Find Nearby Plumbers In Columbia, South Carolina

Dee's Plumbing shows mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism is supported by three reviews highlighting punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous service, though one 2015 review raised concerns about unprofessional conduct during the transaction. Project completion is consistently mentioned positively across three reviews, with same-day service and follow-through on administrative tasks. Pricing is a significant weakness, with two reviews explicitly criticizing markups (one citing $80 for parts available at $26–$40 elsewhere). Experience is moderately supported by two mentions of technical knowledge and problem-solving, though the oldest review (2015) casts doubt on judgment. The WW Score is tempered by limited review volume (4 total) and recency concerns—three reviews are from 2015–2017, with only one from 2022.

• Review volume is very low (4 reviews total); score reliability is limited
• Three of four reviews are older than 5 years (2015–2017); only one recent review from 2022
• Significant pricing complaint in 2015 review alleging substantial markup; contradicts positive pricing mention in 2022 review—suggests pricing may be inconsistent or context-dependent
• One review (2015) contains unprofessional conduct allegation (unsolicited religious commentary after transaction); this is a serious professionalism concern but isolated to one older review
• No fake review patterns detected; reviews show genuine variation in experience and tone

This score should be treated with caution due to very small sample size (4 reviews) and heavy skew toward older reviews (75% from 2015–2017). The single recent review is positive, but insufficient to establish current performance trends. Pricing concerns are material and unresolved by recent data.

Harris Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, and skilled workmanship across 42 and 26 mentions respectively. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with multiple detailed complaints about excessive charges, lack of transparent quotes, and perceived gouging (18 mentions). Project completion shows moderate reliability with several instances of abandoned jobs, incomplete work, and follow-up failures, though many jobs are completed satisfactorily. The company exhibits high variability in service quality and customer experience, suggesting inconsistent execution or personnel performance.

• CRITICAL: Multiple credible reports of abandoned jobs and non-responsiveness (reviews from 2024-03-01, 2018-05-22, 2018-01-29, 2016-05-02). These are serious red flags indicating potential systemic issues with follow-through and accountability.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Detailed complaints about overcharging appear consistently across multiple years (2023-08-05: $1,300 for 2.5-hour water heater install; 2015-04-11: $560 for vanity connections; 2014-05-22: $650 for minor toilet work). These are specific, quantified grievances, not vague complaints.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: Multiple reviews cite defective workmanship requiring callbacks or rework (2021-01-05: improper installation of recirculation system; 2020-10-22: leak from improperly tightened valves causing water damage; 2020-06-10: non-functioning sink handle and leaking bathtub handle).
• CUSTOMER SERVICE INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between glowing reviews praising Alicia, Steve, Jason, and others versus scathing reviews citing rude staff (Michelle), unresponsiveness, and dismissive behavior. Suggests significant personnel-dependent variability.
• RECENCY PATTERN: Most recent negative reviews (2024, 2023) involve non-responsiveness and abandoned work, while older reviews (2005-2011) are uniformly positive. This may indicate business decline or change in ownership/management.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several reviews from 2021-06-10 and 2019-06-11 are suspiciously clustered on identical dates with generic praise. However, these are balanced by detailed, specific positive reviews, so confidence in fake review detection is limited.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the company demonstrates genuine strengths in professionalism and technical skill (supported by high-mention counts), the presence of multiple credible reports of abandoned jobs, significant pricing disputes, and quality control failures indicates serious operational risks. The wide variance in customer experience and the pattern of recent negative reviews suggest the company may be unreliable for critical work. Recommend obtaining detailed written quotes, checking recent references, and considering alternative providers for high-value projects.

Hollis Plumbing shows strong technical competence and reasonable pricing, but professionalism and project completion are significantly undermined by serious customer service failures. The 2023 review documents severe communication breakdowns and unprofessional conduct by the owner (Mike Hollis), including hanging up on a customer twice and making derogatory comments. Additional reviews from 2021 reveal missed appointments and incomplete follow-up on service issues. While 10 of 14 reviews are positive and praise the quality of work, skill level, and responsiveness, the negative experiences—particularly the recent one—raise concerns about consistency and accountability. The owner's defensive response to criticism further damages credibility.

• CRITICAL: Most recent review (Feb 2023) documents severe professionalism failures including owner verbal abuse, hanging up on customer twice, and dismissive attitude toward legitimate service complaints. Owner's response was defensive and insulting rather than corrective.
• RECENCY CONCERN: 10 of 14 reviews are from 2020-2022. Only 1 recent review (Feb 2023) available, which is highly negative. Insufficient recent data to assess current business practices.
• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews mention communication/responsiveness issues (missed appointment in June 2021, incomplete service follow-up in Dec 2021, no-show with no notification in Feb 2023). This suggests systemic communication problems.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between positive reviews praising professionalism and the Feb 2023 review documenting owner's hostile behavior. Suggests either deterioration in service or inconsistent quality depending on which staff member handles the job.
• INCOMPLETE SERVICE: Dec 2021 review indicates service was performed but customer had no hot water afterward, insulation was removed but wasp nest left in place, and no bill/contact info was left. Suggests quality control issues.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the majority of reviews are positive, the most recent review (Feb 2023) documents serious professionalism failures by ownership, and a pattern of communication/completion issues appears across multiple reviews. The score is pulled down by legitimate documented failures, but the small number of recent reviews (1 in past 12 months) and the dramatic shift in tone between older and newer feedback suggest the business may be experiencing operational or management problems. Recommend seeking very recent references before engaging this contractor.

Webster Gas shows mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism is hindered by a critical appointment cancellation without proper communication and unresponsiveness to callbacks, though some reviews praise efficiency and quick response times. Pricing is a significant weakness, with one customer charged $635 for under $10 in materials and another praising competitive pricing—indicating inconsistent pricing practices. Project completion suffers from the cancelled appointment and a callback that was never honored after a pipe re-leaked. Experience is the strongest dimension, with customers noting skilled diagnostics (finding 11 gas leaks others missed) and quality workmanship, though one major service failure undermines confidence.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Three of five reviews are from 2018-2020 (3-5 years old); only two are from 2022. Older reviews may not reflect current operations.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Extreme variance in pricing feedback—one customer praised 'best price in town' while another was charged $635 for ~$10 in materials. This suggests either highly variable pricing or potential overcharging.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: Review from 2018-02-21 documents serious communication breakdown: appointment cancelled without notification, owner unresponsive, customer had to call multiple times. This is a red flag for reliability.
• CALLBACK FAILURE: Review from 2018-01-14 explicitly states customer was 'dodged' on callbacks after service failure. This directly contradicts the positive reviews citing quick response.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews total limits confidence in overall score. More recent data needed.

This score should be treated with caution. While the company demonstrates strong technical expertise, serious gaps in communication, project completion follow-through, and pricing transparency are documented in multiple reviews. The age of most reviews and small sample size further limit reliability. Recent performance data is needed to confirm whether issues have been resolved.

Jordan Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with courteous service, professional appearance, and responsive communication explicitly noted across multiple reviews. Project completion is solid with jobs finished and customers satisfied. However, pricing presents a significant concern: one detailed 2018 review explicitly criticizes labor rates as excessive (quoting $700 for work the customer could source materials for under $13), while two other reviews praise inexpensive pricing—creating conflicting signals. Experience/workmanship is consistently praised but mentioned in only 2 reviews. The WW Score of 73.8 reflects strong execution and professionalism offset by pricing inconsistency and limited data volume.

• PRICING CONFLICT: Two reviews claim 'inexpensive' pricing while one detailed 2018 review explicitly calls prices a 'total rip off' ($700 quote for basic work). This contradiction significantly impacts pricing confidence.
• RECENCY IMBALANCE: Two reviews are from 2017–2018 (6–7 years old); only two are recent (2021, 2024). Older reviews may not reflect current pricing or practices.
• LIMITED SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews total limits statistical reliability. Recommend collecting more recent data.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Reviews 1 and 4 contain somewhat generic positive language ('great', 'top notch', 'always content') with minimal specific detail, though Review 2 provides strong specificity.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (4 reviews), significant pricing contradictions between reviews, and age of 50% of the data. The MODERATE overall confidence reflects adequate mention counts but insufficient volume and conflicting signals to warrant high trust.

Jeremiah demonstrates strong technical expertise and exceptional pricing value, as evidenced by his diagnostic skill and ability to save a customer over $1500. However, professionalism and project completion are significantly undermined by a critical failure to notify the customer of a cancellation in a timely manner, forcing the customer to scramble for alternative service on short notice. While one review praises his knowledge and service quality, the cancellation incident reveals a serious communication and reliability gap that directly impacts customer trust. The limited mention count across all dimensions means this score should be treated with caution pending additional reviews.

• CRITICAL: One review (1.0 rating) documents a significant professionalism failure—customer was not notified of cancellation until 7:30 PM the night before a scheduled 10:00 AM appointment, forcing emergency rescheduling. This is a major red flag for reliability.
• Small sample size (3 reviews) limits confidence in overall score. Additional reviews needed to validate trends.
• Two of three reviews are from the same date (2024-01-25), suggesting possible batch submission or clustering.

This score should be treated as preliminary and unreliable due to the small sample size (3 reviews) and conflicting signals: strong technical skills and pricing offset by a serious communication/reliability failure. Additional reviews are essential before making a hiring decision.