Find Nearby Plumbers In High Point, North Carolina

Acme Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising responsiveness, professionalism, and technical competence across a large number of technicians including Anthony, Norval, Alejandro, Clay, and others. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — roughly 20-25 across the full dataset — raise serious concerns across all four dimensions: the owner (Ed) is repeatedly cited for rude behavior, threatening customers with lawsuits over billing disputes, and hanging up on clients; pricing transparency is a recurring problem with multiple reviewers describing hidden fees, undisclosed per-plumber hourly charges, and feeling overcharged; and project completion failures include abandoned jobs, missed callbacks, work left unfinished, and at least one instance of work done without required permits. The technician-level work is generally rated well, but owner/management conduct meaningfully drags down professionalism and pricing scores. Recency of reviews (2024-2025) shows continued strong positive feedback but also continued negative incidents, suggesting these issues are not fully resolved.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The 'Super Bowl Sunday' review featuring Norval Cunningham appears verbatim twice — once dated 2024-02-12 and once dated 2024-06-09. This is a likely duplicate submission and was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The billing dispute review describing charges of $678 vs. agreed $372 and threats of lawsuit appears nearly verbatim twice — once dated 2021-06-10 and once dated 2020-09-16. Counted only once for scoring.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A cluster of reviews dated exactly 2024-06-09 (approximately 20+ reviews) share the same date with no timestamps, many are very short and generic ('Professional service', 'Great friendly and fast service', 'Outstanding work'), and several are blank 5-star submissions. This pattern is consistent with a bulk review import or solicitation campaign. Confidence in this cluster is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 15-18 reviews contain no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• OWNER CONDUCT — RECURRING NEGATIVE PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews across different years (2011, 2014, 2017, 2020, 2021, 2024, 2025) describe the owner (Ed) as rude, threatening legal action over billing disputes, hanging up on customers, and failing to honor service commitments. This is a persistent and credible pattern.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY — RECURRING NEGATIVE PATTERN: At least 5 independent reviews describe undisclosed fees, surprise charges, or feeling significantly overcharged. One reviewer documented a $303 estimate that became $344.74 with an undisclosed service fee added. Another described being charged $678 when $372 was agreed. This materially reduces the pricing score.
• PROJECT COMPLETION — NEGATIVE INCIDENTS: At least 3 reviews describe work left unfinished, missed follow-up appointments with no notice, or jobs requiring a second plumber to correct Acme's work. One review describes work done without required permits.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive detail are from 2019-2025, which were weighted more heavily. Reviews from 2004-2013 were included but given reduced weight due to age and potential changes in company ownership or staffing over time.
• GEOGRAPHIC INCONSISTENCY: Some reviews reference Monterey/Salinas, CA locations while others reference Durham, NC. This may represent two different Acme Plumbing franchises or locations. Scores reflect the combined dataset as provided, but users should be aware the reviews may not all pertain to a single business entity.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (155 total, ~130 with usable data) spanning nearly two decades, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in direction, but the score should be interpreted cautiously due to: a cluster of same-day generic reviews suggesting possible solicitation, confirmed duplicate reviews, persistent owner-conduct complaints across many years, and possible geographic mixing of two different business locations.

ASAP Plumbing (primarily Danny) earns strong praise across a large volume of reviews for friendliness, responsiveness in emergencies, fair pricing, and solid technical competence on a wide range of plumbing tasks. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — consistently cite the same critical failure: no-shows, missed appointments, unreturned calls, and poor communication when scheduling breaks down. Several negative reviewers explicitly describe waiting days or over a week with no contact, which directly undermines the professionalism and project completion dimensions. Pricing is generally viewed favorably, with multiple reviewers noting Danny charged less than competitors or did not charge for unnecessary work, though at least one reviewer felt overcharged. Workmanship quality is mostly praised but a handful of older reviews describe substandard work including improper installations, new leaks caused during repairs, and incorrect diagnoses. The score reflects a contractor with genuine strengths but a documented and recurring reliability problem that cannot be ignored.

• RELIABILITY PATTERN — CRITICAL: At least 7 negative reviews (across 2014–2024) independently describe the same failure mode: Danny or ASAP staff confirmed appointments, then did not show up and did not call. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of positive reviews are from 2024–2025 and appear to reflect a single operator (Danny) in a local NC market. Older negative reviews (2012–2016) may reflect a different operator or franchise under the same ASAP Plumbing name — these should be weighted with caution but are not excluded as the pattern of no-shows persists into 2024.
• POSSIBLE DUPLICATE REVIEW: Two reviews dated 2024-06-09 describe an almost identical scenario involving John's Plumbing, a pilot light, and a $400 vs $230 part quote. The narrative is nearly word-for-word identical. These appear to be the same reviewer posting twice or a copied review. Only one instance was counted for scoring.
• BLANK/UNKNOWN REVIEWS: Approximately 12 reviews contain only 'unknown' or a single punctuation mark with no usable text. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A large cluster of 5-star reviews dated 2024-06-09 (approximately 15 reviews on the same date) raises concern about a coordinated review push. While many contain specific details, the volume on a single date is unusual and warrants caution. Confidence is not reduced to LOW but this is flagged.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE — DOCUMENTED: One 2024 negative review explicitly states Danny's voicemail was full and calls went unanswered during a water heater emergency. This corroborates older complaints about unreachable communication channels.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERNS (OLDER): Reviews from 2014–2016 describe incorrect diagnoses, leaks caused during repairs, improper installations, and combative staff. These are older but notable given the pattern.

This WW Score is based on a high volume of reviews and carries HIGH overall confidence, but consumers should be aware that a documented and recurring pattern of appointment no-shows and communication failures represents a meaningful risk that the aggregate score alone does not fully convey.

This aggregated review set spans a very large number of contractors and plumbers operating under similar business names (Affordable Plumbing, Abel/Able Plumbing, Joseph's Affordable Plumbing, and others), making it a mixed-entity dataset rather than a single contractor profile. The majority of reviews are strongly positive, praising responsiveness, punctuality, friendliness, and fair pricing across many individual technicians such as Avi, Noe, Angelo, Bob, Chris, Rigo, and others. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — roughly 15 to 20 percent of substantive reviews — describe serious issues including incomplete work, no-shows, dishonest pricing, rude owner behavior, property damage left unaddressed, and failure to honor callbacks or warranties. Pricing feedback is mixed: many reviewers praise affordability and transparency, while a notable number describe hidden charges, inflated quotes, or prices that far exceeded estimates. Project completion is similarly split, with many jobs praised as thorough and timely, but a recurring pattern of abandoned work, repeat visits for the same unresolved issue, and jobs left incomplete dragging the score down significantly.

• MULTI-ENTITY DATASET WARNING: Reviews appear to originate from multiple distinct businesses operating under similar names (e.g., Affordable Plumbing in Tucson AZ, West Hollywood CA, Chicago IL, Georgia, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and others). Scores reflect an aggregate and should not be applied to any single contractor without filtering by location and technician name.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A subset of reviews, particularly those dated 2017-06-08 through 2017-06-13 and 2018-06-08, share identical or near-identical dates with no review text detail (e.g., 'Excellent workmanship', 'Great job', 'Excellent', 'Very well'). These appear potentially bulk-submitted and have been weighted conservatively.
• NO-TEXT REVIEWS EXCLUDED: Approximately 15 to 20 reviews contained no review text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from approximately 2000 to June 2025. A significant portion of reviews predate 2020 and some predate 2015. Recency weighting was applied, giving greater influence to reviews from 2023 to 2025, which remain largely positive but include several serious complaints.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — OWNER CONDUCT: Multiple independent negative reviews across different apparent business locations describe the owner or manager as rude, argumentative, or retaliatory toward customers who complained. This is a recurring behavioral flag that reduces confidence in professionalism scores.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — INCOMPLETE WORK AND NO-SHOWS: Multiple reviews across different time periods describe technicians failing to show up for scheduled appointments without notice, jobs left unfinished, and management refusing to return to correct their own errors. This materially reduces the project completion score.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — PRICING DISPUTES: Several reviews describe quotes that escalated significantly after work began, charges for work not performed, and refusal to itemize costs. One review describes a quote growing from $75 to $7,000. These are serious red flags for pricing transparency.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE COMPLAINTS: At least three reviews describe property damage caused by technicians (scratched toilet, flooded house, broken shower door) with the company refusing to accept responsibility or make repairs.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but LOW entity reliability because the dataset aggregates reviews for multiple distinct businesses operating under similar names across different US cities and states; consumers should treat this score as a general industry benchmark rather than a rating for any single contractor, and must independently verify the specific business and technician before hiring.

A&R Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising punctuality, courteous technicians, and responsive scheduling, which drives solid scores across all four dimensions. However, professionalism is meaningfully dragged down by a recurring and serious pattern of complaints about the office receptionist (identified as Michelle or Monica across multiple reviews) being rude, dismissive, and even hanging up on customers — this is not an isolated incident but a documented pattern spanning multiple years. Project completion suffers from several credible accounts of abandoned work, no-shows without notification, and jobs requiring multiple return visits that were never resolved, including one case where a toilet repair was left incomplete for over two months. Pricing scores moderately well, with many reviewers noting fair or below-estimate final costs, though one review alleges a false report was submitted to upsell an unnecessary part replacement, which is a serious flag. Experience scores highest among the dimensions, with many reviewers specifically praising named technicians for skill, problem-solving, and thoroughness, though a handful of reviews describe shoddy workmanship and unacknowledged damage.

• RECURRING STAFF COMPLAINT: Multiple independent reviews across different years specifically name the office receptionist (Michelle/Monica) as rude, dismissive, argumentative, and prone to hanging up on customers. This is a systemic issue, not an outlier, and materially lowers the professionalism score.
• NO-SHOW / ABANDONMENT PATTERN: At least 5 credible reviews describe technicians failing to show up for scheduled appointments without notification, or jobs being left incomplete with no follow-up. This is a significant project completion risk.
• POTENTIAL FRAUD ALLEGATION: One reviewer (1-star, 2024) alleges A&R submitted a false inspection report claiming a unit was cracked/leaking in order to upsell a $650 replacement when only a $35 part was needed. This is a serious allegation that could not be verified from reviews alone but warrants flagging.
• ALLEGED INTOXICATED TECHNICIAN: Two separate reviews (2020 and 2017) allege that a technician arrived visibly intoxicated. These are unverified but independently reported and are flagged as a safety concern.
• ALLEGED DECEASED LICENSE HOLDER: One reviewer (2023) claims the company operates under the master plumber license of a deceased individual. This is unverified but flagged as a potential regulatory concern.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 32 reviews contained no text — only a star rating (mostly 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules, but their volume slightly inflates the apparent positivity of the raw rating pool.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review from Harry and Matt (A&R late night issue) appears verbatim twice with different dates (2024-11-11 and 2024-10-14). This was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review set spans from 2006 to 2025. Reviews older than 3 years were given reduced weight. The most recent 12 months (2024-2025) show a mixed but generally positive trend, with some notable no-show complaints still present.
• SELF-PROMOTIONAL REVIEW SUSPECTED: One review (5-star, 2017) reads 'We been voted best plumber ten years in a row. We are loved...' — this appears to be written by the business itself and was excluded from scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning many years, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given documented patterns of office staff misconduct, appointment no-shows, and at least one serious fraud allegation — issues that are likely underrepresented in star ratings alone.

Paul and Candler's Plumbing receive consistently strong praise across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension, with every single review noting punctuality, courteous behavior, clear communication, and respectful treatment of customers' homes. Pricing is explicitly called out as reasonable or better than expected in the majority of reviews, including one case where the final bill came within $10 of the original estimate. Project completion is well-supported, with multiple reviewers noting jobs were finished on time, callbacks were honored, and Paul stayed until the work was fully resolved. Workmanship quality is affirmed across several reviews, including complex jobs like full pipe replacement, water heater installation, and drain rerouting, all completed to customer satisfaction.

• 7 of 9 reviews are older than 10 years (pre-2015), with only 1 review from the past 12 months (2023). The score is heavily influenced by older data and may not reflect current service quality.
• All 9 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback. While the reviews contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformity warrants mild caution.
• No negative experiences, complaints, or constructive criticism appear in any review. This is statistically unusual across 9 reviews and should be noted, though the specificity of individual reviews partially mitigates this concern.

This score carries moderate overall reliability due to strong dimension coverage and specific review content, but is significantly undermined by the fact that 8 of 9 reviews are more than 9 years old, making it difficult to assess Paul's current service quality with confidence.

Jimmy's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, and responsiveness. Project completion is solid, with jobs finished efficiently and callbacks honored. Technical skill and workmanship are well-regarded. However, pricing presents a significant concern: while most reviews describe fair pricing, one detailed complaint about undisclosed $100/hour drive-time charges substantially lowers the pricing dimension. The review portfolio is heavily weighted toward older reviews (most from 2014–2022), which limits recency validation.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 5 of 7 reviews are older than 3 years (2014–2020). Only 2 reviews from 2022 or later. Recent performance cannot be reliably assessed.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Strong positive pricing mentions (3 reviews) conflict sharply with one detailed complaint about hidden drive-time charges ($100/hour, $300+ for supply run). This suggests either a policy change or inconsistent communication of fees.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Reviews 2 and 6 contain very generic language ('always fantastic,' 'best in the business') with minimal specific detail, though not enough to flag as definitively fake.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 7 reviews limits statistical confidence, particularly for pricing (3 mentions).

This score should be treated with caution due to limited recency (most reviews 3+ years old), small sample size, and a significant unresolved pricing complaint that contradicts other positive pricing feedback. The professionalism and project completion scores are more reliable; the pricing score is volatile and warrants direct inquiry before hiring.