Find Nearby Plumbers In Columbia, South Carolina

All three reviews speak positively to professionalism, with mentions of reliability, efficiency, pleasant demeanor, and good communication — including a technician who cleaned up after himself and hauled away old materials. Project completion is consistently affirmed across all reviews, with jobs described as successfully finished and customers expressing intent to return. Experience scores slightly lower due to limited specifics about technical skill or problem-solving; the work described (faucet replacement, dishwasher hose, toilet install) is relatively routine, and praise is more personality-focused than skill-focused. Pricing is entirely unmentioned across all reviews, so no score can be assigned for that dimension.

• Only 3 reviews total — sample size is very small and the WW Score should be treated as preliminary only.
• All reviews are 5-star with generally positive but somewhat generic language; limited specific technical detail reduces confidence in experience scoring.
• One review (2022-12-29) is over 12 months old and carries reduced recency weight.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — the Price Friendly dimension cannot be evaluated.

This score is based on only 3 reviews with no pricing data and limited technical detail, making it a low-confidence preliminary assessment that should not be relied upon without additional reviews.

All four reviews consistently praise Rite Way for being courteous, responsive, and reasonably priced, which drives solid scores in professionalism and pricing. Two reviews reference specific positive outcomes — a cost-saving repair on a water heater and same-day service — lending some support to project completion and experience scores. However, the review pool is very small (only 4 reviews) and spans a wide date range from 2012 to 2019, with no reviews in the past several years, significantly limiting reliability. Scores are kept conservative given the low volume and age of the data. No negative feedback was present, but absence of complaints cannot be treated as evidence of perfection.

• All 4 reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback — while not conclusive, this warrants caution.
• Review dates range from 2012 to 2019. The most recent review is from August 2019, meaning ALL reviews are more than 5 years old. This significantly reduces the relevance of the score to current performance.
• Review volume is very low (4 reviews total). The WW Score cannot be considered statistically reliable with this sample size.
• Some reviews use similarly generic praise ('courteous,' 'responsive,' 'reasonable') across multiple entries, which could indicate a pattern of templated feedback, though specifics in two reviews reduce this concern somewhat.

This WW Score should be treated with significant caution — it is based on only 4 reviews, all of which are over 5 years old, making it a poor indicator of the contractor's current quality or availability.

The three reviews present a mixed picture. Two positive reviews highlight punctuality, professionalism, and satisfactory workmanship, while one negative review specifically calls out a failure to show up on time — a direct contradiction that meaningfully drags down the professionalism score. Pricing was only mentioned in one review (described as 'pretty good'), making that dimension very low confidence. Project completion and experience were referenced positively in two reviews but the small sample size limits reliability. The oldest review dates to 2016, which is over eight years ago and carries significantly reduced weight.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated with caution.
• One review dates to 2016 (over 8 years old) and was given reduced weight due to recency rules.
• The positive reviews are specific and detailed enough to appear genuine, but the extremely small sample size prevents any reliable pattern analysis.
• No fake review patterns detected, but sample is too small to assess meaningfully.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 7+ years and should be considered highly unreliable — seek additional data points before making a hiring decision.

Love Plumbing Air & Electrical demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with technicians consistently praised for courtesy, knowledge, and work quality. However, the company is severely hampered by pervasive pricing complaints across the entire review set—customers repeatedly report charges 2-5x higher than competitors for identical work, with many describing practices as exploitative or predatory. Project completion issues are moderate, with recurring problems including missed appointments, poor communication, and incomplete work requiring callbacks. The stark disconnect between positive service quality and negative pricing feedback creates a company that delivers competent work but at costs that alienate customers and generate substantial distrust.

• CRITICAL PRICING PATTERN: 89 reviews explicitly mention pricing concerns. Overwhelming consensus that charges are excessive, with specific examples: $759 for 20-minute drain clearing, $608 for $119 garbage disposal, $1,100+ for toilet replacement (competitor: $400-450), $500+ for simple repairs costing $10-30 in parts. This is not isolated—it is systemic.
• AGGRESSIVE UPSELLING: Multiple reviews report technicians recommending unnecessary replacements (entire pipe systems, water heaters, fixtures) and high-pressure sales tactics. Several customers report being told they needed $3,000-5,000 in work that other plumbers assessed as unnecessary.
• MISSED APPOINTMENTS & POOR COMMUNICATION: At least 15 reviews document no-shows, late arrivals without notice, rescheduled appointments, and failure to return calls. Service plan members report this was especially problematic despite paying for priority service.
• INCOMPLETE/INCORRECT WORK: Multiple reviews report work done incorrectly requiring callbacks (water heater installed wrong, main return not hooked up on HVAC, shower repair done incorrectly causing wall damage, kitchen sink not connected during drain replacement causing $10,000+ sewage damage).
• ESTIMATE FEES & DECEPTIVE PRACTICES: Company charges $50 for estimates, claims it will be waived if customer uses their service same day, then uses high-pressure tactics. Multiple reviews report estimates that were wildly inflated or diagnostically false.
• WARRANTY & FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Several reviews document company refusing to honor warranties, not following up on promised work, and using equipment pickup as leverage to avoid refunds.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent reviews (June 2025) are overwhelmingly 5-star with minimal detail, creating suspicion of fake/incentivized reviews. Older, detailed reviews (2008-2024) contain far more critical analysis and specific complaints. This temporal pattern suggests potential review manipulation.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: 30+ recent reviews (May-June 2025) are 5-star with generic praise ('Great service!', 'Very professional', 'Highly recommend') and minimal specifics. Several contain identical phrasing ('wore shoe covers', 'very professional and friendly'). Contrast sharply with detailed negative reviews from 2008-2024 that describe specific problems, costs, and outcomes. Confidence in recent positive reviews is reduced.

This WW Score of 62.8 is highly reliable due to large sample size (152 reviews) and consistent patterns across dimensions, but is heavily weighted by severe and pervasive pricing complaints that dominate customer sentiment. The company delivers competent technical work but at prices customers perceive as exploitative, creating a fundamentally untrustworthy value proposition despite professional execution. Recent 5-star reviews show signs of potential manipulation and should be weighted less than detailed historical reviews.

This aggregated review set spans multiple businesses and individual operators all operating under or associated with the 'Mr. Plumber' name across different regions and time periods, making direct comparison difficult but revealing a deeply polarized reputation. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a large volume of explicit complaints about rudeness, no-shows, broken appointments, and dismissive customer service — including multiple accounts of technicians yelling at customers, slamming doors, and hanging up on home warranty representatives. Pricing is the single most-criticized dimension, with dozens of reviewers citing charges 2x to 5x higher than competitors for identical work, non-itemized invoices, and aggressive upselling tactics; a minority of reviewers — particularly those dealing with individual operators like Oscar, Jeff, and Rick — praised fair and transparent pricing. Project completion suffers from a notable pattern of abandoned jobs, failed callbacks, work left incomplete for weeks or months, and instances where problems were made worse rather than fixed. Experience scores are moderate-positive, as many positive reviews do cite skilled diagnosis and quality workmanship from specific named technicians, but are offset by multiple accounts of misdiagnosis, incorrect parts installation, and damage caused during service.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: These reviews appear to aggregate multiple distinct businesses and sole operators all using the 'Mr. Plumber' name across different U.S. regions (Georgia, New Jersey, Oklahoma, California, New York, Indiana, Tennessee, etc.). Scores reflect a blended profile and should not be applied to any single operator without filtering by location.
• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: A significant cluster of 5-star reviews — particularly those dated 2025-05-07, 2025-05-10, and 2025-05-19 with no review text — are blank ratings only and provide zero usable data. Several other 5-star reviews are near-identical in phrasing (e.g., two reviews from 2025-05-07 and 2025-05-10 are word-for-word duplicates for 'Michael'). These have been excluded from scoring but inflate the raw star average.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two pairs of reviews are near-verbatim duplicates submitted on consecutive or same dates (the 'Michael' gas line reviews dated 2025-05-07 and 2025-05-10; the rude technician reviews dated 2023-08-09 and 2023-08-10). These were counted as single mentions.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly 5-star with minimal text, while the most detailed and substantive negative reviews span 2018–2024. The oldest reviews (2005–2013) skew positive but reflect a different era of the business. Recency weighting was applied conservatively.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 30+ reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from all dimension scoring as they provide no evidence per Rule 1.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEW: One review (dated 2021-06-07, 5 stars) references a healthcare provider ('very helpful with my daughter and son... ADHD and learning disabilities') and is clearly posted to the wrong business. It was excluded entirely.
• PRICING PATTERN: A recurring pattern of non-itemized invoices, refusal to provide cost breakdowns, and prices dropping significantly when customers push back strongly suggests systematic price gouging practices at certain franchise or affiliate locations, particularly those associated with Coolray/Mr. Plumber in the Atlanta, GA market.
• ABANDONED WORK PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews describe technicians starting jobs, leaving for parts, and never returning — sometimes for months. This pattern appears across different named technicians and locations, suggesting a systemic operational failure rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its practical reliability is MODERATE at best because the dataset aggregates multiple distinct businesses operating under the same trade name across different regions and time periods — consumers should filter reviews by their specific geographic location and verify the operator before relying on this blended score.

This contractor shows strong technical skill and professionalism when actively engaged on jobs, with positive feedback on work quality and responsiveness during active projects. However, a critical weakness emerges in project completion and follow-through: one detailed 1-star review documents severe communication breakdown and failure to honor callbacks over a 20-day period, directly contradicting the positive reviews. Pricing appears fair based on limited mentions. The significant recency gap (two reviews from 2017, one from 2023, one from 2024) and the stark contrast between glowing praise and serious abandonment allegations create substantial uncertainty about current reliability.

• CRITICAL: Severe contradiction between reviews. Two 2017 reviews praise reliability and responsiveness; 2023 review documents repeated failure to return calls (20+ attempts over 20 days) and no-shows on agreed appointments. This suggests either deterioration in service quality or inconsistent performance.
• RECENCY CONCERN: 50% of reviews are from 2017 (7+ years old). Only one review from past 12 months. Historical data may not reflect current operations.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: 2023 review explicitly states contractor 'refuses to return calls or communicate in any way' and mentions other customers with identical experience. This is a systemic professionalism issue that directly impacts project completion.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews total limits confidence in any dimension. Recommend collecting more recent data before making high-stakes decisions.

This score should be treated with caution. While technical work quality appears solid, the documented communication and follow-through failures in the 2023 review are serious red flags that contradict earlier positive reviews, and the age of most reviews limits their relevance to current service expectations.