Find Nearby Plumbers In Hickory, North Carolina

Plumbing Tech presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. While several reviewers praised individual technicians (Kyle, Robert S., Matt S., Matt K.) for professionalism, communication, and quality workmanship, these positives are heavily counterbalanced by serious negative reviews alleging scam-like upselling, price inflation, and abandoned work. Pricing is the most damaged dimension, with multiple credible accounts of bills escalating dramatically — one from $3k to $38k and another involving a fabricated sewer collapse diagnosis to justify a $5,400 job. Project completion is also significantly impacted by a review describing a 7-foot hole left in a front yard for 3 months and a separate failure to ever deliver a promised quote. The experience dimension is similarly split: some reviewers describe skilled, thorough work while others describe technicians misdiagnosing problems or being unable to complete basic tasks without upselling.

• SERIOUS FRAUD/SCAM CONCERN: At least two independent reviews (May 2019 and April 2019) describe nearly identical patterns — a routine drain call escalating to a high-cost repair recommendation that a second plumber later determined was unnecessary or grossly overpriced. This is a strong signal of a systematic upselling or scam practice, not isolated incidents.
• ABANDONED WORK: One review explicitly states a technician (Andy) left a 7-foot hole in the front yard for 3 months with a broken line unrepaired. This is a severe project completion failure.
• FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURE: One reviewer reports being promised a quote that never arrived after 3+ weeks of follow-up, and a separate reviewer reports a promised callback from Matt that never came.
• REVIEW DATE RANGE: All reviews are from 2018–2021. The most recent review is from May 2021. No reviews from the past 12 months are present, meaning current service quality cannot be assessed. Scores should be treated with caution regarding present-day performance.
• MIXED TECHNICIAN QUALITY: Named technicians vary significantly in quality. Positive reviews name Kyle, Robert S., Matt S., Matt K., and Ron. Negative reviews name Matt and Andy. This suggests inconsistent staffing rather than uniform service quality.
• NO SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: Review language is varied, specific, and includes both positive and negative experiences with named individuals and specific dollar amounts. No fake review pattern detected.

This WW Score is based on 13 reviews spanning 2018–2021 with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but the score should be treated with caution due to the severity of fraud-related allegations, an abandoned project, and the absence of any reviews from the past 12 months.

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.

This contractor has a very small and dated review pool, making any score highly tentative. One reviewer praised honesty and professionalism with same-day service, while a 3-star review offered no detail beyond listing service types used. The most substantive review was a strong complaint about pricing transparency, describing a $251 charge for a 10-minute flapper replacement with no upfront quote — a significant red flag for the pricing dimension. Project completion and experience received modest scores because the work itself was not reported as defective, but the lack of detail across reviews prevents confident scoring in any dimension. All reviews are over 10 years old, which severely limits their relevance to current performance.

• ALL REVIEWS ARE OVER 10 YEARS OLD (2009–2013): These scores reflect no recent performance data and should be treated with extreme caution.
• PRICING CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly described a bait-and-switch pricing experience — $251 for a 10-minute job with no upfront quote disclosed. This is a material consumer warning.
• VERY LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 3 reviews total, with only 1 providing detailed feedback. Scores are based on minimal evidence and carry very low reliability.
• ONE REVIEW (3-star) PROVIDED NO USABLE DETAIL beyond listing service categories — it could not meaningfully contribute to any dimension score.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED, but the small sample size makes pattern detection unreliable.

This WW Score should be considered unreliable — it is based on only 3 reviews, all more than a decade old, with minimal usable detail, and includes a notable pricing complaint that disproportionately shapes the limited data available.

This contractor exhibits severe and consistent deficiencies across all dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by repeated no-shows, failure to communicate, broken promises, and disrespectful behavior toward clients. Project completion is the most damaging dimension, with multiple reviews documenting abandoned jobs, unfinished work, and refusal to return for callbacks despite payment received. While a few positive reviews praise reasonable pricing and problem-solving ability, these are vastly outweighed by nine reviews detailing incomplete projects, missed deadlines, and financial losses to clients. The pattern of behavior—taking deposits, failing to show up, making excuses, then disappearing—suggests systematic misrepresentation and potential fraud.

• CRITICAL: Strong pattern of project abandonment across 6+ reviews spanning 2012-2022, indicating systemic operational failure or intentional fraud
• Multiple clients report financial losses: one client lost ~$2,000 (partially recovered), another paid three installments for unfinished shed, another paid for incomplete electrical work
• Repeated no-show pattern: clients report scheduled appointments with no appearance and no communication (2012, 2014, 2019, 2020, 2022)
• Misrepresentation: contractor claims to be 'fully bonded, insured, licensed' with 'full staff' but shows up with only family members and demonstrates lack of basic skills (3-way switches, proper electrical work)
• Quality issues documented: uneven doggy door installation, incomplete electrical work, unfinished roof on shed, running toilet after replacement, incomplete tile work
• Positive reviews (3 of 11) are significantly older (2011-2019) and lack specificity; negative reviews are more recent and detailed, suggesting deterioration over time or possible reputation management
• Review dates show concerning recency: 4 of 5 most damaging reviews are from 2019-2022, indicating ongoing problems

This WW Score of 32.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely; it is based on 11 detailed reviews with consistent patterns of professional misconduct, project abandonment, and financial harm to clients, with particular weight given to recent reviews (2019-2022) documenting ongoing issues.

The overwhelming majority of reviews describe a deeply problematic contractor with a consistent pattern of abandoning jobs, refusing to respond to clients, providing false diagnoses, and in several cases being accused of outright fraud. Professionalism scores near zero across most reviews, with repeated accounts of no-shows, ignored calls, blocked numbers, and dishonest communication with both clients and warranty companies. Project completion is catastrophically poor — multiple reviewers report paying for repairs that either were never completed, failed within days, or were misdiagnosed entirely, with the contractor then becoming unreachable. Pricing concerns are significant, including an instance of a quote being raised after the fact and charges collected for work that was never properly performed. The two positive reviews are heavily outweighed by eleven 1-star reviews detailing nearly identical patterns of misconduct, and the single 5-star review praising pricing appears inconsistent with the broader body of evidence.

• STRONG FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: The 5-star review dated 2019-04-09 uses suspiciously specific financial details that mirror a complaint scenario and reads as potentially self-authored or planted to offset negative reviews. It praises the contractor effusively while referencing the same warranty company (Choice) mentioned in multiple negative reviews.
• PATTERN OF FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2017–2023) allege the contractor collected fees, failed to perform work, provided false diagnoses to warranty companies to deny claims, blocked client phone numbers, and refused to return for follow-up repairs. This is a consistent and serious pattern.
• MULTIPLE BBB AND LEGAL ACTION THREATS: At least four reviewers explicitly stated they were filing BBB complaints or pursuing legal action, including one mention of contacting the Attorney General.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2023) continue to show the same misconduct patterns as reviews from 2017–2019, indicating no improvement over time. The negative pattern spans at least 6 years.
• ABANDONED WORK PATTERN: Across HVAC, water heater, washer/dryer, and refrigerator jobs, the contractor repeatedly collected service fees or partial payments and then became unresponsive — a hallmark of predatory contracting behavior.
• ONE UNDECIDED REVIEW: The 3-star review from 2023-07-08 was inconclusive at time of writing, with the reviewer stating they would update based on outcome. Given the contractor's track record, this was treated as a neutral-to-negative signal.

This WW Score is based on 14 reviews spanning 6 years with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, and the extremely low score is well-supported by a consistent, multi-year pattern of serious misconduct reported by independent reviewers — this score should be treated as highly reliable and a strong warning against hiring this contractor.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, falling below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for a trustworthy WW Score. The reviews present conflicting signals: one 1-star review criticizes lack of expertise and responsiveness, while one 5-star review praises timeliness and quality. Each dimension is mentioned in only 1 review, resulting in LIMITED confidence across all scored dimensions. No pricing information was mentioned in either review.

• Total review count (2) is below the minimum threshold of 3 required for reliable scoring
• Extreme rating polarization (1-star and 5-star) with no middle-ground reviews suggests potential selection bias
• All dimensions have only 1 mention each, resulting in LIMITED confidence across the board
• Reviews are from 2022; no recent data available to assess current performance
• Conflicting quality signals make it impossible to establish reliable baseline performance

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required) and extremely limited mention counts per dimension (1 each). Any score calculated would be statistically unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.