Find Nearby Plumbers In Spartanburg, South Carolina

Powers Plumbing presents a deeply divided picture across its review history. Older reviews (pre-2021) are predominantly positive, praising specific technicians like Jeff, Eric, Corey, and Doug for punctuality, technical skill, and honest pricing. However, reviews from 2022 onward — particularly 2023–2025 — show a sharp and consistent decline across all dimensions, with numerous customers citing incomplete work, billing fraud, hidden charges, poor communication, and work that had to be redone by other companies. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with repeated complaints about undisclosed travel-time billing, hidden consumable fees, charging for time when no work was performed, and significant markups on parts. Project completion is severely impacted by multiple accounts of jobs left unfinished, leaks made worse, and technicians returning multiple times without resolution. Professionalism scores are dragged down by combative customer service staff, owner unresponsiveness, and technicians arriving unprepared or incompetent, though some individual technicians still receive strong praise.

• SIGNIFICANT TEMPORAL DECLINE: Reviews from 2022–2025 are overwhelmingly negative (1-star), while reviews from 2010–2021 are predominantly positive (5-star). This strongly suggests a change in ownership or management quality around 2021–2022, which is corroborated by multiple reviewers explicitly stating the company was bought out by new owners.
• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: A cluster of 5-star reviews dated 2024-08-12 contain no review text (6 blank reviews), which is a strong indicator of fake or incentivized reviews. Additionally, several 5-star reviews from 2017 reference the same technician 'Jeff' with nearly identical phrasing and structure, suggesting possible coordinated or planted reviews.
• BILLING FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe being charged for time when no work was performed, undisclosed travel-time billing, hidden 'consumable' fees, billing for parts not installed, and being billed after already paying in full. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: At least 8 reviews explicitly describe work being left incomplete, leaks made worse, or having to hire a second company to redo Powers' work. This is a critical project completion risk.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE HOSTILITY: Multiple reviews describe the owner and a staff member named Janet as combative, dismissive, and retaliatory when complaints were raised. One reviewer describes the owner calling to defend charges rather than resolve issues. Another describes Janet personally messaging reviewers on Yelp to remove negative reviews.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) are 1-star. Only a small number of recent 5-star reviews contain substantive detail. The positive score contributions are disproportionately driven by older reviews that may no longer reflect current company performance.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 6 reviews with no text content but 5-star ratings were counted in total review volume but excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but consumers should treat the score with caution given the strong evidence of a post-2021 ownership-driven quality decline, a systemic billing misconduct pattern, and suspected fake 5-star reviews inflating the historical average — the current operational quality of this company is likely materially worse than the blended score suggests.

Total Plumbing exhibits a deeply polarized review pattern with stark contrasts between positive and negative experiences. Positive reviews (primarily from 2016-2025) consistently praise Ruben's professionalism, fair pricing, and quality workmanship. However, negative reviews (concentrated in 2017-2019, with some recent exceptions) reveal serious systemic issues: incomplete work, aggressive upselling tactics (particularly with AHS warranty claims), missed appointments, poor communication, and lack of accountability. Project completion is the weakest dimension, with multiple reports of abandoned jobs, callbacks that weren't honored, and work requiring correction by other plumbers. Pricing concerns center on undisclosed fees and inflated charges for standard services. The company's heavy reliance on home warranty referrals correlates with complaints about aggressive add-on charges.

• SEVERE POLARIZATION: Reviews split sharply between 5-star praise (mostly Ruben-specific) and 1-star condemnation (often other technicians). This suggests inconsistent service quality or possible selective review posting.
• SYSTEMATIC AHS COMPLAINTS: Multiple independent reviews (2017-2019) describe identical patterns: undisclosed fees, pressure to pay out-of-pocket charges, false claims about code requirements, and aggressive upselling. This is not isolated—it appears to be a business practice.
• INCOMPLETE/ABANDONED WORK: At least 8 reviews document unfinished jobs, callbacks not honored, or work requiring correction by competitors. Examples: garbage disposal replaced 3 times for same issue; sub-pump installed improperly causing $20-25K flood damage; dishwasher line replaced incompletely.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reports of missed appointments, no-shows without notice, blocked phone numbers, and failure to return calls. One customer was blocked after a scheduling miscommunication.
• CREDIBILITY CONCERNS: Several reviews describe technicians denying obvious mistakes (bent water heater, improper connections) and refusing to acknowledge damage caused by their work.
• RECENCY BIAS: Negative reviews cluster in 2017-2019 (older, lower weight) but recent negative reviews (2024-2025) suggest problems persist. Positive reviews span entire timeline but lack specificity in recent years.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: One empty review (5-star, no text, 2021-06-10) and several generic praise reviews with minimal detail. However, most reviews contain specific details and are not obviously fabricated.
• SAMPLE COMPOSITION: 45 five-star reviews vs. 24 one-star reviews creates appearance of 65% satisfaction, but depth analysis reveals serious structural problems in execution and ethics.

This WW Score of 62.8 should be treated with CAUTION. While the MODERATE overall confidence reflects adequate mention counts, the extreme polarization and documented pattern of systematic issues (particularly around AHS warranty work) suggest the company's actual reliability is lower than the score indicates. The score is pulled upward by numerous positive reviews about Ruben specifically, but masks serious problems with project completion, communication, and ethical pricing practices that affect a substantial portion of customers. Prospective customers should read the detailed negative reviews carefully, particularly those describing AHS interactions and incomplete work, before engaging this company.

Pearson Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is significantly dragged down by repeated complaints about no-shows, missed appointments, failure to communicate delays, rude technicians, and one instance of a plumber behaving unprofessionally on-site. Pricing is a notable weak point, with multiple reviewers explicitly citing overcharging, lack of upfront estimates, billing for unrendered services, and one quote described as four times higher than competitors — though a handful of positive reviews praise fair or below-estimate pricing. Project completion is inconsistent: several reviews praise fast, thorough work, but others describe jobs left incomplete, problems not diagnosed, and follow-through failures including one case escalated to the Texas state plumbing board. Experience scores moderately, with positive reviews citing skilled diagnosis and complex jobs handled well (slab leaks, tankless heaters, sewer tie-ins), but offset by reviews describing failed diagnoses and poor-quality parts. The overall picture is a contractor with capable plumbers on staff but serious and recurring operational and customer service problems.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact duplicates posted on the same date — including two identical 1-star billing complaints (2023-06-10), two identical 1-star appointment complaints (2019-06-11), two identical 5-star generic praise reviews (2021-06-10), two identical 5-star 'Best plumbers out there!' reviews (2020-06-10), three identical 5-star reviews about a toilet installation (2018-06-01), two identical 5-star Bryan sprinkler reviews (2018-06-11), two identical 5-star 'Save yourself some trouble' reviews (2018-06-11), and two identical 5-star 'If you want good Plumbing Service' reviews (2019-06-11). Duplicates were counted only once per unique review in scoring.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 15 reviews contain no text — only a star rating (mostly 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent substantive reviews (2022–2024) skew negative, with complaints about billing for unrendered services, inability to get appointments, and no-shows. The positive reviews with detail are predominantly from 2013–2021. This suggests a possible decline in service quality in recent years.
• SUSPECTED FAKE OR INCENTIVIZED REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews consist of only one or two generic sentences with no specifics ('Best plumbers out there!', 'Great & fast service. Highly recommended', 'If you want good Plumbing Service call Pearson's Plumbing'). These appear across multiple duplicate pairs and add no verifiable signal. Confidence in the positive side of the score is reduced accordingly.
• BILLING INTEGRITY CONCERN: At least three independent reviews describe being billed or quoted for work that was not performed or not agreed upon. One reviewer was told an estimate was impossible and then billed anyway. Another was billed with no services rendered. This is a significant red flag for pricing transparency and business ethics.

This WW Score is based on a substantial number of reviews with usable text, but reliability is moderately reduced due to a high volume of duplicate reviews, numerous blank 5-star entries, and a clear pattern of recent negative reviews suggesting service deterioration — prospective customers should weight the post-2022 negative reviews heavily.

This contractor shows highly inconsistent performance across reviews spanning 2021–2024. While two reviews praise professionalism, punctuality, and expertise, three recent reviews (2022–2024) report serious issues: aggressive pricing markups (200–300%), poor follow-up on warranty work, and dismissive customer service. The most recent review (August 2024) documents a critical failure in project completion—work failed after 6 months and the contractor refused callbacks. Pricing emerges as the weakest dimension, with multiple explicit complaints about overcharging relative to market rates. The 2021 five-star review uses generic praise language that contrasts sharply with detailed negative feedback in later reviews, suggesting possible inconsistency in service delivery or review authenticity.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent review (August 2024) documents serious service failure and customer abandonment after 6 months—this is the most reliable data point and heavily negative.
• PRICING RED FLAG: Three separate reviews explicitly cite 200–300% markups on parts and above-market labor rates. This is a consistent pattern, not isolated complaint.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURE: August 2024 review shows work failed after 6 months with contractor refusing to honor callbacks ('lose my number'). This is a critical breach of professional obligation.
• REVIEW AUTHENTICITY CONCERN: The 2021 five-star review uses repetitive, generic praise language ('plumbers, then there are plumbers,' multiple asterisked attributes) with no specific project details, contrasting sharply with detailed, specific complaints in negative reviews. This may indicate a self-written or fake positive review.
• TIMELINE DETERIORATION: Reviews from 2021–2023 show declining service quality, with 2024 review documenting complete service breakdown.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-to-LOW trust due to small sample size (5 reviews) and significant recency concerns. However, the August 2024 review provides recent, detailed, and verifiable evidence of serious service failure. The consistent pricing complaints across multiple independent reviews (2022–2024) are credible. The contractor's apparent refusal to honor warranty work is a critical red flag. Recommend requesting recent references and written warranty terms before engaging.

CB Smith Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most contested dimension: several reviews praise courteous, punctual, and communicative staff, while two detailed 1-star reviews describe serious lapses including property damage with no apology, a weekend of no follow-up contact, and dismissive responses to customer complaints. Pricing is a significant concern — the 2024 review documents egregious markups, a $5,000 charge for roughly 5 hours of work, and refusal to provide an itemized breakdown, while older reviews describe reasonable and fair pricing, suggesting possible deterioration in pricing practices over time. Project completion is similarly split: some jobs were finished quickly and correctly, but others involved incomplete repairs, a non-functional toilet after a paid rebuild, a plumber arriving without tools, and an abandoned job with no callback. Experience scores moderately — some reviewers highlight skilled diagnostics and problem-solving, while others document a misdiagnosed toilet (fixed for $4 at Home Depot), a camera line too short for the job, and a technician who caused flooding by flushing a toilet during an active main-line outage.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent review (2024-08-24) is a highly detailed 1-star account describing overcharging, property damage, shoddy workmanship, and refusal to provide itemized billing. This is the most current data point and should carry the most weight.
• TEMPORAL DECLINE: The majority of positive reviews are from 2021 or earlier (some as far back as 2010–2014). The two most recent reviews include one 5-star (2024-01) and one 1-star (2024-08), but the negative review is far more detailed and specific, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.
• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: The 2024 review alleges the contractor quoted inflated prices then offered fake discounts, charged approximately $1,000/hour, and refused to provide an itemized invoice. Two other contractors independently confirmed the customer was overcharged. This is a serious red flag.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE PATTERN: At least two reviews (2024 and 2013) describe the company causing additional damage or problems during service visits and failing to take adequate responsibility.
• ETHICAL CONCERN: The 2013 review alleges Mr. Smith misrepresented the nature of a toilet defect to a home warranty company (reporting a cracked porcelain when none existed), which resulted in a denied claim. A BBB complaint was filed.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: The 2016 review documents a complete failure to follow up over a weekend, leaving a customer without running water, followed by no apology and a dismissive attitude from the office manager.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary significantly in tone, detail, length, and rating. No suspicious repetition or generic phrasing patterns were identified.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a sufficient number of reviews (11), but is significantly complicated by a clear temporal split — older reviews trend positive while recent reviews reveal serious concerns about pricing, workmanship, and professionalism — meaning prospective customers should weight the 2024 and 2016 negative reviews heavily when making a hiring decision.

The review set is small (7 reviews) and spans nearly a decade, making trend analysis difficult. Professionalism is significantly dragged down by two serious negative incidents: a no-show with no follow-up communication (2021) and an owner who was reportedly rude and hung up on a customer (2016). These are offset by several older positive reviews praising punctuality and attentiveness, but the negatives are severe enough to suppress the score meaningfully. Project completion is similarly mixed — the 2021 review describes an abandoned job with no callback, while older reviews describe work completed on time and to specification. Experience scores moderately well based on the detailed 2020 review praising Mike Varner's problem-solving skills, though this is balanced against the 2016 incident where a 5-minute inspection led to a disputed and uncommunicated service charge. Pricing receives a middling score due to one reviewer finding the $168 charge high for minimal parts, and another being billed $95 without prior disclosure.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Only one review is from the past 3 years (2021), and it is a 1-star review describing a no-show and abandoned job. The majority of positive reviews are from 2013–2020, some nearly a decade old. The contractor's current service quality cannot be reliably inferred from older reviews.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 7 reviews total. Scores carry limited statistical reliability and should be interpreted with caution.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENTS: Two reviews describe significant failures — an abandoned job with no communication (2021) and an undisclosed service charge followed by a rude owner who hung up on the customer (2016). These are not minor complaints and materially impact trustworthiness.
• HIDDEN FEES FLAG: The 2016 review explicitly describes a $95 service charge that was never communicated verbally or in writing before or during the visit. This is a transparency concern for the pricing dimension.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in length, detail, tone, and rating. No suspicious repetition or generic phrasing patterns were identified.

This WW Score has LOW reliability due to the very small review sample (7 reviews), wide date range spanning 10 years, and the fact that the most recent review is a serious 1-star complaint — prospective customers should treat this score as indicative only and seek more current references before hiring.