Find Nearby Plumbers In Winston-Salem, North Carolina

Absolute Plumbing receives overwhelmingly positive feedback on professionalism, with dozens of reviewers praising technicians for communication, punctuality, friendliness, and explaining work before proceeding. However, several serious negative reviews significantly drag down all dimensions: two detailed 1-star reviews allege predatory sales tactics, scare tactics targeting vulnerable customers, grossly inflated pricing (one citing $13,000 for work estimated far lower), incomplete work, and aggressive pressure to sign loan documents. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers citing charges of $250–$2,000 for simple repairs, one financing partner flagged for near-50% effective interest, and one reviewer resolving a leak themselves for $4 after being charged $150 with no fix. Project completion is also materially impacted by reviews describing work left incomplete, a toilet repair that failed twice, a leak that was never corrected, and a no-show appointment with no communication. Experience scores moderately well overall due to many positive mentions of knowledgeable technicians, but is tempered by instances of misdiagnosis and poor workmanship on simpler jobs.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: A large cluster of reviews from 2025-06-02 through 2025-06-06 are suspiciously concentrated in a very short window, many featuring nearly identical structure (technician name + brief praise), minimal detail, and all rated 5 stars. This pattern is consistent with solicited or incentivized reviews and should be treated with reduced confidence.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The 1-star review alleging scam tactics and $13,000 fraud appears to be posted twice with identical text — once dated 2024-12-11 and once dated 2024-10-24. This has been counted as a single unique reviewer complaint to avoid double-weighting.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS: At least two distinct reviewers (not the duplicate) allege predatory sales behavior, scare tactics targeting vulnerable customers, aggressive loan pressure, incomplete work, and refusal to take ownership of complaints. These are substantive and specific claims that materially affect trustworthiness.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of detailed negative reviews fall within the past 12 months (2024), while many positive reviews are either very recent short-form entries (June 2025 cluster) or older than 2 years. The most credible and detailed recent reviews present a mixed picture.
• FINANCING WARNING: One reviewer explicitly flagged the company's financing partner (Service Finance) as charging an effective interest rate far exceeding the advertised 9.99%, which reflects on the company's financial transparency even if the partner is third-party.
• NO-SHOW INCIDENT: One reviewer reported a scheduled appointment where no technician arrived and no call was made to cancel or reschedule, indicating a breakdown in reliability and communication.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to review volume, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given credible, detailed allegations of predatory pricing, incomplete work, and aggressive sales tactics that suggest meaningful operational risk for prospective customers.

Dease Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism across all reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, friendliness, and communication. Pricing is reported as reasonable and fair across multiple engagements. However, project completion is significantly impacted by one detailed negative review documenting incomplete work, roof damage, and unresolved leaks despite callbacks—a serious concern that substantially lowers this dimension. Technical skill is generally praised, though the negative review raises questions about decision-making and quality control. The WW Score of 79.2 reflects solid professionalism and pricing offset by material completion and follow-through concerns.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Three of four reviews are from 2019–2020 (3–5 years old). Only one review is from the past 12 months. Historical data may not reflect current operations.
• CRITICAL COMPLETION ISSUE: One detailed 1-star review documents incomplete work, roof damage (vent pipe and vent stack leaks), inadequate cleanup, and carpet staining. Callback did not fully resolve the problem. This is a major red flag for project completion reliability.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews total. Confidence in overall score is limited by small sample size. Additional recent reviews needed for robust assessment.
• POTENTIAL SELECTION BIAS: Three 5-star reviews are very positive with minimal critical detail, while the 1-star review is highly specific and detailed. This asymmetry suggests possible review filtering or that dissatisfied customers are more likely to leave detailed feedback.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (4 reviews), age of most data (3–5 years), and one serious documented failure in project completion that was not fully resolved. The score reflects a mixed track record: strong professionalism and fair pricing, but material concerns about work quality and follow-through on complex jobs. Recent reviews from the past 12 months are strongly recommended before making a hiring decision.

All three reviews consistently praise Chris Bailey across professionalism, pricing, project completion, and experience. Reviewers highlight prompt communication, transparent itemized pricing, and willingness to return at no charge if work is unsatisfactory — all strong positive signals. The work described spans a range of complexity, from fixture repairs to full master bath remodel plumbing, suggesting solid technical breadth. Scores are kept conservative given the small review pool and the fact that two of the three reviews are more than 5 years old, with the most recent dating to late 2020. No negative feedback was present, but the limited sample size prevents high confidence in any dimension.

• Only 3 reviews available — WW Score reliability is low due to small sample size.
• All three reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback, which warrants caution, though each review contains specific details and unique phrasing that reduces fake review suspicion.
• RECENCY WARNING: The most recent review is from December 2020 (over 4 years ago). The other two reviews are from 2018 and 2014. This score may not reflect current performance.
• No negative or mixed reviews present — this may reflect genuine quality or may simply reflect a small, self-selected sample.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all of which are more than 4 years old, and should be treated as a preliminary positive signal rather than a reliable performance benchmark — seek more recent reviews before making a hiring decision.

All three reviews speak positively about responsiveness, courtesy, and fair pricing, with no hidden charges or upselling — a notable and specific positive signal on professionalism and pricing. Project completion is supported by all three reviews describing issues being assessed and resolved, though no review describes a complex or large-scale project, keeping that score conservative. Experience is mentioned in two reviews, with one explicitly calling the technician knowledgeable and another noting competent work across multiple job types. Scores are kept moderate rather than high due to the very small review pool and the age of two of the three reviews.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated with caution.
• Two of three reviews are significantly dated (2017 and 2018), meaning they are 6–7 years old. Business quality, staffing, and practices may have changed substantially since then.
• The most recent review is from February 2023, now over 2 years old. There is no recent review data to confirm current performance.
• No negative reviews or mixed feedback present — while this could reflect genuine quality, it may also reflect a limited or non-representative sample size rather than a consistently excellent track record.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, two of which are over 6 years old, making it a low-reliability signal that should not be used as a strong indicator of current contractor quality without additional recent review data.

Pipe Wrench Hero receives consistently positive feedback across a very small review set. Professionalism is supported by one reviewer praising reliability and another noting Pete found and fixed a problem quickly for a remote landlord, suggesting good communication and follow-through. Project completion is the best-supported dimension, with all three reviews indicating jobs were resolved successfully. Pricing is mentioned only once, described as 'reasonably priced,' which warrants a conservative score. Experience is implied through accurate diagnosis and effective repairs but is not described in technical depth across the reviews.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score reliability is very low and should be treated as indicative only.
• All reviews are 5-star with limited specificity; while not conclusively fake, the small sample size and uniformly positive ratings warrant caution.
• All reviews are dated between 2021 and 2022 — no reviews from the past 12 months are present, meaning recent performance cannot be assessed.
• Review dated 2021-04-11 provides almost no usable detail beyond a vague outcome, limiting its analytical value.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all over 12 months old, and should be considered highly preliminary — significantly more recent reviews are needed before this score can be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality.

This contractor shows mixed performance across limited review data. Professionalism is moderately supported with evidence of punctuality, professional demeanor, and responsive scheduling. However, a critical pricing complaint about $100/hour research fees significantly undermines trust. Project completion is inconsistently documented—one review praises quick resolution while another describes a job that left the problem worse than before. Experience appears solid based on positive mentions of skill, but the sample size is too small to be confident. The dataset is heavily skewed by very old reviews (2006, 2016, 2018) with only two recent reviews, limiting reliability.

• RECENCY ISSUE: 60% of reviews are older than 5 years (2006, 2016, 2018). Only 2 reviews from 2020. Historical performance may not reflect current service quality.
• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 5 total reviews analyzed. Scores based on 1–3 mentions per dimension carry very limited confidence.
• CRITICAL NEGATIVE: One review explicitly states the contractor made the problem worse (left faucet dripping worse than before) and charged $100/hour for research. This is a serious quality and pricing concern.
• GENERIC PRAISE: Review from 2006 contains vague language ('no complaint to say', 'very reliable') with no specific details, reducing confidence in its validity.
• UNKNOWN REVIEW: One 5-star review from 2016 has no text ('unknown'), providing no actionable data.

This WW Score should be treated with significant caution due to very limited sample size (5 reviews), heavy skew toward outdated data (60% older than 5 years), and conflicting evidence of quality—particularly the explicit complaint about worsened service and high research fees versus generic praise in older reviews.