Find Nearby Plumbers In Spartanburg, South Carolina

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only one review contains substantive information; the other is a single period with no usable content. The single usable review mentions professionalism (politeness, courtesy, responsiveness, cleanliness) and project completion (no problems with work), but both dimensions are supported by only 1 mention each, resulting in LIMITED confidence. No pricing information was provided in any review. The review is also 18+ years old (2006), which significantly limits its relevance to current service quality.

• Insufficient review volume: only 2 reviews total, with 1 being completely empty (single period)
• Extreme recency issue: the substantive review is from June 2006 (18+ years old) and does not reflect current business practices or quality
• Generic praise with minimal specifics: the single usable review contains vague positive statements without detailed examples
• Cannot calculate WW Score: fewer than 3 reviews with usable data

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume and critically outdated data; any conclusions drawn would be speculative and should not be used for decision-making.

Both reviews are strongly negative and paint a consistent picture of a contractor who fails across every measurable dimension. Professionalism is near-zero: the contractor does not return calls, does not respond to texts, abandons jobs mid-completion, and leaves trash and unfinished work behind. Project completion is catastrophically poor — the roof repair failed within 6 months, the plumbing repair was done incorrectly (5 inches replaced instead of 5 feet), a crawl space vent was left unattached, and the contractor allegedly caused new leaks that did not exist before his work. Experience scores are also extremely low, as the workmanship described is not only substandard but actively harmful — the client was left in a worse position than before hiring him. Pricing received a very low score because the client paid $475 for work that was materially misrepresented in scope and quality, suggesting deceptive billing practices.

• Only 2 reviews available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules.
• Both reviews are dated within 3 days of each other (April 2 and April 4, 2021), which could suggest coordinated posting, but the level of specific detail in Review 1 strongly suggests a genuine customer experience rather than a fake review.
• Review 2 is very brief and generic, which could raise a minor fake review concern, but its content is consistent with the detailed account in Review 1.
• All reviews are from April 2021 — over 3 years old as of 2024. No recent reviews are available to assess whether performance has improved or declined.
• Serious allegation of fraud or gross negligence: contractor allegedly billed for 5 feet of copper pipe but replaced only 5 inches, and may have deliberately caused additional leaks to upsell further repair work.
• Pattern of abandonment: contractor stopped responding after payment on at least two separate jobs described in the reviews.

This score is based on only 2 reviews and should be treated as directional only — however, the severity and specificity of the complaints across both reviews strongly suggest genuine and serious performance failures by this contractor.

Only two reviews exist, making any scoring highly unreliable. The 2014 review is strongly positive, praising prompt, professional, and thorough septic and grading work that exceeded expectations. However, the 2019 review raises a serious safety concern about reckless driving by a company vehicle at dangerously excessive speed, and broadly condemns the company without recommending them. Professionalism is significantly dragged down by the safety/conduct complaint in the more recent review. All other dimension scores are derived from a single positive review that is over 10 years old and must be treated with very low confidence.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules.
• The positive review is from 2014 — over 10 years old — and should be given significantly reduced weight relative to current performance.
• The 2019 review raises a serious public safety concern: a company vehicle allegedly traveling 70 mph in a 45 mph zone. This is a conduct and liability flag beyond typical service quality concerns.
• The negative review does not provide specific detail about service quality, limiting its usefulness for dimension scoring beyond professionalism/conduct.
• With only one positive and one negative review, scores are highly polarized and should not be trusted as representative of typical performance.

This WW Score report has very low reliability due to only 2 reviews spanning a 5-year gap, with the sole positive review being over a decade old and the more recent review flagging a serious safety concern.

With only 2 reviews, reliable scoring is impossible. Review 1 (Nov 2022) praises punctuality, dedication, fair pricing, and follow-through on a septic repair. Review 2 (Oct 2022) reports complete no-show with no communication—a critical professionalism failure. These reviews are contradictory and both are over 1 year old. The extreme polarity (5-star vs 1-star) and lack of technical detail in either review prevent confident dimension scoring. No meaningful WW Score can be calculated.

• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — cannot establish reliable patterns or confidence
• Extreme polarity between reviews (5-star vs 1-star) suggests possible inconsistent service or unverifiable claims
• Both reviews are from 2022 (over 1 year old) — recency is poor
• Review 2 contains excessive punctuation and emotional language ('bum', repeated exclamation marks) — credibility unclear
• No technical detail in either review about actual workmanship quality
• Contradictory evidence on professionalism: one reports excellent follow-through; other reports no-show

This score cannot be reliably calculated or trusted. Only 2 reviews with contradictory outcomes, both over 1 year old, and insufficient detail on technical competence. A minimum of 5-8 recent reviews is required before any WW Score should be used for decision-making.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. While the review expresses strong dissatisfaction and makes a serious allegation ('took from me'), it lacks specific details about which dimension(s) of service were problematic. The review does not explicitly address professionalism, pricing, project completion, or experience. A minimum of 3 reviews with actionable detail is required to produce a reliable WW Score.

• Only 1 review provided — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review contains vague language ('took from me') without specific context — unclear whether this refers to theft, overcharging, incomplete work, or other issues
• No explicit mention of any of the 4 scored dimensions (professionalism, pricing, project completion, experience)
• Cannot assess reliability of allegation without corroborating reviews or specifics

This score cannot be calculated or trusted with only 1 vague review. Additional reviews with specific details about service dimensions are required before a WW Score can be responsibly generated.

This single review is severely negative across all four dimensions. The reviewer explicitly states the contractor took money without completing the work, demonstrating a critical failure in project completion. Professionalism is rated near zero due to reported dishonesty, fabricated personal stories to avoid obligations, and requests to write checks in another name to evade taxes — a serious ethical and legal red flag. Pricing is flagged as a rip-off with no value delivered. Workmanship is described as incompetent, though no specific technical detail is provided beyond the general claim of not knowing what he is doing.

• SERIOUS ETHICAL FLAG: Reviewer alleges contractor requested payment via check written in a third party's name, reportedly to avoid tax reporting — this is a significant legal and financial red flag.
• FRAUD ALLEGATION: Reviewer claims contractor fabricated a story about a deceased wife to avoid completing work.
• INCOMPLETE WORK / PAYMENT TAKEN: Reviewer explicitly states money was taken but the job was not finished.
• ONLY 1 REVIEW AVAILABLE: With a single review, no WW Score can be reliably calculated. All dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence only.
• RECENCY WARNING: This review is dated June 2018, making it over 6 years old. It may not reflect the contractor's current practices, but the severity of the allegations warrants retention as a warning.

This score is based on a single review from 2018 and cannot be considered statistically reliable; however, the specific and serious nature of the allegations — including tax evasion, fabricated excuses, and incomplete work — means the findings should be treated as a meaningful warning flag rather than dismissed.