Find Nearby Plumbers In Chandler, Arizona

Both substantive reviews (1-star each) paint a severely negative picture across all dimensions. The contractor is described as dishonest, evasive, and incapable of completing work — dodging calls, abandoning jobs months past promised deadlines, and allegedly taking full payment without delivering finished work. Workmanship quality was explicitly criticized, including by the contractor's own father who reportedly pointed out every mistake made. Responsiveness and communication were described as nearly nonexistent once payment was received. No positive substantive reviews exist to offset these accounts.

• SUSPECTED FAKE/DEFENSIVE REVIEW: The 5-star review (2019-02-23) does not describe any actual work or customer experience. It reads as a defensive response from someone associated with the company, attempting to disassociate the business from a named individual. It provides no usable scoring data and was excluded from dimension scoring.
• PAYMENT ABUSE PATTERN: Both negative reviews independently describe a pattern of accepting full or near-full payment before completing work, then abandoning the job — a serious red flag for potential fraud.
• ABANDONED WORK: Both reviews explicitly describe unfinished projects left for months beyond promised completion dates, with the contractor becoming unreachable afterward.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 2 substantive reviews exist. Scores are based on very limited data and should be treated with caution.
• RECENCY NOTE: Both negative reviews are dated 2022-07-04, which is over 1 year from a typical current analysis window. No recent reviews are available to assess current performance.

This WW Score is based on only 2 substantive reviews and carries LIMITED confidence — while both reviews are highly consistent and detailed in their negative accounts, the extremely small sample size means this score should be treated as a strong warning signal rather than a statistically robust assessment.

Both reviews mention punctuality and a positive attitude, supporting a modest professionalism score. One review references fair prices and attention to detail, providing limited but positive signals for pricing and experience. Project completion is inferred from one reviewer's intent to rehire and general satisfaction, though no explicit completion details are described. All dimension scores are conservative due to the very small sample size of only 2 reviews. No reliable WW Score can be calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.

• Only 2 reviews provided — insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score per scoring rules.
• Both reviews share the same date (2023-05-09), which may indicate they were submitted together or in a batch — worth noting as a minor flag.
• Reviews are generic and brief with limited specifics; confidence in all dimensions is LOW due to minimal evidence.
• All reviews are 5-star with very little detail — pattern is consistent with potentially curated or solicited reviews, though sample is too small to confirm.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and should not be considered a reliable indicator of contractor quality — significantly more reviews are needed before any dimension score or overall WW Score can be trusted.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. The single review mentions professionalism, pricing, and workmanship quality positively, but provides minimal specific detail. Project completion is not explicitly addressed.

• Only 1 review available — far below minimum threshold of 3 reviews
• Review contains generic praise language ('HIGHLY recommend') with limited specific detail about the work performed
• No information on project completion, timeliness, or follow-through
• Cannot assess reliability of contractor based on single data point

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score with only 1 review; a minimum of 3 reviews is required to generate meaningful confidence in any scoring.

This single review speaks positively about Jason from AZ Family Plumbing across several dimensions. The reviewer explicitly praises his professionalism, knowledge, and compassionate attitude, supporting moderate scores in professionalism and experience. The reviewer also confirms the job was completed — a broken water pipe was identified and fixed — supporting a project completion score. However, pricing is never mentioned at all, so that dimension cannot be scored. With only one review available, no dimension reaches even LIMITED confidence in a meaningful way, and the WW Score cannot be reliably calculated.

• Only 1 review provided — far below the minimum of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Single review cannot be cross-validated for authenticity or consistency.
• The reviewer notes they are 'the FIRST to write a Yelp review,' which may indicate limited review history for this contractor — exercise caution when relying on this data alone.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension has NO DATA.

This score report is based on a single review and should not be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's overall performance — significantly more review data is needed before any dimension score or WW Score can be trusted.

A single review from November 2018 describes Bob positively across all four dimensions. The reviewer praises his attitude and friendliness with family members (professionalism), explicitly calls him 'extremely well-priced' (pricing), notes he completed the job and proactively checked an additional leak (project completion), and highlights attention to detail and quality workmanship (experience). However, all scores are held conservative due to the single-review basis and the review being over six years old, which significantly limits reliability.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated November 2018, making it over 6 years old. Recency rule applies — this data may not reflect current performance.
• With only one review, no fake review pattern detection is possible, but the review is notably enthusiastic and broad in praise. Treat with caution.

This score should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — it is based on a single review from over six years ago, providing insufficient data to draw meaningful conclusions.

This single review paints a consistently positive picture of R and C Plumbing across multiple service visits involving hot water heater issues and a leaking refrigerator. Professionalism is clearly highlighted through descriptions of responsiveness, kindness, courtesy on the phone, and a strong sense of customer prioritization. Project completion is implied positively — the reviewer states they have 'never been left hanging' and that issues are identified and fixed. Experience is touched upon through the specific mention of plumbers being 'very good diagnosticians' who figure out and resolve issues. Pricing is entirely absent from this review, so no score can be assigned for that dimension.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• All scores are based on a single review and carry LIMITED confidence only. These scores should not be treated as representative of overall contractor performance.
• No pricing information was mentioned in any review — the Price Friendly dimension has no data and cannot be scored.
• Review is from February 2024, which falls within the past 12 months relative to a mid-2024 reference point and is considered recent.

This score report is based on a single review and should be considered highly preliminary — far more reviews are needed before any dimension score or overall WW Score can be trusted as representative of this contractor's true performance.