Find Nearby Plumbers In Rock Hill, South Carolina

Osborne Plumbing receives consistently strong praise for professionalism, communication, and courteous technicians across the large majority of recent reviews, with many customers specifically calling out named technicians like Chris, Jarrod, and Matt for their thoroughness and friendliness. Project completion scores well overall, with most jobs described as finished quickly and cleanly, though there are notable exceptions including one review describing unresolved work, a yard left in disarray, and a callback that was never honored. Pricing is the weakest dimension and the most contested: multiple negative reviews explicitly describe charges as excessive or deceptive — including a $448 drain snake, a $926 pipe repair followed by a missed leak, and a $255 visit fee for no diagnosis — which significantly drags the pricing score down despite some positive mentions of transparent quoting. Experience scores moderately well, with many reviewers praising technical knowledge and problem-solving, but offset by at least two reviews where the technician failed to diagnose or fix the problem correctly. The overall WW Score reflects a company with genuine strengths in customer service and professionalism but a meaningful and recurring pattern of pricing complaints that cannot be ignored.

• 10 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a 5-star rating. These blank reviews provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring. Their presence inflates the visible star average without contributing evidence.
• Several reviews use very similar generic phrasing ('excellent service', 'great customer service', 'highly recommend') with no specific details. While not conclusive, this pattern warrants mild fake review suspicion for a subset of short 5-star reviews.
• A significant cluster of negative reviews (6 reviews rated 1-star) explicitly cite pricing deception, missed diagnoses, unresolved work, rude staff, and a failure to return promised callbacks. These are not isolated complaints and represent a consistent pattern across multiple years.
• Recency note: The majority of detailed positive reviews are from 2024-2025 and carry more weight. Most negative reviews are from 2017-2023, suggesting possible improvement over time, but the 2023 disabled veteran review and the water damage complaint from 2022 are recent enough to remain relevant.
• One review describes the owner's wife (Angela) calling a customer a 'keyboard warrior' and refusing to accept responsibility for water damage caused by a technician — this is a significant professionalism and business conduct flag.
• One review describes a technician being deceptive about the equipment to be used (billing for a 'sewer machine' but arriving with a hand snake), which is a direct integrity concern affecting both pricing and professionalism scores.

This WW Score is based on 68 total reviews with a broad date range spanning 2014 to 2025; confidence is HIGH due to the large volume of reviews with usable data, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the recurring and specific nature of pricing and workmanship complaints across multiple independent reviewers.

Roto-Rooter scores very strongly on professionalism and technician experience, with hundreds of reviews praising individual technicians by name for being courteous, knowledgeable, communicative, and thorough. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs resolved same-day or within a short timeframe, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, broken promises on follow-up visits, and warranty disputes. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension across the entire review set — dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges as 'outrageous,' 'ridiculous,' 'a scam,' or triple the price of competitors, with specific dollar amounts cited ranging from $315 for 4 minutes of work to $8,700 for a water heater installation. Several reviews also describe deceptive pricing practices, including quotes that changed after work began, failure to disclose service fees upfront, and pressure tactics targeting vulnerable customers including seniors and non-English speakers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., multiple identical reviews for 'Gio,' 'Gabriel,' 'Daniel,' 'Gus,' 'Giovanni,' and others). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate a review solicitation system that caused customers to submit the same review twice, or potential manipulation. Confidence in raw review count is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 150-200 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (almost all 5-star). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from scoring but inflate the total count.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SEVERE AND SPECIFIC: Negative pricing reviews are not vague — they cite specific dollar amounts, compare to competitor prices, and describe practices such as quoting after work begins, refusing to honor coupons, and charging elderly or non-English-speaking customers without disclosure. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe technicians failing to arrive within promised windows, no-call-no-shows, and dispatch communication failures. This is a recurring pattern affecting the project completion score.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Several reviews describe Roto-Rooter refusing to honor stated warranties, including a 6-month guarantee and a 30-day guarantee, with customers being charged again for the same recurring issue.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: A small but notable number of reviews describe active harm caused by technicians — flooding a kitchen, improperly setting a toilet, changing the wrong pipe, leaving sewage handprints, and damaging property with no accountability.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians quoting extremely high prices and then reducing them when customers push back, suggesting initial quotes are inflated as a negotiating tactic rather than honest pricing.
• RECENCY: All reviews are dated between approximately May 7, 2025 and June 9, 2025 — all within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is fully applied.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review set and carries HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews inflating volume, a strong and consistent pattern of severe pricing complaints that meaningfully suppresses the score, and documented instances of incomplete work and warranty non-compliance that suggest the positive technician-level experience does not always translate to a satisfactory overall customer outcome.

Power Plumbing has a large and broadly positive review base spanning many years, with the majority of customers praising individual technicians by name for being professional, knowledgeable, punctual, and communicative. Professionalism scores are pulled down meaningfully by a recurring pattern of serious complaints: technicians arriving late or not at all, poor internal communication, unanswered callbacks, and at least one instance of inappropriate conduct by a technician. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple credible and detailed complaints about billing from the time a technician leaves a prior job rather than arrival on site, charges exceeding quoted amounts, parts marked up significantly, and in several cases customers feeling outright overcharged or scammed — including one allegation of a $10,000 unnecessary system replacement recommendation. Project completion is generally strong, with most jobs described as finished correctly, but there are notable failures including incomplete work, jobs requiring emergency return visits due to new damage caused during service, and at least one instance of a toilet being left uncleaned and a tank lid left on the floor. Technical experience is a relative strength, with many reviewers specifically praising diagnostic skill and problem-solving, though offset by several reviews describing technicians who misdiagnosed problems or lacked necessary tools.

• Multiple reviews appear to be duplicates submitted on different dates with identical text (e.g., the Brian overcharge review appears twice, the 'SO WONDERFUL' Kevin review appears twice, the 'Avoid Power Plumbing' lien review appears twice, and the Saturday water heater Kevin review appears twice). This inflates review count and may indicate platform cross-posting or manipulation.
• Several reviews contain no text and only a star rating (approximately 30+ blank reviews), which cannot be scored and reduce the reliability of the overall rating distribution.
• Two reviews appear to be about the physical filming location of the TV show Sanford and Son and are entirely unrelated to plumbing services — these were excluded from scoring.
• One review states 'It's my dads work' suggesting a potential fake or biased review from a family member.
• Pricing complaints are numerous, specific, and credible: at least 8 distinct reviewers with detailed billing grievances including charges for drive time not disclosed upfront, final bills 3x the quoted amount, $1,100+ for simple pipe replacements, and a $10,000 upsell allegation. This pattern is too consistent to dismiss.
• A significant number of highly positive reviews reference the same individual technicians (Rameez, Alan, Johnny, Jorge, David) repeatedly, which is consistent with genuine repeat customers but also warrants noting as a concentration of praise around specific individuals rather than the company as a whole.
• Recency note: The review set spans from 2006 to June 2025. Reviews from 2024-2025 are the most relevant and show a mixed but generally positive recent trend, though pricing complaints and professionalism failures continue into 2025.
• One review explicitly alleges the company installed a used, soiled toilet and another alleges a technician attempted to pick up a customer in her home — both are serious conduct allegations that, if accurate, represent significant professionalism failures beyond what the score alone conveys.

This WW Score is based on a very large review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but should be interpreted with caution due to confirmed duplicate reviews, a substantial number of blank reviews, serious and credible recurring pricing complaints, and several alarming conduct allegations that suggest meaningful inconsistency in service quality across different technicians and locations.

Premier Plumbing draws a large volume of positive reviews praising individual technicians by name for professionalism, communication, punctuality, and technical skill, which drives reasonably strong scores in professionalism and experience. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — spanning the full date range of the dataset — document serious concerns including missed appointments with no communication, incorrect diagnoses charged at full price, abandoned work, and billing disputes, which significantly tempers all dimension scores. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple reviewers across different years describe charges they considered excessive, hidden fees, bait-and-switch quoting, and charges for work not performed, pulling the pricing score well below average. Project completion is also mixed, with several reviews describing jobs left incomplete, recurring problems not resolved, and callbacks that were never honored. The overall WW Score of 72.1 reflects a company with genuine strengths in individual technician quality but persistent systemic issues in billing transparency, communication, and follow-through.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Three reviews dated 2016-05-03 and 2016-05-05 are nearly word-for-word identical regarding a boiler/Rinnai/Trane installation. These appear to be duplicate submissions of the same review and were counted only once for scoring purposes.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 10 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (all 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: The review corpus appears to aggregate reviews from multiple businesses operating under similar 'Premier Plumbing' names across different geographic markets (Texas, California, South Carolina, Iowa, etc.). This significantly reduces the reliability of the aggregate score as it may not reflect a single contractor's performance.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews are distributed across the full date range (2006–2025), indicating that communication failures, no-shows, and billing disputes are not isolated incidents but recurring patterns over many years.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW-MODERATE: A subset of 5-star reviews from 2021–2023 use generic praise with no specifics ('Great company,' 'Always good service,' 'Excellent service'). These add minimal evidentiary weight and were not used to inflate dimension scores.
• ABANDONED WORK: At least two reviews explicitly describe technicians removing fixtures or cutting into walls and then not returning to complete the job, which is a serious project completion red flag.
• BILLING INTEGRITY CONCERNS: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe being charged for work not performed, incorrect diagnoses billed as repairs, and prices significantly higher than competing quotes for identical work.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its reliability as a reflection of any single contractor is MODERATE at best, given strong evidence that reviews span multiple unrelated businesses operating under the 'Premier Plumbing' name across different states, and that recurring negative patterns in billing, communication, and project completion are documented consistently across many years.

Kevin receives strong praise across professionalism, pricing, and workmanship from the majority of reviewers, with multiple mentions of punctuality, courtesy, responsiveness, and honest communication. Pricing is described as competitive and fair across several reviews, and completed jobs are consistently reported as thorough and high quality. However, one 1-star review explicitly cites a failure to return a call, which is a direct negative data point on responsiveness and cannot be dismissed. The overall picture is positive but not flawless, and the relatively small review pool and age of most reviews limit confidence in the final score.

• Only 6 total reviews — small sample size limits statistical reliability of all dimension scores.
• Most reviews are older than 1 year; the most recent review is from July 2021, and four of six reviews are from 2015–2018. Recency weighting reduces confidence that scores reflect current performance.
• One explicit negative review (1-star, 2018) cites failure to return a call — this is a direct professionalism concern and was factored into the professionalism score.
• Several positive reviews are somewhat generic in praise (e.g., 'great price and service,' 'I would tell everyone to call him') with limited specific detail, which slightly reduces confidence in those data points. No strong fake review pattern detected, but two reviews are notably thin on specifics.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a small and mostly dated review set; the score reflects a generally positive but not fully verified track record, and prospective customers should seek more recent references before making a hiring decision.

Building Trust Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism, with the vast majority of reviewers praising Jason and Brian's communication, responsiveness, cleanliness, and respectful demeanor. Experience and workmanship are generally well-regarded, with multiple reviewers citing skilled diagnostics and quality repairs, though one notable case involved an incomplete initial repair that required a callback and resulted in a near-duplicate charge. Project completion is moderately strong but is meaningfully dragged down by that same callback incident, where the job was not fully assessed on the first visit and the customer was billed again for the oversight. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with two reviewers explicitly flagging high service fees, lack of upfront estimates, and a dismissive response to a billing concern, while other reviewers praised fair and honest pricing — creating a divided picture. The oldest reviews date back to 2014–2016 and should be weighted less heavily than the more recent 2018–2019 reviews.

• Most reviews are older than 1 year relative to a current analysis date; the most recent review is from October 2019, and several key reviews are from 2014–2016, reducing their reliability for assessing current performance.
• Pricing dimension shows a clear split: multiple reviewers praised fair pricing while two reviewers (1-star and 2-star) explicitly complained about high fees, lack of upfront estimates, and an unsatisfactory billing dispute response — this inconsistency warrants caution.
• The 2-star review documents an incomplete repair on first visit, a delayed callback only triggered after the customer stopped payment, and a second bill nearly equal to the first for work that should have been done initially — this is a meaningful project completion and professionalism flag.
• No strong fake review patterns detected; reviews vary in length, specificity, tone, and rating, and include credible negative experiences. Review authenticity appears generally acceptable.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability given 10 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions, but should be interpreted cautiously due to the age of most reviews (majority are 5+ years old), a meaningful pricing controversy, and one documented case of incomplete work and disputed billing.