Find Nearby Plumbers In Sumter, South Carolina

Baker's Residential Experts receives genuinely strong praise from several customers for professionalism, responsiveness, and technical skill — particularly from technicians Stewart and Franklin. However, two serious negative reviews significantly drag down the scores: one customer was left waiting two hours with no communication for a plumbing appointment, and another describes a deeply troubling situation involving alleged double-billing and months of complete non-responsiveness. The project completion dimension is notably penalized because the double-billing review describes a failure of follow-through and ethical conduct, and the HVAC installation review notes it took multiple trips to resolve a post-installation noise issue. Pricing scores moderately well, with multiple reviewers noting competitive quotes and no excessive charges, though the double-billing allegation introduces serious concern. Overall, the business shows real capability but has documented, specific failures in accountability and communication that cannot be ignored.

• SERIOUS CONCERN: One reviewer (2023-02-20) alleges Baker's Residential was paid twice for the same job — once by the homeowner for a full system replacement and once by American Home Shield for a blower motor repair — and reported complete non-responsiveness over several months. This is a significant ethical and business conduct flag.
• NO-SHOW / PUNCTUALITY FAILURE: One reviewer (2024-09-19) reports waiting two hours at home with no courtesy call and no resolution, describing the experience as unacceptable. This directly contradicts the punctuality praise in other reviews.
• MULTI-TRIP RESOLUTION: One reviewer (2022-10-04) notes it took several return visits to resolve a post-installation noise issue, indicating a quality control gap on at least one job.
• RECENCY NOTE: The two most recent reviews (2024-09-19 and 2024-03-08) are within the past 12 months. The no-show complaint is the most recent review and is given elevated weight. The positive HVAC review from 2024-03-08 is also recent and credible.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in length, detail, tone, rating, and specificity. Named technicians (Stewart, Franklin, Ronnie) appear across multiple reviews consistently. No suspicious uniformity detected.
• SMALL SAMPLE WARNING: Only 8 reviews total. Scores and the WW Score should be interpreted cautiously — a small number of additional reviews could shift results significantly.

This WW Score carries MODERATE reliability overall — the review set is small (8 reviews), but the reviews are detailed, specific, and varied enough to be credible; however, the two serious negative reviews involve significant conduct concerns that meaningfully limit confidence in this contractor's consistency.

T&N exhibits significant inconsistency in service quality and customer outcomes. While several reviews praise quick response times, professionalism, and technical problem-solving (particularly the 2014 and 2013 reviews), multiple recent reviews document serious failures: incomplete work leaving waste in yards, misdiagnosis of septic issues costing customers $2,500 unnecessarily, poor communication and follow-up, lawn damage from negligent truck operation, and unresponsive customer service. The 2020 major complaint reveals problematic diagnostic practices and defensive ownership unwilling to acknowledge errors or provide remedies. Pricing appears reasonable when service is executed properly ($300–$350 range), but customers report feeling overcharged for unnecessary work and poor value when misdiagnosed.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2013–2020; most recent reviews (2024, 2020) are highly negative, suggesting service quality has deteriorated significantly.
• MAJOR COMPLAINT: 2020 review documents repeated misdiagnosis ($2,500 unnecessary drainage line replacement), poor follow-up communication, and owner defensiveness/refusal to acknowledge error or provide partial refund. This is a serious red flag for diagnostic competence and customer service ethics.
• OPERATIONAL FAILURES: Multiple reviews document careless execution (waste left in yard contaminating property, lawn damage from truck operation, failure to use proper equipment).
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: 2015 review shows complete lack of follow-up after initial contact; 2020 review shows weeks of non-responsiveness from office staff and owner.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE: Stark contrast between older positive reviews (2013–2014) and recent negative ones (2019–2024) suggests either declining standards or inconsistent crew quality.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-to-LOW confidence due to recency bias favoring negative reviews and a clear pattern of service deterioration over time; the 2020 major complaint involving misdiagnosis and unethical owner conduct is particularly concerning and suggests systemic issues beyond isolated incidents.

Jordan & Sons demonstrates solid professionalism with timely arrivals, courteous technicians, and responsive service, earning a 78/100. However, the company is severely hampered by pervasive pricing complaints across 18 reviews, with customers consistently reporting inflated charges, excessive trip fees, and quotes significantly higher than competitors—resulting in a 38/100 pricing score. Project completion is adequate at 72/100, with most jobs finished but some requiring multiple callbacks and scheduling issues. Technical experience is respectable at 71/100, though several reviews indicate unnecessary work was recommended or performed. The weighted WW Score of 56.8 reflects that while the company executes work competently, the aggressive pricing strategy and pattern of overcharging substantially undermine customer satisfaction.

• CRITICAL: Pricing is the dominant complaint across 18 of 33 reviews (55%). Customers repeatedly report charges 2-3x higher than competitors for identical work. This is not isolated—it is systemic and consistent.
• Multiple reviews (2022, 2018, 2016, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2008) describe diagnostic/trip fees ($35-$75) charged even when no work was performed, creating customer resentment.
• Several reviews allege unnecessary work was recommended or performed (2022 drain clog, 2018 water heater, 2016 fill valve overcharge), suggesting potential ethical concerns around upselling.
• Review recency issue: Most negative reviews are from 2008-2018 (older than 5 years). Recent reviews (2021-2022) show mixed results but include serious complaints about unresolved work and unethical practices.
• Two reviews marked 'unknown' with ratings 2.0 and 5.0 (2016, 2014) cannot be analyzed for dimension scoring.
• One review (2013-09-16) marked '5.0' with text 'quick but expensive' is contradictory—high rating contradicts complaint about cost.
• Pattern of manager non-responsiveness noted in 2016 review, suggesting potential customer service breakdown at management level.

This WW Score of 56.8 should be trusted with MODERATE confidence. The pricing dimension is exceptionally well-documented (18 mentions) and consistently negative, making that component highly reliable. Professionalism and project completion are adequately supported (12-13 mentions each). However, the score is anchored by reviews spanning 14 years, with most negative pricing complaints from 2008-2018; recent reviews (2021-2022) suggest the pricing issue persists but sample size is small. The company's core weakness—aggressive pricing relative to market—is clear and actionable, but overall reliability is tempered by age of data and limited recent review volume.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews. While one recent review (2022) praised fast arrival and professional demeanor, two older reviews (2020, 2021) reported rudeness, unprofessional behavior, and lack of proper equipment. Project completion is problematic: one review noted incomplete work requiring a second paid visit for the same pipe, and another indicated reluctance to address multiple issues. Pricing feedback is mixed—one customer found it reasonable, another felt $100 for 10 minutes was excessive. Technical skill appears limited based on refusal to use customer-provided fittings and dismissive attitude toward corroded fittings.

• Significant recency bias: most negative reviews are 3+ years old (2017, 2020, 2021), with only one positive review from 2022. Unclear if contractor has improved or if recent review is anomaly.
• Project completion red flag: explicit mention of incomplete work on first visit with additional charge for callback on same issue suggests potential billing practice concern.
• Equipment preparedness issue: plumber lacked basic shut-off valve, requiring customer to provide fitting or wait for return trip.
• Professionalism concerns: 'rude and unprofessional' language in 2021 review; customer felt treated as inconvenience despite paying for service.
• Small sample size (5 reviews) limits reliability; confidence scores are moderate at best.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size, significant age spread of reviews, and conflicting signals between the single recent positive review and multiple older negative reviews; the WW Score of 54.3 reflects genuine inconsistency rather than stable mediocrity.

The review set is small (4 reviews) and deeply split, making confident scoring difficult. Two positive reviews highlight courteous, professional technicians who communicated well, arrived promptly, and completed a repair thoroughly — strong indicators of professionalism and competence. However, two negative reviews directly contradict this: one describes complete failure to return voicemails across multiple days, and another describes a canceled appointment with no advance notice and a follow-up call that came after the scheduled window had already passed. These responsiveness and reliability failures significantly drag down the professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing was not mentioned in any review and cannot be scored. The experience dimension is supported by only two reviews and should be treated with caution.

• Only 4 reviews analyzed — sample size is too small for high-confidence scoring across any dimension.
• All reviews are dated 2019–2020, meaning all data is more than 4 years old. Current performance may differ significantly.
• Two reviews are 1-star complaints about responsiveness and appointment reliability — these are serious operational concerns, not minor issues.
• One 1-star reviewer explicitly redirected to a competitor (Amerson Plumbing) by name, which may indicate a competitive or motivated review, though the complaint itself is specific and plausible.
• No pricing data exists in any review — the pricing dimension cannot be scored and is excluded from the WW Score calculation.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the small sample size limits any pattern analysis.

This WW Score carries LOW reliability due to only 4 reviews, all older than 4 years, with a significant split between positive and negative experiences — treat this score as directional only and seek more current references before hiring.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews. Two recent positive reviews (2024, 2019) praise professionalism, responsiveness, and quality workmanship, while one older negative review (2019) alleges cost-cutting, misrepresentation, and breach of agreement. Pricing feedback is mixed—one review mentions a fair quote, while another claims deceptive practices. Project completion appears reliable in positive reviews but was disputed in the negative case. The stark contradiction between reviews and the presence of a legal dispute allegation substantially reduce confidence in any overall assessment.

• CRITICAL: Severe contradiction between reviews—one alleges fraud and legal action while others praise service. This suggests either highly inconsistent service delivery or a genuine dispute that warrants investigation.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Two reviews are from 2019 (5+ years old); only one review is recent (2024). Limited recent data reduces reliability of current performance assessment.
• LEGAL ALLEGATION: Review from 2019-03-20 mentions potential court action. This is a serious red flag that should be independently verified.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews total. Confidence in any score is inherently limited.

This score should be treated with extreme caution. The small sample size (3 reviews) combined with a serious contradiction—including an allegation of fraud and legal dispute—makes it unreliable for decision-making. Independent verification of the 2019 dispute and collection of more recent reviews are strongly recommended before engaging this contractor.