Find Nearby Plumbers In Maricopa, Arizona

Both available reviews are strongly negative and describe serious concerns about this contractor. Review 1 explicitly describes a promised $800 refund that was never delivered dating back to 2016, indicating a failure in follow-through and financial integrity. Review 2 criticizes the office manager Doug for lacking plumbing knowledge and poor customer service, directly impacting professionalism and experience scores. A note in Review 1 also flags that the company's LLC was reported as inactive with the corporation commission, which is a significant operational red flag. With only 2 reviews and both being highly negative, scores are assigned conservatively at the low end of the scale.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• BUSINESS INTEGRITY FLAG: Review 1 alleges a promised refund of $800 was never honored, suggesting potential financial misconduct or bad faith.
• LEGAL/OPERATIONAL FLAG: Reviewer noted the company's LLC was listed as inactive with the state corporation commission as of late 2018. This may indicate the business is no longer legally operating.
• RECENCY WARNING: Both reviews are from 2017–2018, making them over 5 years old. No recent reviews are available to assess current business status or improvement.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: With only 2 reviews, all dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence and should not be treated as statistically reliable.

This WW Score report has very low reliability due to only 2 reviews being available, both of which are dated 2017–2018, and the potential that the business may no longer be actively operating — consumers should exercise extreme caution and independently verify the company's current legal and operational status before engaging.

With only 2 reviews, there is insufficient data to produce a reliable WW Score. The first review speaks positively about the technicians Ray and Ean, noting they were delightful and handled a slab leak effectively, which provides limited signals for professionalism and project completion. The second review praises the quality of pipeline services and recommends the approach used, offering a small signal for experience. Pricing is entirely unmentioned across both reviews, leaving that dimension with no data. Scores assigned are conservative given the very low mention counts.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are 5-star with limited specificity; the second review in particular is very brief and generic, which may indicate a low-detail or potentially unverified review.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — that dimension cannot be evaluated.
• Review dates span roughly 5 months (October 2023 to March 2024), both within the past 12–18 months, so recency is acceptable but sample size remains critically low.

This score report should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality due to the critically small sample size of only 2 reviews, limited detail in both submissions, and the absence of any pricing data.

With only 2 reviews, this contractor's profile is extremely thin and no reliable WW Score can be produced. The first review (2015) is a significant negative account describing a contractor who ghosted a customer after providing a quote, never returning calls and failing to follow through on a committed installation — directly impacting professionalism and project completion scores. The second review (2013) is brief but positive, noting quick service and reasonable pricing, though it lacks specific detail about the work performed. The gap between these two reviews spans years and they paint contradictory pictures, making any aggregate assessment unreliable. No reviews mention technical skill or workmanship quality, so the Experience dimension cannot be scored at all.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules.
• Both reviews are older than 9 years (2013 and 2015). There is no recent data to assess current contractor performance.
• The positive review (2013) is vague and lacks specifics about the work performed, which slightly raises generic praise concerns, though it is not conclusively fake.
• The two reviews are directly contradictory in tone and content, suggesting inconsistent contractor behavior or potentially different personnel/ownership periods.
• Contractor allegedly ignored customer calls after providing a quote, which may indicate cherry-picking jobs or preferring to sell proprietary equipment — a potential consumer protection concern.

This score profile is highly unreliable due to an extremely small and outdated review sample of only 2 reviews, both over 9 years old, with no data on technical experience and directly conflicting accounts of contractor behavior.

This single review provides explicit positive mentions across all four dimensions: professionalism (neat, tidy, rare contractor quality), pricing (well priced), project completion (quickly completed, comprehensive scope), and experience (quality workmanship evident in multiple trades). However, with only one review, the WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per protocol. The review is detailed and specific rather than generic, which mitigates some fake review concerns, but a single data point is insufficient to establish trustworthy contractor performance metrics.

• Insufficient review volume: only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• All dimensions scored from single review — extremely limited statistical validity.
• Review is from August 2023 (approximately 1.5+ years old) — recency is a concern for current contractor performance assessment.
• Single 5-star review with no negative mentions could indicate selection bias or incomplete review history.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient data (fewer than 3 reviews). Individual dimension scores should be treated as anecdotal only and not used for contractor evaluation decisions.

A single review describes Stephen completing a substantial 3-bathroom remodel, praising his meticulous attention to detail, craftsmanship, and reasonable pricing. The reviewer explicitly highlights quality workmanship and a customer-focused approach, which supports moderate-to-strong scores across all four dimensions. However, with only one review available, all scores are assigned conservatively per scoring rules. The review is specific enough in its details (scope of work, personal working style, quality outcome) to be treated as credible, but no reliable WW Score can be calculated from a single data point.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a reliable WW Score.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention and must be treated as LOW CONFIDENCE estimates only.
• Review is dated 2020-01-06 — this is more than 4 years old and does not reflect recent performance.
• No negative feedback or counterbalancing data exists; scores may be overstated relative to actual contractor performance.

This WW Score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume (1 review); the dimension scores provided are conservative estimates only and should not be used as a meaningful basis for hiring decisions.

This single review describes severe failures across all dimensions: the contractor claimed experience but left a leaking sink that fell into the granite countertop, failed to respond to calls and messages (professionalism failure), allegedly took money from multiple customers without delivering quality work (pricing and completion failure), and demonstrated inadequate technical skill for the stated task (experience failure). The reviewer explicitly warns others to avoid this contractor. However, with only one review, this assessment carries limited confidence and cannot reliably represent overall performance.

• CRITICAL: Only 1 review analyzed — insufficient data for reliable WW Score calculation per Rule 4 (minimum 3 reviews required)
• Serious allegations of fraud and poor workmanship — customer reports others were 'taken for money'
• Unresponsiveness to customer communications is a major red flag
• Work quality failure (sink installation defect) suggests lack of technical competence

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (only 1 review). While the single review contains serious allegations of poor work and potential fraud, a single negative review does not establish a trustworthy overall performance profile. Additional independent reviews are essential before making any hiring decision.