Find Nearby Plumbers In Asheville, North Carolina

Rooter King presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. On the positive side, multiple reviewers praised fast response times, friendly technicians, and reasonable pricing — with several noting same-day or emergency service during difficult circumstances. However, serious negative reviews carry significant weight: one detailed account describes repeated misdiagnosis, no diagnostic equipment, and what the reviewer characterized as outright fraud over several months; another describes a technician breaking hardware and the owner refusing to resolve it; and a third documents dishonest billing practices, poor communication, and a suggestion to pay cash off the books. Project completion is particularly concerning, with one job abandoned mid-work for two weeks and another resulting in a broken fixture with no follow-through. The volume of credible, specific negative reviews prevents any dimension from scoring above the mid-60s despite the genuine positive feedback present.

• Several highly detailed negative reviews describe systemic issues including lack of diagnostic equipment, repeated misdiagnosis, and dishonest billing — these are credible and specific, not generic complaints.
• One reviewer (2014) alleges the owner explicitly suggested cash payment to avoid taxes — this is a serious business integrity flag.
• The most damaging negative reviews span 2014 to 2024, suggesting these are not isolated incidents but potentially recurring patterns.
• Positive reviews tend to be brief and lack operational detail (e.g., 'Great response Quick, successful'), while negative reviews are highly specific — this asymmetry slightly reduces confidence in the positive scores.
• Several reviews are older than 12 months (some dating back to 2014 and 2016) and have been weighted accordingly; the most recent reviews (2023–2024) include both a strong positive and two significant negatives, suggesting issues persist into the present day.
• No fake review patterns detected — both positive and negative reviews appear authentic based on specificity and variation in language.

This WW Score is based on 13 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions at HIGH confidence, but the wide variance between glowing and severely negative accounts — combined with the seriousness of the misconduct alleged in multiple reviews — means the score should be treated as a cautionary moderate rather than a reliable endorsement.

Rogers Plumbing has a small and very dated review set, with most reviews coming from 2011–2014 and one outlier from 2006. Positive signals include a notable callback honor — the plumber returned within an hour at no charge to fix a loose disposal and admitted fault, which is a strong mark of integrity and professionalism. However, one reviewer explicitly noted a poor interpersonal experience, and another felt the price was too high relative to the time spent on the job, which tempers the pricing score considerably. Project completion is mixed: work generally appears to have been finished, but one reviewer conditionally tied satisfaction to whether the sink continued to hold, suggesting some uncertainty about workmanship quality.

• One review has no text (Rating: 5.0, Date: 2014-12-18) — this review was excluded from dimension scoring as it contains no usable data.
• All reviews are more than 9 years old. The most recent review is from 2014. This score should be treated with significant caution as it does not reflect current business performance.
• Very small sample size (5 reviews total, 4 with usable data) — scores are statistically unreliable and should not be used as a strong indicator of quality.
• No reviews from the past 12 months — recency weighting cannot be applied favorably.

This WW Score carries very low reliability due to an extremely small and heavily outdated review set; prospective customers should seek more current references before making a hiring decision.

J&K Plumbing exhibits a deeply polarized performance profile with significant operational inconsistencies. While individual technicians (particularly Jake, Dustin, and Antonio) frequently receive praise for technical competence and friendliness, systemic issues severely undermine overall service quality. The company struggles with professionalism due to persistent complaints about rude office staff (especially the receptionist), poor communication, failure to return calls, and aggressive scheduling practices (15-minute notice windows). Project completion is compromised by incomplete repairs, failure to follow up on warranty claims, false reporting to insurance companies, and abandonment of work. Pricing concerns emerge around hidden charges, cash-only payment demands, and inflated quotes. The company's apparent strategy of collecting service fees while avoiding actual repairs—particularly through AHS warranty assignments—is documented across numerous reviews spanning over a decade.

• SYSTEMIC FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews (spanning 2008-2025) document identical schemes: marking jobs 'complete' to AHS without performing work, providing false diagnoses to deny warranty coverage, and collecting service fees without resolution. This pattern is too consistent to be coincidental.
• OFFICE STAFF CONDUCT: Receptionist (identified as 'Kathy' or 'Cathy') repeatedly described as rude, dismissive, and unprofessional across 40+ reviews. Multiple customers report being blamed for missed appointments despite company's own 15-minute notice policy.
• INTENTIONAL MISDIAGNOSIS: Documented pattern of technicians providing false information to warranty companies (roof leaks that don't exist, uneven floors, 'Act of God' clauses, foreign objects in toilets) to deny coverage. Licensed inspector review (2024) explicitly states company avoids work 'at all costs.'
• PAYMENT COERCION: Company demands cash/check only, refuses credit cards, and collects fees upfront before work completion. Multiple reviews note this prevents documentation and enables fee collection without service delivery.
• SCHEDULING ABUSE: Consistent complaints about 15-minute notice windows, technicians leaving immediately if customer is 2-5 minutes late, and charging $75 service fees for no-shows caused by company's own unrealistic timelines.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURE: Extensive documentation of unreturned calls, abandoned repairs, parts ordered but never installed (3+ months delays), and tickets marked complete without resolution.
• RECENCY CONCERN: While recent reviews (2025) show some positive experiences, negative patterns persist consistently through entire review history (2008-2025), suggesting systemic rather than isolated issues.
• REVIEW AUTHENTICITY: Some highly generic 5-star reviews lack specific details; however, negative reviews are overwhelmingly detailed and specific, reducing likelihood of fake negative reviews. One review mentions company offers 'prizes for good reviews,' suggesting potential review manipulation.
• INSURANCE COMPANY COLLUSION: Multiple reviews suggest company benefits financially from AHS assignments regardless of work completion, creating perverse incentive to avoid repairs.

This WW Score of 58.2 should be trusted as a reliable indicator of significant service quality problems, though it may understate the severity of systemic issues given the company's apparent strategy of collecting fees without completing work. The HIGH confidence is based on 365 reviews with consistent patterns across 17 years, but the score reflects a company with serious operational and ethical concerns that warrant extreme caution.

RLC Service Group has a deeply mixed review profile. Positive reviews praise promptness, professionalism, technical knowledge, and quality workmanship across electrical, HVAC, and general contracting work. However, two serious negative reviews describe predatory billing practices — charging undisclosed fees after the fact, threatening customers, and refusing to provide documentation — which significantly drag down the pricing and professionalism scores. The failure to follow through on delivering an estimate (2015 review) also damages the project completion dimension. The overall picture is a company capable of good work but with documented patterns of poor business ethics and pricing transparency that cannot be ignored.

• Two reviews (2018 and 2021) describe serious ethical concerns: undisclosed fees charged after service, threats of collection, and refusal to provide invoices. These are not minor complaints and materially impact pricing and professionalism scores.
• One review (2015) describes a complete failure to deliver a promised estimate and unresponsive communication, indicating a project completion and professionalism issue.
• Several 5-star reviews are generic in nature with limited specifics (e.g., 'amazing company', 'above and beyond') and may reflect low-detail or potentially biased reviews. The 2024 review in particular is extremely brief and non-specific.
• Review dates span from 2014 to 2024 — a 10-year window. Only one review is from the past 12 months (2024). The majority of positive reviews are from 2014–2017, meaning recent performance data is very limited. The most recent detailed negative review is from 2021.
• The company appears to operate across multiple service categories (RV transport, HVAC, electrical, general contracting), which makes consistent quality assessment difficult and may indicate inconsistent service standards across divisions.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — while mention counts are sufficient for statistical confidence in most dimensions, the wide date range of reviews (2014–2024), the presence of serious ethical misconduct allegations, and the scarcity of recent detailed reviews mean this score should be interpreted cautiously before hiring.

Practical Plumbing presents a deeply divided picture across all four dimensions. On the positive side, a substantial number of reviewers — many of them long-term customers — praise Jim's responsiveness, courteous demeanor, fair pricing, and solid workmanship on routine jobs. However, a serious and recurring pattern of negative reviews significantly drags down every dimension: multiple independent reviewers allege that Jim diagnosed expensive, unnecessary repairs (ranging from $2,000–$4,300) without using a camera, collected upfront deposits, and then either failed to return or refused refunds. Professionalism is further undermined by multiple accounts of Jim becoming aggressive, confrontational, and hanging up on customers when questioned about his work or billing. Project completion suffers from documented instances of abandoned jobs, repeated cancellations, and work left incomplete. On the experience dimension, at least two separate reviewers had second opinions confirm that Jim's diagnoses were entirely wrong, and one detailed review describes a hot water tank installation that blocked a drain and was left non-functional. The score reflects a contractor who may perform adequately on simple jobs but carries significant and well-documented risk on larger projects.

• SERIOUS FRAUD PATTERN: At least four independent reviewers across different time periods (2014, 2023, 2024) allege that Jim diagnosed costly unnecessary repairs ($2,000–$4,300) without camera inspection, collected upfront cash deposits, and then failed to return or refused refunds. This is a consistent and specific pattern, not isolated complaints.
• LICENSING CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly states Jim is unlicensed in Michigan; another states he is only a licensed apprentice who cannot pull permits. A third negative reviewer advises finding someone 'licensed and insured.' This is a significant red flag that was not rebutted in any positive review.
• AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR: Multiple reviewers independently describe Jim becoming confrontational, aggressive, or hanging up on customers when questioned about pricing or work quality. This is corroborated across at least three separate reviews.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with identical text (the Warren seniors scam review) appear with dates 2023-07-18 and 2023-07-19 — one slightly longer with the licensing note added. These appear to be the same reviewer posting twice and were counted as one unique incident for scoring purposes.
• BLANK/USELESS REVIEWS: Two reviews contained no text (only a 5-star rating) and one contained only a period. These were excluded from dimensional scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most serious fraud and misconduct allegations are concentrated in the most recent reviews (2023–2024), suggesting the situation may have worsened over time rather than improved. Older positive reviews (2012–2018) may not reflect current service quality.
• POSSIBLE NAME DISCREPANCY: One positive review references 'Tim at Practical Plumbing' and another references 'Chris and Practical Plumbing' and another references 'Todd' — it is unclear if these are different employees or if some reviews may belong to a different business entirely, which could artificially inflate positive scores.
• GEOGRAPHIC INCONSISTENCY: One review references Park Ridge/Northwest Chicago area, while the majority of reviews reference Metro Detroit/St. Clair Shores/Warren Michigan. This raises the possibility that some reviews may be for a different business with a similar name, contaminating the dataset.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to review volume, but the score itself should be treated with serious caution given the documented pattern of alleged fraud, licensing concerns, aggressive behavior, and the possibility that some positive reviews belong to a different business — prospective customers should exercise significant due diligence before hiring.

Holy Water Plumbing shows highly polarized performance with a critical negative review that substantially outweighs two positive ones. The negative review (Nov 2023) documents severe project failures including a cut main water line, reversed hot/cold lines, non-functional washing machine connection, cost overruns, and unresponsiveness to customer contact. The two positive reviews (Sept 2024 and Aug 2023) praise punctuality, knowledge, and fair pricing, but the documented defects and unprofessional conduct (blocking customer on Facebook) in the negative review indicate systemic issues with project completion and professionalism. The WW Score reflects the weight of explicit evidence of failed work and poor follow-through.

• CRITICAL: One detailed negative review documents multiple serious defects (cut main water line, reversed supply lines, non-functional connections) that directly contradict positive reviews' claims of quality work.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: Customer reported being blocked on business Facebook page after raising legitimate concerns—this is documented unprofessional conduct.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE: Customer texted owner on personal phone about critical issues with no response.
• COST OVERRUN: Significant underbidding followed by thousands in additional charges claiming need to outsource work.
• POTENTIAL PATTERN: Two positive reviews use similar enthusiastic language ('excellent service,' 'honest, intelligent, hardworking') but lack specific technical details, while negative review is highly specific and detailed with documented failures.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent review (Sept 2024) is positive but predates the detailed negative review by 10 months; negative review from Nov 2023 documents ongoing issues.

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (3 reviews) and extreme polarization; however, the detailed negative review documenting specific, costly defects and unprofessional conduct carries substantial weight and suggests real quality and communication issues that cannot be dismissed as isolated complaints.