Find Nearby Plumbers In Rocky Mount, North Carolina

Bill's Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all dimensions. Professionalism is the most heavily documented dimension and is significantly dragged down by multiple credible complaints of no-shows, failure to return calls, rude behavior, and abandoning customers mid-job — including a 2024 review and a 2023 review that are recent and damaging. Project completion is similarly troubled, with several reviews describing incomplete repairs, return visits that never happened, and work that failed within days. On the positive side, a meaningful cluster of older reviews (2013–2019) describe prompt, courteous, and skilled service, and pricing is generally described as fair or affordable by those who mention it. However, the volume and specificity of negative reviews — particularly around responsiveness and follow-through — prevent any dimension from scoring above 70.

• 12 reviews consist of only '.' or 'unknown' with a 5-star rating and zero substantive content — these are likely fake or placeholder reviews and have been excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• Several 5-star reviews from 2017 and 2016 are suspiciously generic ('It went very well.', 'Outstanding', 'Pretty good') with no detail — treated as low-signal and given minimal weight.
• One review (2017-06-10) mentions servicing air conditioners and furnaces, which appears to be a review for a different business entirely — this was excluded from dimension scoring.
• The most recent substantive reviews (2024, 2023) are both 1-star and describe serious failures in responsiveness and project completion, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.
• Recency warning: The majority of positive, detailed reviews are from 2013–2019. Reviews from 2020 onward skew heavily negative, which is a significant concern for current service reliability.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the mention counts are sufficient to generate scores, but the heavy presence of content-free placeholder reviews, the recency of serious negative complaints, and the apparent decline in service quality over time mean prospective customers should weight the most recent 1-star reviews heavily when making a hiring decision.

Travis Creech Plumbing shows a deeply polarized review pattern with three 5-star reviews praising responsiveness, cleanliness, and politeness, but three severely negative reviews (1-2 stars) citing egregious overpricing, deceptive practices, incomplete work, and alleged harassment. Professionalism scores are dragged down by documented communication failures, rude receptionist behavior, and a reported harassing phone call from the owner in response to negative feedback. Pricing is a critical weakness, with multiple reviewers reporting markups of 400-1500% above fair market value and accusations of targeting elderly customers. Project completion concerns emerge from one review alleging incomplete pipe replacement and improper disposal of materials. The stark contrast between glowing and damning reviews, combined with serious allegations of fraud and intimidation, creates substantial reliability concerns.

• SEVERE PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple independent reviews document extreme overcharging (e.g., $1200 quote for $54 in materials; $3800 for a $35 part). Pattern suggests systematic price gouging.
• ALLEGED FRAUD AND DECEPTION: One detailed review alleges incomplete work (pipes not replaced as promised), material dumped on property, payments routed to personal accounts, and explicit instruction to hide pricing from employees.
• HARASSMENT ALLEGATION: Reviewer reports receiving an upset/threatening phone call from owner (Travis Creech) after posting negative review. Reviewer explicitly states this constitutes illegal harassment.
• TARGETING VULNERABLE POPULATIONS: Multiple reviews mention elderly/disabled customers being overcharged. One review explicitly accuses owner Myrtle Creech of 'taking advantage of elderly people.'
• REVIEW AUTHENTICITY CONCERN: The three 5-star reviews (2021, 2019, 2019) use unusually enthusiastic language with excessive punctuation and read as potentially promotional. However, the three negative reviews are highly detailed, specific, and credible, with documented evidence (security footage, bank records, concrete debris). The negative reviews appear genuine.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Most reviews are from 2018-2019 (4 years old). Only one review from 2021. Cannot assess if practices have changed.
• BUSINESS STRUCTURE CONCERN: Reviews reference both 'Travis Creech Plumbing' and 'Creech's Septic Tank and Plumbing Company' with same phone number, suggesting possible name change or dual operations. One review names 'Myrtle Creech' as decision-maker.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical WW Score of 54.8 reflects the mixed data, the underlying pattern is not random variation but rather a stark bifurcation: enthusiastic praise from some customers versus detailed, credible allegations of fraud, overpricing, and harassment from others. The serious nature of the allegations (deception, targeting elderly customers, harassment of reviewers) combined with the extreme pricing discrepancies documented across multiple independent reviews suggests systemic business practice issues that transcend normal service quality variation. This company presents elevated risk, particularly for elderly or vulnerable customers. The 2018-2019 review dates limit ability to assess current practices.

Carter's Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Pricing is the most consistently criticized dimension, with multiple recent reviews (2023–2024) describing charges as exorbitant, hidden, or misrepresented — including a $500+ charge for a 15-minute repair and escalating fees tacked on throughout a job. Project completion is a significant concern, with documented cases of abandoned work, unresolved repairs, misdiagnosis, and a plumber who took payment and never finished the job. Professionalism scores are dragged down by poor responsiveness from management, a forged signature on an invoice, and a technician who dismissed a customer's questions — though several older reviews praise individual plumbers as friendly and professional. Experience scores are similarly split: some reviews highlight skilled, knowledgeable plumbers who solved problems efficiently, while others describe clear misdiagnosis and technicians spending more time on the phone with supervisors than working. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) skew heavily negative, which is weighted more heavily in this assessment.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent reviews (2024 and 2023) are predominantly 1-star and describe serious issues including overcharging, misdiagnosis, invoice fraud, and poor management responsiveness. Older positive reviews (2012–2015) may not reflect current business practices.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW LEVEL: Several reviews contain no usable detail ('Micheal was awesome!', '......', 'unknown', 'Very helpful and professional guys that do a great job!'). These generic 5-star reviews with zero specifics inflate the raw star rating but provide no scoreable evidence and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• ONE REVIEW EXPLICITLY EXCLUDED: The review stating 'I did not hire Carter's Plumbing' (5-star, 2016) was excluded from all dimension scoring as it contains no relevant service data.
• INVOICE INTEGRITY CONCERN: One review (2023) alleges a customer's signature was placed on an invoice without consent and that the invoice contained inaccurate line items. This is a serious ethical flag beyond normal scoring.
• MANAGEMENT RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE: Multiple reviews cite inability to reach management, delayed callbacks, and unresolved complaints — a systemic pattern rather than isolated incidents.
• ABANDONED WORK AND NON-REFUND: At least one review (2017) describes a plumber accepting payment via two checks, failing to complete the job, and refusing to return unused funds or return calls — a potential fraud indicator.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: the dimension mention counts are sufficient for statistical confidence, but the sharp quality decline visible in recent reviews (2023–2024) versus older positive reviews (2012–2015) suggests the score may still be generous relative to the contractor's current operating standards.

Perry's Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across only 3 reviews spanning over a decade. Two positive reviews praise punctuality, communication, honest pricing, and quality workmanship, while one review describes a serious pattern of no-shows and broken commitments across three separate attempts. Professionalism and project completion scores are significantly dragged down by the 1-star review, which describes a clear reliability failure. Pricing and experience scores are based on only 1–2 mentions each and must be treated with caution. The most recent review (2022) is positive but lacks specific detail, limiting its analytical value.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score reliability is very low and should not be used as a definitive assessment.
• The most recent review (2022) is vague and generic with no specific details about the job performed, pricing, or outcome — treat with caution.
• Two of the three reviews are over 10 years old (2011 and 2012), making them largely unreliable indicators of current performance.
• There is a direct contradiction between reviews: one reviewer praises punctuality and responsiveness while another describes repeated no-shows — this unresolved conflict suppresses confidence across all dimensions.
• Insufficient review volume to detect fake review patterns conclusively, but the 2022 review's lack of specifics is noted.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, two of which are more than 10 years old, making it an unreliable indicator of current contractor quality — prospective customers should seek additional recent references before hiring.

The review pool is extremely small at only 3 reviews, making any conclusions highly tentative. One review is strongly positive across all dimensions, praising quick leak detection, clean workmanship, honest pricing, and trustworthiness. However, a detailed and credible negative review from a different customer raises serious concerns: the technician failed to properly diagnose the problem, provided vague and dramatically overpriced quotes ranging up to $9,000 for a repair that ultimately cost $250, and requested payment made out personally to the owner rather than the company — a significant red flag. The third review is too generic to contribute meaningful data to any dimension. The negative review's specificity and detail give it substantial weight, pulling scores down considerably across all dimensions.

• PAYMENT RED FLAG: The negative review explicitly states the technician asked for the check to be made out to the owner personally, not the company. This is a serious integrity and business practice concern.
• DIAGNOSTIC FAILURE: The technician in the negative review recommended full pump, wire, and pipe replacement at up to $9,000 without removing the pump or checking wiring. A second contractor fixed the actual problem (a wire) for $250.
• PRICING CONCERN: The quote range of $2,650–$9,000 for a job that cost $250 to resolve correctly suggests either gross incompetence or predatory pricing practices.
• GENERIC REVIEW: The second review ('Everything was great, best experience ive had with any service at my home') contains no specific details and cannot be used to score any dimension reliably. It may be authentic but contributes no usable dimension data.
• RECENCY WARNING: The strongly negative review is from 2012, over 10 years old. The two positive reviews are from 2022. While the negative review is older, its specificity and seriousness warrant continued inclusion as a caution flag rather than dismissal.
• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW VOLUME: Only 3 reviews total. Per scoring rules, results should be treated as very low confidence and the WW Score should not be used as a reliable indicator of current contractor quality.

This WW Score carries very low reliability due to only 3 reviews, a wide time gap between reviews (2012 vs. 2022), one review being entirely generic, and one detailed negative review describing potentially fraudulent or grossly negligent behavior — consumers should seek significantly more review data before hiring this contractor.

This contractor's review set is small (6 reviews) and skewed heavily negative, with 4 of 6 reviews being 1-star. Professionalism is a major concern: one reviewer waited over a month and a half for a callback from the service manager, and another was stood up entirely with no call or explanation after a reschedule. Project completion is similarly troubled, with a snaking job failing within days and the company offering no meaningful remedy, and a no-show appointment with zero follow-up. Pricing drew explicit criticism from two reviewers who described rates exceeding $200/hour as unaffordable, though one long-term customer praised pricing as great. The two positive reviews are vague and lack specific detail, which limits their evidentiary weight.

• Only 6 reviews total — WW Score carries very low statistical reliability.
• The two positive reviews (5-star) are extremely generic with no specific details about work performed, technician names, or job type. This raises a mild concern about authenticity, though it cannot be confirmed.
• Four of six reviews are 1-star, indicating a strong pattern of dissatisfaction rather than isolated incidents.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months relative to a current analysis date; the most recent review is from August 2023 but describes an unresolved issue. Recency weighting is limited.
• No-show and no-callback incidents suggest possible systemic reliability issues at the operational/management level, not just isolated technician problems.

This WW Score is based on only 6 reviews with MODERATE confidence at best across dimensions — it should be treated as a preliminary signal only and not a definitive assessment of this contractor's quality.