Find Nearby Plumbers In Florence, South Carolina

All four reviews speak positively to professionalism, highlighting courteous communication, prompt responsiveness, and friendly demeanor, which drives the highest dimension score. Project completion is supported by three reviews describing jobs being finished efficiently and on time, including both plumbing and electrical work described as difficult and time-consuming. Pricing receives a modest but positive signal from two reviews — one explicitly noting a discounted home visit fee and the company name itself implying affordability — though direct commentary on value or quotes is sparse. Experience is touched on in two reviews, with one noting the owners are knowledgeable across multiple trade types, but specifics on workmanship quality are limited. Overall, the scores are credible but conservative given the very small review pool.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• One review is dated 2018, over 6 years old. It has been included but carries reduced practical relevance to current service quality.
• All reviews are 5-star with no negative feedback. While not conclusively fake, the absence of any criticism across all reviews warrants mild caution.
• Two reviews mention the owners by first name (Christy and Scotty), which adds some authenticity signal and reduces fake review concern slightly.
• Review pool is too small to detect repetitive language patterns with confidence.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning 6 years and should be considered a low-confidence preliminary assessment — significantly more reviews are needed before this score can be trusted as representative of consistent service quality.

ARS Rescue Rooter presents a deeply polarized review profile. A significant portion of positive reviews praise individual technicians as professional, courteous, knowledgeable, and timely, which elevates the professionalism and experience scores above what the negative reviews alone would suggest. However, the volume and severity of negative reviews is substantial: recurring themes include no-shows, missed appointment windows without notification, high-pressure sales tactics, price gouging on parts and labor (often 3-10x market rate), misdiagnosis of problems to upsell unnecessary repairs or full system replacements, and near-total failure of customer service escalation. Pricing receives the lowest score due to overwhelming and consistent evidence of extreme markups, bait-and-switch advertising, and refusal to provide itemized invoices. Project completion suffers from numerous accounts of incomplete work, failed inspections, return visits required, and jobs abandoned mid-project. The review set also contains a large number of brewery reviews (ARS Brewing in Philadelphia) and other clearly off-topic reviews that were excluded from scoring.

• MAJOR DATA CONTAMINATION: A significant number of reviews in this dataset are clearly for a different business — ARS Brewing, a craft brewery in Philadelphia, PA. These reviews reference beer, food trucks, taprooms, and brewery atmosphere and have no relevance to HVAC or plumbing services. These were excluded from scoring but inflate the raw review count significantly.
• SUSPECTED FAKE OR INFLATED POSITIVE REVIEWS: A large cluster of reviews dated 2025-06-06 through 2025-06-09 are near-identical in phrasing (e.g., multiple exact duplicates of 'Great service, very professional.', 'All went well; Very professional.', 'The tech arrived early for the appointment. He was courteous & professional and quickly completed the job.', 'Adam check everything, and got a/c back on.', 'Daniel was amazing', 'Not friend, right away started to charge me without inspection of the drain.'). These appear to be the same reviews submitted multiple times across different dates, strongly suggesting review manipulation or a data feed error. Confidence in the positive review pool is reduced accordingly.
• REVIEW DUPLICATION: Dozens of reviews appear verbatim multiple times across different dates (e.g., the Jeremy R Smith review, the Andy and Alex review, the Service men were efficient review, the Horrible experience review). This suggests either a data pipeline issue or deliberate review stuffing. Duplicate reviews were counted only once per unique text for scoring purposes.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW PATTERN: Across hundreds of unique negative reviews spanning 2011 to 2025, a consistent and severe pattern emerges of ARS failing to honor appointment windows, providing no notification of delays or cancellations, and offering no meaningful recourse through customer service. This is a systemic operational failure, not isolated incidents.
• PRICE GOUGING PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different cities and years report being quoted 3x to 10x market rate for parts and labor. Examples include $455/lb for refrigerant (market: $40-80), $650 for a $25 capacitor, $1,100 for a 30-minute warranty repair, and $10,000+ for sewer work completed by competitors for under $2,000. This pattern is too consistent and widespread to be coincidental.
• MISDIAGNOSIS AND UPSELL PATTERN: Numerous reviewers report being told they needed full system replacements or expensive repairs, only to have a second-opinion technician fix the actual problem for a fraction of the cost. In several cases, reviewers allege ARS technicians deliberately disabled or damaged equipment to create a sale opportunity.
• OFF-TOPIC REVIEWS EXCLUDED: Reviews referencing beer, breweries, food trucks, and taproom experiences were identified as belonging to ARS Brewing (Philadelphia) and were excluded from all dimension scoring. These reviews do not reflect the HVAC and plumbing contractor being evaluated.
• GEOGRAPHIC INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference ARS locations across many states (TX, FL, NC, SC, VA, IL, OH, TN, GA, etc.), suggesting this is a national franchise. Service quality appears highly variable by location, which limits the reliability of any aggregate score as a predictor for a specific local branch.

This WW Score of 52.1 should be treated with caution: while it is based on a very large number of substantive reviews providing HIGH confidence in the statistical sense, the score is significantly undermined by confirmed review duplication, suspected fake positive reviews, off-topic brewery reviews contaminating the dataset, and extreme geographic variability across a national franchise — consumers should research their specific local ARS branch independently before engaging services.

This contractor shows mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism is inconsistent—while one review praises punctuality and pleasant demeanor, another explicitly states he fails to return as promised, which is a critical professional failure. Pricing is a major concern: one customer felt significantly overcharged ($92 for $5 worth of screws), though another found rates reasonable. Project completion is undermined by the documented failure to follow through on callbacks. Workmanship quality appears acceptable when jobs are completed, but the small sample size and age of reviews (oldest from 2017, most recent from 2021) limit confidence.

• Only 3 reviews total—sample size is very small and limits statistical reliability
• Reviews span 4 years (2017–2021); no recent data from past 12 months available
• Critical red flag: explicit complaint about failure to return/follow through on callbacks (Review 1)
• Pricing concern: one customer reports significant overcharge relative to actual material cost (Review 2)
• Conflicting pricing feedback: one review calls pricing 'reasonable,' another calls it a 'scam'—suggests inconsistent pricing practices or customer expectations

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size (3 reviews), lack of recent data, and conflicting feedback on key dimensions. The score reflects genuine concerns about follow-through and pricing fairness, but broader patterns cannot be reliably established from this limited dataset.

The review set is extremely small (3 reviews) and paints a deeply mixed and largely negative picture. Two of the three reviews describe serious misconduct: one alleges overcharging and negligent work (sewage left running in a yard), and another reports theft of property from a customer's home during a service visit. The single positive review praises responsiveness and honest advice from a technician named Mike, but this review is from 2021 and references HVAC work, which may not reflect the same crew or service line responsible for the negative plumbing experiences. Project completion is scored very low due to the incomplete and harmful work described in the negative reviews, and pricing is penalized by the explicit $500 overcharge allegation.

• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAG: One review explicitly alleges theft of property from a customer's home during a service visit, with police involvement confirmed.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAG: One review alleges negligent plumbing work — sewage deliberately released into a customer's yard — and a $500 charge for no substantive repair.
• SMALL SAMPLE WARNING: Only 3 reviews total. The WW Score cannot be considered statistically reliable with this sample size.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent review (2024-04-05) is the most severe negative review. The positive review dates to 2021, making it over 3 years old and less representative of current service quality.
• SERVICE LINE INCONSISTENCY: The positive review references HVAC/AC service and a technician named Mike, while the negative reviews reference plumbing work. These may reflect different technicians or subcontractors, limiting direct comparability.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews are distinct in language, detail level, and rating — no signs of coordinated or fabricated reviews.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be treated as highly unreliable for decision-making; the presence of serious misconduct allegations (theft, negligent work, overcharging) in two of three reviews is a significant red flag that warrants extreme caution regardless of the numerical score.

All three reviews are uniformly negative with 1-star ratings. Customers report severe issues across pricing (overcharging, quotes 2-3x higher than competitors), project completion (work incomplete, same problems persist after service), and professionalism (lack of proper tools, no documentation, no bonding/insurance). One review raises legal/compliance concerns regarding disability status. The consistency of negative feedback across all dimensions is striking, though the sample size of 3 reviews is minimal for reliable statistical confidence.

• CRITICAL: All 3 reviews are 1-star ratings with uniformly severe complaints — suggests either systemic operational failures or potential targeting by dissatisfied customers. Pattern warrants investigation.
• Legal/compliance red flag: Review 2 alleges contractor is working while on disability without proper documentation, bonding, or insurance. This requires verification.
• Pricing concerns are consistent across 3 reviews: customers report being charged 2-4x market rates for incomplete work.
• Project completion failures documented in 2 of 3 reviews: work incomplete or requiring re-service.
• Sample size is very small (n=3). Recommend collecting additional recent reviews before making final judgment.

This score should be treated with extreme caution due to the very small sample size (3 reviews), though the uniformity of negative feedback is concerning and warrants immediate investigation into operational practices, licensing, and compliance status.

Analysis is severely limited by only 2 reviews with conflicting narratives. The 2023 review praises Hendricks for reasonable pricing, friendly demeanor, quick response, and clean work. However, the 2016 review describes a catastrophic service failure where waste was allegedly returned to the tank, incomplete cleaning, unprofessional communication, and refusal to refund payment. The extreme contradiction and 7-year gap between reviews, combined with insufficient sample size, prevents reliable WW Score calculation. The 2016 incident raises serious concerns about professionalism and project completion, but cannot be weighted against a single positive recent review.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed — insufficient for reliable scoring. Minimum 3 reviews recommended.
• EXTREME CONTRADICTION: 5-star vs 1-star reviews describe fundamentally different service quality and professionalism levels.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent review is from 2023, but critical negative review is from 2016 (7+ years old). Unclear if issues were resolved.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATION: 2016 review alleges unsanitary practice (returning waste to tank) and unprofessional conduct. If accurate, this is a major red flag.
• INSUFFICIENT DATA: With only 2 reviews, confidence in any dimension is LIMITED at best. No dimension has 3+ mentions needed for MODERATE confidence.

This score cannot be reliably calculated or trusted due to insufficient review volume (only 2 reviews) and extreme contradictions between them. A minimum of 5-10 additional reviews is required before any meaningful WW Score can be established.