Find Nearby Plumbers In Lake Havasu City, Arizona

This single review from June 2015 (nearly 9 years old) contains severe allegations across all dimensions: unprofessionalism (arrived without tools, required customer to supply equipment), poor pricing practices (charged $600 for 1.5 hours of actual work plus travel time, with disputed hourly rates), incomplete project execution (left mess, required partial refund), and questionable workmanship (destroyed plumbing with borrowed equipment). However, a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single review, and this review is significantly outdated.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. WW Score requires minimum 3 reviews for reliability.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Review is from June 2015 — nearly 9 years old. Does not reflect current business practices.
• SINGLE NEGATIVE REVIEW: Cannot establish patterns or trends from one data point.
• DISPUTED FACTS: Review contains customer's mathematical interpretation of charges; contractor's perspective is absent.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. A single review from 2015 cannot provide a trustworthy assessment of current contractor performance.

This single review documents severe deficiencies across all dimensions. The contractor exhibited chronic punctuality failures, rude and disrespectful behavior, failure to complete promised work, demands for additional payment beyond agreed scope, and threats toward the customer. Project completion was severely compromised with a one-day job extending five weeks. However, a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single review, as one customer's experience—while credible—does not provide sufficient data to establish patterns or confidence in overall contractor performance.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. WW Score requires minimum 3 reviews to calculate reliably.
• RECENCY: Review is from August 2023 (approximately 1+ year old). More recent data needed.
• SINGLE NEGATIVE REVIEW: While the allegations are serious and specific (late arrivals, incomplete work, payment disputes, threats), a single review cannot establish contractor-wide patterns. Additional reviews are essential before drawing conclusions.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score. A minimum of 3 reviews is required; only 1 review was provided. The single review contains serious allegations but cannot be validated against other customer experiences or used to calculate a statistically meaningful score.

This single review demonstrates strong professionalism (responsive communication, punctuality, politeness) and excellent project completion (leak identified and repaired same day). Technical competence is evident from successful diagnosis and repair. However, with only one review and no mention of pricing, the WW Score cannot be reliably calculated per protocol. The review is dated 2020 (over 3 years old), which further limits its current relevance.

• Insufficient data: Only 1 review provided. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• Review is from July 2020 — over 3 years old. Does not reflect current service quality.
• No pricing information mentioned — cannot assess Price Friendly dimension.
• Single positive review without comparative data cannot establish reliable confidence levels.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (1 review vs. minimum 3 required) and significant age of the data (2020). Individual dimension scores are provided for reference only and should not be used for decision-making.