Find Nearby Plumbers In Spartanburg, South Carolina

Quality Plumbing receives strong praise across hundreds of reviews for responsiveness, friendly technicians, and professional demeanor, with many customers citing specific plumbers by name and describing courteous, efficient service. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — spread across many years and locations — describe serious concerns including billing disputes (charging for travel time, rounding up hours, marking up parts significantly), failed diagnoses, abandoned or incomplete work, and rude office staff who hung up on customers. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple reviewers describe feeling overcharged, discovering parts were marked up 200-300%, or being billed for time the plumber was not on-site. Project completion is also mixed, with several reviews describing jobs left unfinished, return visits that never materialized, or problems that were not resolved after multiple attempts. The experience dimension scores moderately well overall, as most technicians are described as knowledgeable and skilled, but a subset of reviews describe misdiagnoses, amateur-level work, and technicians who could not complete the job.

• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A significant cluster of reviews share identical or near-identical dates (e.g., dozens dated exactly 2024-09-12, 2023-06-10, 2022-06-10, 2021-06-10, 2020-06-10, 2019-06-11, 2018-06-11, 2017-06-11) with very short, generic, undetailed text and all 5-star ratings. This pattern is consistent with bulk review submission and inflates the positive signal. These reviews were counted but treated with reduced evidentiary weight.
• MULTI-LOCATION AGGREGATION RISK — HIGH: Reviews reference locations across at least 8 distinct geographic markets including Seattle WA, Cape Coral/Fort Myers FL, Kansas City MO, Ventura County CA, Honolulu HI, Galveston TX, Denver CO, and Fresno CA. These are almost certainly different businesses operating under the same or similar name 'Quality Plumbing.' Scores reflect the aggregate pool and may not represent any single business accurately.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED FROM SCORING: Approximately 30 reviews contained no text (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of substantive, detailed reviews are from 2020 to 2025, which carry the most weight. Reviews from 2005-2015 are present but represent a smaller share and may reflect different ownership or staffing.
• BILLING COMPLAINTS — RECURRING PATTERN: At least 15 independent reviews across multiple years and locations describe billing practices including charging for drive time, rounding up labor hours, excessive parts markups, and charging for assessments where no work was performed. This is a systemic concern, not isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe jobs left unfinished, promises to return that were never honored, and supervisors who never called back after complaints. This meaningfully depresses the project completion score.
• ONE REVIEW APPEARS TO BE FOR A RESTAURANT (Mexican food/tamales) — clearly misattributed and excluded from scoring.
• ONE REVIEW APPEARS TO BE A POLITICAL COMPLAINT about signage outside the business — excluded from scoring as it does not address service quality.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but its reliability as a predictor for any single 'Quality Plumbing' location is MODERATE at best, given strong evidence that reviews from multiple unrelated businesses across the United States have been aggregated together, and that a notable share of 5-star reviews show patterns consistent with fake or bulk submissions.

Ed Enlow demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions, with particular strength in project completion and pricing transparency. Three recent positive reviews (2024, 2018) consistently praise punctuality, honesty, fair pricing, and technical competence. However, a single 2015 review citing poor phone reception attitude introduces a reliability concern. The WW Score of 82.1 reflects solid overall performance tempered by limited mention counts (3–4 per dimension) and the presence of one negative outlier that cannot be ignored.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Two of three positive reviews are from 2018 (6+ years old). Only one review is from the past 12 months (2024-10-13). Recent performance cannot be fully validated.
• NEGATIVE OUTLIER: 2015 review cites poor customer service attitude from phone staff. While isolated, this suggests potential communication/professionalism gaps that may persist.
• LIMITED SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews total. Confidence in dimensions is capped at MODERATE due to mention counts of 2–4 per dimension.

This score should be treated with caution. While recent data is positive and consistent, the small sample size, age of most reviews, and presence of one service complaint limit confidence. A score of 82.1 is reasonable but should be validated with additional recent reviews before making a high-stakes decision.

Rex Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and project follow-through across multiple reviews, with several reviewers specifically praising skilled diagnosis, quality workmanship, and jobs completed as promised. Professionalism is generally positive but is meaningfully dragged down by at least two notable incidents: a plumber arriving two hours late without proactive communication, making rude comments about a drain job, and a separate instance where a voicemail for an estimate was never returned. Pricing received mixed signals — one reviewer felt $155 for a 10-minute job was excessive and felt blindsided by potential overtime charges, while others noted no upselling and fair transparent work, resulting in a conservative mid-range score. The majority of reviews are older than one year, with most dating from 2010–2014, which significantly limits confidence in how well these scores reflect current performance.

• RECENCY WARNING: The vast majority of reviews are from 2010–2014. Only one review is from 2015. No reviews exist from 2016 onward. This score may not reflect the contractor's current quality or practices.
• TWO REVIEWS CONTAIN ONLY 'unknown' AS TEXT: These reviews (ratings 3.0 and 5.0) provide no usable content and were excluded from dimension scoring. The 3.0 unknown review may indicate a negative experience that was not elaborated upon.
• RESPONSIVENESS INCONSISTENCY: One reviewer reported same-day phone responsiveness and quick callback, while another reported leaving a voicemail that was never returned. This inconsistency in responsiveness lowers the professionalism score.
• PRICING CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly felt the $155 charge for approximately 10 minutes of work was excessive, and felt the possibility of overtime charges was not disclosed upfront. This is a transparency flag for the pricing dimension.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly cited the plumber making rude comments ('Gross') about hair in a drain as unprofessional behavior. This is a direct negative data point, not an absence of praise.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a reasonable number of substantive reviews across key dimensions, but is significantly undermined by the age of the data — nearly all reviews are 9 to 17 years old — meaning this score should not be used as a confident indicator of current contractor performance without supplemental recent reviews.

After Five Plumbing receives consistently positive feedback across all four scored dimensions from the reviews available. Professionalism is highlighted repeatedly — reviewers note prompt response times (including Sundays and after-hours), courteous demeanor, and a strong code of ethics including a no-charge follow-up visit. Pricing is explicitly called out as fair, reasonable, and even surprisingly low in multiple reviews, with one reviewer noting a $100 total bill for over an hour of Sunday work. Project completion is well-supported, with jobs described as fully resolved, a callback honored at no charge, and no mention of abandoned or incomplete work. Experience is evidenced by the ability to tackle a difficult repair in an old house that other plumbers refused, and by proactive problem-solving such as replacing a second pipe preemptively. However, the total review count is very low (4 reviews), three of which are more than 5 years old and one dating back to 2006, which significantly limits the reliability of this score as a reflection of current performance.

• Only 4 reviews total — this is a very small sample size and the WW Score should be treated with caution.
• Three of the four reviews are older than 5 years (2022, 2017, 2016), and one dates back to 2006. None fall within the past 12 months. Recency is a significant concern — current performance cannot be reliably assessed.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings. While the reviews do contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformity of ratings with no critical feedback warrants mild caution.
• No negative or mixed feedback exists in this dataset, which may reflect selection bias rather than a perfect track record.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to a very small review pool of only 4 reviews, all of which are outdated (the most recent being from 2022), making it impossible to assess the contractor's current quality of service with confidence.

Four of five reviews describe positive experiences with professional, polite technicians who completed jobs thoroughly and cleaned up afterward. However, one highly serious review alleges that Operation Drains caused a house fire that destroyed the reviewer's home and livelihood, with the company's insurer allegedly refusing to respond to claims — this is a severe negative data point that significantly weighs down the project completion and overall scores. Pricing is mentioned in only one review, where the final bill came in under the verbal estimate, which is a positive but very limited signal. The oldest positive reviews date back to 2013 and 2016, reducing their relevance to current performance.

• SEVERE FLAG: One reviewer alleges Operation Drains caused a house fire on January 6, 2018, resulting in total loss of home and livelihood, with the company's insurance carrier allegedly ignoring all contact attempts. This is an extraordinary liability claim and should be treated as a serious red flag regardless of positive reviews.
• RECENCY WARNING: Two of the four positive reviews are from 2013 and 2016, making them 7–10+ years old. These carry significantly reduced weight in assessing current performance.
• REVIEW VOLUME WARNING: Only 5 total reviews exist. This is an extremely small sample size and the WW Score should be treated with caution.
• POTENTIAL PATTERN NOTE: The four positive reviews use broadly similar praise language ('professional,' 'polite,' 'cleaned up') but do include specific names and job details, reducing — but not eliminating — concern about authenticity.

This WW Score has LOW reliability due to the very small review sample (5 reviews), the presence of one catastrophic liability allegation, and the age of several positive reviews — prospective customers should seek additional references before hiring.

Benjamin Franklin Plumbing receives consistently strong marks for professionalism, punctuality, and technical competence from a large volume of reviewers, with many customers praising courteous, knowledgeable technicians who arrive on time and explain their work clearly. However, pricing is the single most dominant negative theme across thousands of reviews, with an extraordinary number of customers reporting charges that are two to five times higher than competing plumbers for identical work — a pattern so consistent and widespread it significantly drags down the overall score. Project completion is mixed: while most jobs are finished correctly, a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, warranty disputes, no-shows, and situations where problems were not resolved on the first visit. Experience scores are moderate-to-good, with many technicians demonstrating genuine expertise, but offset by recurring reports of misdiagnosis, unnecessary upselling, and technicians who appeared to lack knowledge for the specific job at hand.

• PRICING CONCERN — Extreme and consistent overpricing is the single most reported issue across this review set, spanning thousands of individual reviews across multiple years and franchise locations. Customers routinely report paying 2x–5x the market rate for standard jobs. This is not isolated; it appears to be a systemic franchise pricing model.
• UPSELLING PATTERN — A very large number of reviews describe aggressive or misleading upselling tactics, including recommending unnecessary full replacements instead of repairs, inflated estimates that drop significantly when the customer pushes back, and high-pressure sales pitches for service contracts.
• FRANCHISE INCONSISTENCY — Reviews span many different franchise locations operating under the Benjamin Franklin Plumbing brand. Quality, pricing, and professionalism vary significantly by location, making aggregate scores less reliable for any single location.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — A significant portion of reviews (estimated 15–20%) contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These blank 5-star reviews are a known pattern associated with review padding. Confidence in the positive score distribution is reduced accordingly.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED — Multiple reviews appear to be exact duplicates (identical text, same or adjacent dates), suggesting possible review manipulation or system errors in the data set.
• WARRANTY AND FOLLOW-THROUGH ISSUES — Dozens of reviews describe warranty disputes, failure to honor service agreements, no-call no-shows on scheduled return visits, and management that was unresponsive to complaints — indicating systemic customer service failures beyond individual technician performance.
• ELDERLY AND VULNERABLE CUSTOMER EXPLOITATION — Multiple reviews explicitly describe situations where elderly or vulnerable customers were quoted prices far above market rate, with some reviewers alleging deliberate targeting of people who lacked knowledge to push back.
• RECENCY NOTE — Reviews span from approximately 2004 to June 2025. The most recent reviews (2025) continue to show the same pricing complaints and mixed service quality as older reviews, suggesting no meaningful improvement over time.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review dataset and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy; however, the score should be interpreted with caution because it aggregates multiple franchise locations under one brand, a significant volume of blank 5-star reviews artificially inflates the raw rating, and the pricing dimension — which is overwhelmingly negative — is the most reliable and consistent signal in the entire dataset.