely composed of a personal attack on the author of a negative review by name. This pattern is consistent with a retaliatory or planted review and should be treated with very low credibility.
• ABANDONED WORK PATTERN: Two separate reviewers (2023-07-01 and 2023-08-02) independently describe the contractor accepting payment or completing partial work, promising to return, and then becoming completely unreachable — with full voicemail boxes on both contact numbers. This is a serious and consistent pattern.
• LICENSING CONCERN FLAGGED: One reviewer explicitly states that the contractors hold only a 'Licensed Apprentice' status in Alabama and are legally required to be supervised on any jobsite. This has not been verified but warrants caution.
• VULNERABLE CUSTOMER HARM: One reviewer identifies as a 100% combat-disabled veteran confined to a hospital bed and wheelchair who was left without completed toilet installation despite urgent medical need. This elevates the severity of the abandonment complaint.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 3 reviews total. The WW Score should be treated as preliminary and low-confidence. Additional verified reviews are needed before drawing firm conclusions.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, one of which shows strong signs of bias or inauthenticity, making the overall score LOW confidence and insufficient to fully characterize this contractor's typical performance.