Find Nearby Plumbers In Asheville, North Carolina

Plumbing Solutions has a large and broadly positive review base, with the majority of customers praising responsiveness, punctuality, and technician knowledge across many named individuals including Jacob, Otto, Ed, Andres, Brian, and others. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — spanning the full date range of the dataset — consistently cite serious concerns: significantly inflated pricing (multiple reviewers report quotes 2–10x higher than competitors), failure to follow up or return calls, incomplete or failed repairs requiring callbacks, and in several cases rude or threatening behavior from owners or staff. The pricing dimension is the weakest, dragged down by numerous credible, specific complaints about overcharging for simple jobs and lack of pricing transparency. Project completion scores moderately well overall but is tempered by documented cases of abandoned work, unresolved permits, and repairs that failed within days or weeks. Professionalism scores reflect a split picture: many technicians are praised warmly, but office and owner conduct generates a recurring pattern of serious complaints.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., two identical reviews for 'Jake was excellent' on 2025-06-02, two identical reviews for 'Matt installed a new kitchen sink disposal' on 2025-05-19, two identical reviews for 'Enrique was exceptionally helpful' on 2025-05-19, two identical reviews for 'I am a contractor remodeling a bathroom' on 2025-06-02, two identical reviews for 'Another excellent experience with Plumbing Solutions' on 2025-06-03, two identical reviews for 'I never met him' on 2025-05-26, two identical reviews for 'Very Professional, answered questions when asked' on 2025-05-26, two identical reviews for 'Otto Maldonado and his crew' on 2025-10-28, two identical reviews for 'Otto with PLUMBING SOLUTIONS' on 2025-06-23, two identical reviews for 'Highly recommend Plumbing Solutions. Jacob is punctual' on different dates). This pattern of duplicated 5-star reviews is a strong indicator of review manipulation or platform aggregation artifacts and reduces confidence in the positive review pool.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 20+ reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data but inflate the apparent star average.
• PRICING CONCERNS — CREDIBLE AND SPECIFIC: Multiple independent reviewers across different years and locations cite specific dollar amounts that appear grossly inflated compared to competitor quotes: $1,200 estimate for a garbage disposal and snake vs. $100 actual fix; $1,500+ estimate for a P-trap vs. $300–400 actual; $670 for a toilet reset with no new toilet; $520 for a $10 part and 15 minutes of work; $3,500 tankless water heater at 2x+ retail markup; $1,045 for 4 feet of pipe. These are not vague complaints — they are specific, detailed, and corroborated across many reviewers.
• OWNER/MANAGEMENT CONDUCT: Multiple reviews across different years describe the owner or management as rude, threatening, or dismissive when complaints were raised. One reviewer describes being shouted at and threatened with a lien; another describes the owner threatening to 'come settle it in person'; another describes being told 'stop the dramatics and pay the bill.' This is a recurring pattern, not an isolated incident.
• FOLLOW-UP AND COMMUNICATION FAILURES: A recurring theme in negative reviews is failure to return calls, respond to messages, or follow through on scheduled appointments. This spans from 2012 through 2025, suggesting a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE OR FAILED REPAIRS: Several reviews document repairs that failed within days or weeks, with the company then refusing to honor warranties or return to fix the issue without additional charges. One reviewer documents a $1,300 repair that did not fix the problem, followed by a demand for $435 more.
• RECENCY NOTE: The dataset spans from 2005 to June 2025. Reviews from 2025 and 2024 are given higher weight. Negative patterns (pricing, communication failures, incomplete work) appear consistently across all time periods, suggesting these are not historical issues that have been resolved.
• AGGREGATION NOTE: This review set appears to aggregate reviews from multiple platforms and possibly multiple business entities operating under the 'Plumbing Solutions' name across different geographic regions (references to Smyrna, Dedham MA, Wichita, Nashville, Chicago, California, etc.). Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may reflect more than one business.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be treated with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews, strong evidence of pricing manipulation complaints, recurring owner conduct issues, and the likelihood that this dataset aggregates reviews from multiple distinct business entities operating under the same or similar name.

PlumbSmart has a strong and consistent track record of professionalism and technical skill, particularly in recent reviews from 2025, where technicians like Tyler, Nick, Carson, Colin, and David are repeatedly praised for punctuality, communication, and knowledge. However, the pricing dimension is a notable weak point: multiple reviews across different years cite charges as outrageous or excessive for the time spent, and one review describes an unauthorized card charge, pulling this dimension significantly below average. Project completion is generally solid — most jobs are described as finished thoroughly — but a meaningful minority of reviews describe abandoned work, failed inspections, no-shows, and unresolved callbacks, which prevents a high score in this dimension. The overall picture is of a company that has improved substantially in recent years but carries a legacy of serious operational failures in its older reviews.

• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: The majority of reviews from 2025 are overwhelmingly positive (5-star), while reviews from 2009–2021 contain most of the negative feedback. The company appears to have improved significantly, but older negative reviews are weighted less due to recency rules.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2020-10-21 are nearly word-for-word identical (Greg from Asheville, NC, gas line job). One appears to be a duplicate submission and was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews about 'Don' and failed inspections/misrouted lines (rated 2 and 1 stars, dated 2016-09-30 and 2016-09-29) are nearly identical. Counted once for scoring.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Five reviews contained no text (only a 5-star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2011, 2018, 2022) describe pricing as outrageous or excessive for the time worked. One review (2018) describes an unauthorized credit card charge. One review (2019) describes being charged more than quoted. These are serious and recurring concerns.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERNS: Several older reviews describe no-shows, missed appointments, failed inspections (multiple times on one job), abandoned work, and a job that began leaking again 3 weeks later. These are not isolated incidents.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: A small number of recent 5-star reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Very professional and polite.', 'They are alleyways excellent and professional', 'Excellent and timely repair'). While not conclusive, these lack specifics and slightly inflate the positive signal.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over 15 years, giving it HIGH overall confidence, but readers should note that pricing and project completion carry meaningful negative signals that meaningfully suppress the score, and the company's recent performance (2024–2025) appears substantially better than its historical record.

Chuck's Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and generally reliable service delivery, reflected in a WW Score of 72.8. The company excels in experience and project completion, with technicians frequently praised for knowledge, efficiency, and problem-solving. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with numerous customers reporting charges substantially higher than competitors for identical or similar work. Professionalism is mixed: many reviews highlight punctuality, courtesy, and friendliness, but a concerning pattern of rude, aggressive, or dismissive behavior from ownership and some staff members significantly undermines trust. The company's communication and follow-through are generally strong, though some customers report unresolved issues and incomplete callbacks.

• PRICING CONCERNS: 23+ reviews explicitly cite overpricing, with customers reporting charges 2-4x higher than competitors for identical work. Multiple reviews mention diagnostic fees ($49-$50) that do not apply to work, and inflated labor rates (e.g., $400+/hour for simple tasks). This is the most consistent negative theme.
• OWNER BEHAVIOR RED FLAG: Multiple detailed accounts (at least 4 reviews) describe Chuck (the owner) as verbally abusive, using profanity, raising his voice, becoming belligerent, and hanging up on customers. One review describes him as having 'rage issues.' This pattern suggests systemic management problems.
• STAFF INCONSISTENCY: While many technicians (Bobby, Dennis, Daryl, Cleveland, Jared, Mike, Chris) receive individual praise, others are described as rude, argumentative, or unprofessional. One technician was reported to have a Nazi tattoo and made customers uncomfortable. Quality appears highly dependent on which technician is assigned.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: At least 3 reviews describe jobs left unfinished or callbacks not honored. One customer paid $978 in full but was told completion would only be scheduled if they purchased a water softener.
• DEFECTIVE WORKMANSHIP: Multiple reviews report failures of work performed by Chuck's (cracked fittings, leaks after installation, wrong water heater size installed, stripped bolts). At least 2 reviews describe over-tightened connections causing stress cracks.
• EMERGENCY SERVICE GAPS: One detailed review describes refusal to provide timely emergency service for a critical leak caused by their own defective work, with dismissive and profane responses when the customer pressed for urgency.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Approximately 30-40 reviews dated 2019-06-08 and 2020-06-07 contain minimal detail, generic praise, or are blank (5-star with no text). This clustering of dates with low-detail positive reviews is suspicious and may inflate the company's apparent rating.
• ESTIMATE PRACTICES: Multiple reviews criticize the $49-$50 non-refundable diagnostic fee and the company's refusal to provide phone estimates, forcing customers to pay for in-person assessments even for straightforward jobs.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most detailed negative reviews are from 2017-2019. More recent reviews (2024, 2023) are limited but include one very positive recent review (Feb 2024). It is unclear if management or practices have improved.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while the score reflects genuine strengths in technical competence and project completion, the pricing dimension is severely underweighted relative to customer harm, and the professionalism score masks serious behavioral red flags from ownership that directly damage trust. The suspicious clustering of low-detail 5-star reviews from 2019-2020 suggests potential review manipulation. Customers seeking Chuck's should prioritize requesting specific technicians (Bobby, Dennis, Cleveland, Jared, Mike, Chris) and obtaining detailed written quotes before committing, as quality and fairness vary dramatically. The company's pricing is consistently reported as 2-4x market rate for equivalent work, which is a material risk factor not fully captured in the WW Score.

Roto-Rooter receives consistently strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness from individual technicians, with hundreds of reviews praising courteous, knowledgeable, and prompt service. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension across this dataset, with an enormous volume of reviews describing charges as excessive, deceptive, or wildly inconsistent — including numerous accounts of bait-and-switch quoting, undisclosed fees, and charges for incomplete work. Project completion is significantly dragged down by a substantial minority of reviews describing failed repairs, no-shows, abandoned jobs, warranty disputes, and work that made problems worse. Experience scores moderately well overall, as many technicians are praised for skill and problem-solving, but this is offset by recurring accounts of misdiagnosis, wrong equipment, and upselling unnecessary services. The aggregate picture is a company with capable individual technicians but systemic issues around pricing transparency, scheduling reliability, and quality control.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates (e.g., two identical reviews from 'Paul arrived same day...', two identical 'Zach is the man...', two identical 'Based solely off customer service...', two identical 'Easy to schedule and a quick service...', two identical 'Great service. Would highly recommend!', two identical 'Efficient and effective...', two identical 'Excellent with Armando...', two identical 'Very prompt and helpful! Anthony...', two identical 'My name is Antoinette...'). These duplicates inflate positive scores and have been treated conservatively.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS: A large cluster of reviews dated 1996-2001 consist of single-line responses ('NO', 'NOT REALLY', 'ON TIME AND DID THE WORK') with no detail, all rated 5 stars. These appear to be placeholder or fabricated entries and were excluded from scoring.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 100+ reviews contain no text content but carry 5-star ratings. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data, but their presence inflates the raw star average.
• EXTREME RATING POLARIZATION: The dataset shows a pronounced bimodal distribution — a very large number of 5-star reviews with minimal detail alongside a substantial volume of detailed 1-star reviews describing serious failures. This pattern is consistent with either review manipulation on the positive end or a company with highly inconsistent service quality.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC: Pricing complaints are not isolated incidents — they span multiple years, multiple geographic locations, and multiple service types. Charges ranging from $200-$900 for simple drain snaking (15-30 minutes of work) are documented repeatedly. This is a structural business practice issue, not individual technician behavior.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: A significant number of reviews describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and no communication was provided. This is a recurring operational failure across multiple franchise locations.
• MULTI-FRANCHISE DATASET: Reviews appear to span dozens of different Roto-Rooter franchise locations across the United States. Scores reflect the brand aggregate, not any single location. Individual location quality varies significantly.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are dated between 2020-2025, which is within the relevant scoring window. Older reviews (pre-2015) were given reduced weight.

This WW Score of 72.4 is based on a very large dataset (1,456 reviews) and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but should be interpreted as a brand-level aggregate across many franchise locations — individual location quality varies substantially, and the systemic pricing and scheduling issues documented here may not apply equally to all franchises.

Carson Plumbing has a large and deeply divided review base. The majority of positive reviews — many from 2019 to present — describe a responsive, professional, and fairly priced operation with skilled technicians like Tony, Paul, Sam, and others who arrive on time, explain issues clearly, and complete jobs thoroughly. However, a significant cluster of 1-star reviews — spanning 2014 through 2024 — describes a pattern of no-shows, broken promises, incompetent diagnosis, hidden charges, and rude or threatening behavior, predominantly associated with a technician named Mark or Marc, often dispatched through home warranty companies. This bifurcation substantially drags down all four dimension scores. Project completion is penalized most heavily due to multiple documented cases of abandoned work, repeat visits that failed to resolve issues, and jobs left incomplete for weeks. Professionalism is similarly impacted by credible accounts of aggressive behavior, dishonesty, and failure to communicate.

• SPLIT IDENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to describe two very different service experiences — one associated with owner Paul Carson and technicians like Tony, Sam, and Bo (consistently positive), and another associated with a technician named Mark or Marc (consistently negative, often via home warranty dispatch). These may represent different operational periods, staff, or service channels, but the negative reviews are credible and specific.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A cluster of 13 reviews all dated 2025-05-10 and 2025-04-10 share suspiciously generic language (e.g., 'The technician quickly found the issue and fixed it,' 'handled it fast,' 'great service and very reliable'), lack specific names or job details, and follow identical structural patterns. These are likely artificially generated reviews and have been weighted conservatively.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with identical text ('It did well, he did a great job.') appear on the same date (2022-02-27), and a third near-identical review ('It did well.') also appears on the same date. These are likely fake or padding reviews and were excluded from scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The detailed water heater replacement review mentioning Tony and Paul (with pressure follow-up visits) appears twice — once dated 2024-06-09 and once dated 2023-07-19 — with near-identical text. Only one instance was counted.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 14 reviews contained no text (rating only). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024–2025) are predominantly positive, while the most detailed negative reviews span 2014–2024. The negative pattern associated with 'Mark/Marc' appears across multiple years, suggesting a persistent issue rather than an isolated incident.
• HOME WARRANTY CHANNEL: A disproportionate share of negative reviews originate from customers assigned Carson Plumbing through home warranty companies (First American, Sears, etc.). This channel appears to produce significantly worse outcomes and may reflect a different operational standard than direct-hire jobs.
• HIDDEN CHARGES FLAG: Multiple negative reviews specifically cite unexpected fees, charges for unnecessary parts, and refusal to provide itemized invoices. One review (2021) from a long-term customer also raised billing transparency concerns. This suppresses the pricing score despite many positive pricing mentions.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously — the contractor's quality appears highly dependent on which technician is dispatched and whether the job originates from a direct hire versus a home warranty referral, making the aggregate score an imperfect predictor of any individual customer's experience.

Roto-Rooter receives consistently strong praise for technician professionalism, friendliness, and communication, with hundreds of reviews citing courteous, knowledgeable, and prompt service. However, pricing is a major and recurring pain point: dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges as excessive, shocking, or outright predatory, with specific complaints ranging from $400+ for a single drain snake to $1,600+ for incomplete work, significantly dragging down the pricing dimension. Project completion is mixed — the majority of jobs are completed successfully and often same-day, but a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, failed repairs requiring follow-up by other companies, and jobs left in worse condition than found. Technician skill and experience scores well overall, but is undermined by a notable subset of reviews describing misdiagnosis, incompetent repairs, and technicians who appeared uncertain or unqualified for the task at hand.

• PRICING CONCERN: Pricing is the single most negatively reviewed dimension. Dozens of reviews across multiple years and locations explicitly cite charges of $400–$1,600+ for basic drain cleaning or simple repairs as excessive, with multiple reviewers stating they found the same work done for 50–75% less elsewhere.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: A significant number of reviews describe jobs that were not completed, required multiple return visits, or were left in worse condition. Several reviews describe technicians abandoning jobs mid-work, failing to reconnect appliances, or leaving hazardous conditions.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: A recurring pattern of no-shows, missed appointment windows without notification, and poor dispatcher communication appears across multiple years and locations. This is a systemic operational issue.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians recommending expensive repairs (e.g., $3,000–$10,000 excavations) that were later found unnecessary by other plumbers who resolved the issue quickly and cheaply.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A cluster of reviews dated 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-02 share very similar short-form praise structures (e.g., 'Justin was awesome', 'Great Job Mo!', 'Justin saved our lives today!') with minimal detail. Several appear to be from the same franchise location and may reflect solicited or incentivized reviews. Confidence in the high-end scores is slightly reduced as a result.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 60–70 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (mostly 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive text are from 2024–2025 and are within the past 12 months. Older reviews (2013–2020) show similar patterns of both praise and complaints, suggesting these issues are long-standing and not improving significantly over time.
• GEOGRAPHIC VARIANCE: Reviews appear to span many different Roto-Rooter franchise locations across the US. Scores reflect aggregate performance across all locations, which may mask significant variation between individual franchises.

This WW Score is based on a very large review set (600+ reviews) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, making the aggregate score statistically robust; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously because it aggregates performance across many distinct franchise locations, and individual location quality varies dramatically — some franchises consistently earn 5-star praise while others generate repeated complaints about pricing, no-shows, and incomplete work.