Find Nearby Plumbers In Concord, North Carolina

This contractor has a mixed but skewed record. The majority of positive reviews are older than five years (many from 2011–2014), describing courteous, timely, and reasonably priced work from Terry and his team. However, two serious negative reviews — one involving a failed pipe repair under a toilet that was never corrected, and another involving an unauthorized credit card charge, unreturned calls, and work that had to be redone by another plumber — significantly drag down the project completion and professionalism scores. The most recent substantive review (2023) is generically positive with no specifics, raising mild authenticity concerns. Three reviews contain no text ('unknown'), providing no usable data. Overall, the score reflects a contractor who may have performed adequately in earlier years but has documented failures in follow-through, billing integrity, and workmanship quality.

• Three reviews contain only the word 'unknown' with no review text — these were excluded from scoring as they provide no usable data.
• The 2023 review is generic and lacks any specific detail, which is consistent with a potentially inauthentic or incentivized review pattern.
• The majority of positive reviews are from 2011–2014, making them 9–12+ years old. Recency weighting significantly reduces their reliability as indicators of current service quality.
• Only one review is from the past 12 months (2023), and it is vague. The most recent detailed reviews include two serious complaints (2017, 2019) involving billing fraud, abandoned work, and substandard materials.
• The 2017 negative review alleges use of incorrect parts (sprinkler parts on a well system) and an unauthorized credit card charge that was never reimbursed — this is a significant red flag for both experience and professionalism.
• The 2019 negative review describes a pipe failure under a toilet affecting elderly residents, with no callback or remediation — a serious project completion failure.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: while mention counts are sufficient for statistical confidence in each dimension, the heavy skew toward very old positive reviews and the presence of two serious, specific negative complaints in more recent years means the score likely overstates current service quality.

Cranford Plumbing has a mixed record across only 3 reviews spanning nearly a decade. Professionalism scores moderately — two reviewers praised responsiveness and reliability, while one noted the owner answered the phone personally and arrived same-day; however, the negative reviewer's complaint about Mr. Cranford refusing to itemize or explain pricing reflects a significant professionalism concern. Pricing is the weakest dimension: one reviewer praised fair pricing, one cited a reasonable $750 water heater replacement, but a third described a $3,800 invoice for a job where only ~$2,250 could be accounted for, alleging over $1,550 in unexplained charges — a serious red flag. Project completion scores reasonably as all jobs appear to have been finished, with punctuality noted positively in two reviews. Experience receives a conservative limited-confidence score based on two brief mentions of competence with no detailed workmanship descriptions.

• RECENCY WARNING: Two of three reviews are from 2015 — nearly a decade old. Only one review (2023) is recent. The WW Score is heavily influenced by outdated data and should be treated with caution.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly alleged that Mr. Cranford refused to disclose the unit cost and that over $1,550 was unaccounted for on a $3,800 invoice. This is a substantive complaint, not a vague dissatisfaction.
• VERY LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 3 reviews total. No statistically reliable conclusions can be drawn. Score should be considered preliminary only.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in tone, detail level, and rating — no signs of coordinated or fabricated reviews.

This WW Score carries LOW reliability due to only 3 reviews, two of which are approximately 9 years old, and a significant unresolved pricing transparency complaint that materially impacts the pricing dimension.

This contractor shows highly inconsistent performance across reviews spanning multiple years. The 2023 review describes severe failures in professionalism, project completion, and pricing, while older reviews (2017–2021) praise service quality and friendliness. The most recent and detailed negative review explicitly documents incomplete repairs, lack of technical expertise, unresponsiveness, and overpricing, which heavily influences the overall score. The stark contradiction between recent and historical reviews suggests either significant organizational decline or potential service inconsistency depending on technician assignment.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 3–7 years old (2017, 2019, 2021). The most recent review (2023) is severely negative and detailed, describing systemic failures. This temporal pattern is concerning.
• REVIEW QUALITY IMBALANCE: The 2023 negative review is highly detailed and specific with multiple documented failures. The positive reviews, while friendly in tone, lack specific technical detail and are older. The 2017 review contains excessive punctuation and capitalization ('!!!!I I') which may indicate low-quality data.
• CONTRADICTION PATTERN: Extreme polarity between reviews (1-star vs. 5-star) with no middle-ground reviews suggests either significant service variability or potential data quality issues.
• PRICING DATA LIMITED: Only one review explicitly addresses pricing (the negative 2023 review), making the pricing score unreliable despite the strong negative signal.

This score should be treated with caution due to severe inconsistency across reviews and heavy reliance on a single recent detailed negative review versus older positive reviews. The recency of the 2023 failure documentation is concerning and suggests current performance may be significantly worse than historical ratings indicate. Additional recent reviews are needed to establish reliable current performance.

Lake Norman Plumbers On Call exhibits significant and consistent problems across multiple dimensions. Professionalism is severely compromised by poor communication, unresponsiveness, rudeness, and failure to honor commitments (calls not returned, missed appointments, screening calls). Pricing is a major red flag with multiple customers reporting excessive charges ($4000 for a consultation, $1685 for a 2-hour water heater install, $350 for a misdiagnosed repair). Project completion suffers from incomplete work, abandoned follow-ups, and failure to deliver promised services. While some positive reviews mention competent technicians (Matthew, Denny, Shelly), the overwhelming pattern of negative experiences—particularly with home warranty work—suggests systemic operational failures and potential deceptive practices.

• PATTERN OF DECEPTIVE PRACTICES: Multiple reviews allege dishonesty, including misrepresenting tank sizes, providing false information to home warranty companies, and charging for work not performed or incorrectly diagnosed.
• SEVERE PRICING CONCERNS: Consistent pattern of overcharging (labor rates 2-3x market standard, excessive diagnostic fees). One customer charged $4000 for a consultation with no resolution.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Systematic failure to return calls, unresponsiveness to customers, screening calls, and rudeness when confronted.
• HOME WARRANTY EXPLOITATION: Multiple reviews indicate the company behaves differently when paid by home warranty vs. direct customers, suggesting they prioritize guaranteed payment over service quality.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews are older (2016-2021), but the 2023 review ($4000 septic scam) suggests problems persist. Positive reviews are sparse and older (2020-2022).
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Positive reviews praise specific technicians (Matthew, Denny, Shelly) but negative reviews cite the same company's management and office staff as unprofessional and deceptive.

This WW Score of 48.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong warning signal. The score is based on 9 reviews with consistent negative patterns across professionalism, pricing, and completion dimensions, supported by HIGH confidence across three of four dimensions. The company demonstrates systemic operational and ethical problems that extend beyond isolated incidents.

This contractor's reviews are dominated by severe and repeated pricing complaints, with numerous customers reporting charges they describe as grossly excessive, hidden, or predatory — including charging elderly customers hundreds of dollars for simple repairs and providing estimates many times higher than competitors. Professionalism is mixed: individual plumbers are sometimes praised for courtesy and punctuality, but the company-level behavior (defensive owner responses, unresponsive management, a road-rage incident by an employee) drags the score down significantly. Project completion is a serious concern, with multiple reviews describing incomplete diagnoses, improperly performed repairs, abandoned follow-through, and work that failed to resolve the original problem. Technical experience is similarly split — a handful of reviewers praise knowledgeable plumbers, while several others describe misdiagnoses, unnecessary upselling, and repairs that had to be redone by other contractors. The overall picture is of a company with some capable individual technicians undermined by systemic pricing and quality control failures.

• Two reviews (dated 2015-03-06 and 2015-02-24) are near-identical in text and content, suggesting a duplicate submission or copied review. These were counted as one unique data point for scoring purposes.
• One review (dated 2016-06-13) contains only the word 'unknown' with a 5-star rating and provides no usable data — excluded from scoring.
• A significant portion of positive reviews are vague or generic (e.g., 'Yes job got done.', 'Quick and courteous, nice job!') with little specific detail, which limits their evidentiary weight.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months; only 4 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024). Recent reviews continue to reflect the same pricing and completion concerns seen historically.
• Multiple reviews explicitly describe the company targeting elderly or vulnerable customers with inflated estimates, which is a serious ethical flag beyond normal pricing complaints.
• Owner/management responses to negative reviews were described by multiple reviewers as defensive and dismissive, suggesting a systemic customer service issue at the company level.

This WW Score is based on 37 usable reviews spanning approximately 10 years, with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions due to strong mention counts; however, the preponderance of older reviews and the small number of recent data points mean current performance may differ, and the score should be treated as a reliable historical signal rather than a guaranteed reflection of present-day service quality.

The review set is extremely small (3 reviews) and spans over three years, making any score highly unreliable. Professionalism received mixed signals: two older reviews praised responsiveness and communication (notably Garret and Todd), while the most recent review describes persistent failure to respond to calls and a complete refusal to address a post-job problem. Project completion is significantly dragged down by the 2022 review describing floors that buckled within a year and a half with no resolution offered, which is a serious workmanship and follow-through failure. Experience scores are similarly mixed — the 2020 review suggests competent handling of a complex water damage restoration, but the flooring failure in 2022 raises real concerns about quality of work and long-term durability. Pricing was not mentioned in any review and cannot be scored.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is statistically unreliable and should be treated as indicative only.
• Reviews span from 2019 to 2022 — the most recent review (2022) is also the most negative and most detailed, and should carry the most weight.
• The 2019 review ('Loved the rep that came out... More postings to come') is vague, lacks specifics, and contains no follow-up. It provides minimal usable data.
• The 2022 review describes a serious unresolved defect (buckling floors) and a pattern of non-responsiveness — this is a significant red flag for both project completion and professionalism.
• No pricing information was mentioned in any review — the pricing dimension cannot be scored.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews with limited detail and should not be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's overall quality — significantly more reviews are needed before any confident assessment can be made.