Find Nearby Plumbers In Hilton Head Island, South Carolina

Top Dog Plumbing receives a critically low WW Score of 38.2, driven by severe and consistent failures across all dimensions. The company demonstrates poor professionalism through rude communication, unresponsiveness, and aggressive collection tactics. Pricing is a major weakness with multiple complaints of overcharging (double market rates, $450 for simple cleanouts, $6,100 main replacements that competitors completed for $300). Project completion is severely compromised by incomplete work, failed repairs, and refusal to honor callbacks or warranty obligations. While some technicians (Joe Rosario, Matthew) show competence, the majority of reviews describe incompetent workmanship, failed diagnostics, and shoddy repairs. The company's business license was revoked according to one review, and multiple reviews describe harassment and coercive payment collection.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews describe aggressive and potentially illegal collection practices, including refusing to leave property without payment, depositing multiple checks without authorization, and harassment via voicemails and property visits.
• CRITICAL: One review (2023) indicates the company's plumbing license was revoked and phones were disconnected, suggesting potential business closure or regulatory action.
• PATTERN: Consistent overcharging across multiple reviews ($450 cleanout, $6,100 main replacement vs. $300 competitor quote, $450 for poor drywall repair).
• PATTERN: Multiple reports of failed work requiring re-repair by other contractors, indicating systemic quality issues.
• RECENCY: Most negative reviews are from 2022-2024 (recent), while positive reviews are older (2021 and earlier), suggesting deterioration in service quality over time.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between glowing reviews (Joe Rosario, Matthew, 10-year customer) and severe complaints, suggesting highly variable service quality or possible selective positive review posting.

This score is highly reliable and should be trusted. It is based on 10 reviews with consistent negative patterns across all dimensions, particularly regarding pricing, completion, and professionalism. However, the presence of some genuinely positive reviews (Joe Rosario, Matthew) indicates the company may have had competent technicians, though overall organizational practices appear deeply problematic. The apparent license revocation and business disruption noted in recent reviews further validate the low score.

Both reviews speak positively about Pender Brothers' technicians being well-trained, efficient, and helpful, supporting moderate-to-good scores in professionalism and experience. Project completion is supported by references to problems being solved with speed and accuracy, and jobs being completed quickly. Pricing received a notably lower score because one reviewer explicitly stated the company is not the cheapest, though they acknowledged the value trade-off. With only two reviews — one of which is over five years old — all scores must be treated as highly tentative and conservative.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be reliably calculated per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• One review is dated 2018 (over 5 years old) and should be weighted significantly less than the 2023 review.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback, which limits the ability to identify weaknesses.
• Reviews are generally positive but lack granular specifics (e.g., exact job types, before/after outcomes), reducing scoring confidence across all dimensions.

This score is based on only 2 reviews spanning a 5-year gap, making it insufficient for reliable contractor evaluation — treat all dimension scores as preliminary indicators only.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required to calculate a reliable WW Score. The reviews present a stark contradiction: one 5-star review from 2019 praising first-rate work, and one 2-star review from 2019 citing unprofessionalism, incomplete work, unacceptable quality, and failure to respond to callbacks or address payment disputes. Each dimension is mentioned in only 1 review, resulting in LIMITED confidence across all scores. The conflicting narratives and minimal sample size make any aggregate score unreliable.

• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — cannot calculate WW Score reliably per Step 4 guidelines
• Extreme contradiction between reviews (5-star vs 2-star) with no middle ground — suggests either significant service variability or potential data quality issues
• Both reviews are from 2019 — no recent data available to assess current performance
• All dimensions based on 1 mention each — extremely limited confidence in any individual score

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (fewer than 3 reviews). The two available reviews contradict sharply and are both over 4 years old, making it impossible to assess current contractor performance reliably.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. The single review mentions professionalism (polite, courteous, professional) and project completion (installed toilet, cleaned up), but provides no information on pricing or technical experience. A single positive review cannot establish reliable patterns.

• Only 1 review available — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is from November 2023 (approximately 1+ year old) — recency is limited
• No pricing information mentioned — cannot assess value or fairness
• No technical skill or problem-solving details provided — experience dimension cannot be evaluated

This analysis cannot produce a valid WW Score due to insufficient review volume. At least 3 reviews are required to establish meaningful patterns and confidence levels.

Insufficient data — only 1 review analyzed. The single review praises professionalism (prompt, honest, gentleman), project completion (work described as perfect across multiple occasions), and experience (quality workmanship implied). However, pricing is not mentioned. With only one review, confidence in any dimension is severely limited and cannot support a reliable WW Score calculation.

• Insufficient review count (n=1) — cannot calculate WW Score reliably per Step 4 guidelines
• Review is from 2020 (4+ years old) — recency is a concern
• Generic praise language with no specific project details — limits ability to verify claims
• No pricing information provided — cannot assess value dimension

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score with only 1 review; a minimum of 3 reviews is required per protocol.

Only a single review is available, which limits scoring reliability significantly. The reviewer speaks positively about Lou's communication and willingness to take on small jobs, supporting a modest professionalism score. Pricing is described as 'competitive,' which warrants a conservative positive score but no specifics are given. Project completion is implied — the screen door was fixed — but no detail about timeline, follow-through, or complexity is provided. Experience/workmanship quality is not mentioned at all, leaving that dimension entirely unscored.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from June 2020, making it over 4 years old. Recency weighting is a concern — this may not reflect current performance.
• All dimension scores are LOW CONFIDENCE due to single-review basis. Treat all scores as directional only, not definitive.

This score is based on a single review from 2020 and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of this contractor's current quality or consistency.