Find Nearby Plumbers In Middletown, Connecticut

With only two reviews, one strongly negative and one strongly positive, no reliable WW Score can be calculated. The negative review explicitly describes repeated no-shows and zero communication, which are serious professionalism and project completion failures. The positive review praises responsiveness, communication, and technical competence in resolving a warranty water heater issue. These two reviews directly contradict each other, making any aggregate score highly unreliable. Pricing was not mentioned in either review, leaving that dimension entirely unscored.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — far below the minimum threshold for a reliable WW Score.
• The two reviews are in direct conflict: one describes chronic no-shows and no communication, the other describes excellent responsiveness and professionalism. This variance cannot be resolved with so few data points.
• The positive review is from 2017 and the negative review is from 2019 — the most recent data point is a 1-star review, which may indicate a decline in service quality over time.
• No pricing information was mentioned in any review — the Pricing dimension cannot be scored.

This score report should not be trusted for decision-making purposes — only 2 reviews were available, they directly contradict each other, and the most recent review is a serious complaint from 2019, making any conclusions about this contractor's current performance highly speculative.

Both available reviews are strongly negative and paint a consistent picture of a contractor who fails to follow up, does not schedule work, and leaves customers waiting for extended periods. Professionalism scores are near the floor due to explicit reports of being ignored via text and phone across multiple follow-up attempts. Project completion is similarly devastated — in both cases the work was never performed at all, representing a complete failure to deliver. Pricing and experience cannot be scored as neither review contains any reference to cost or observable workmanship quality. With only two reviews available, the WW Score cannot be reliably calculated.

• Only 2 reviews available — WW Score cannot be calculated per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• One review is dated 2020 (over 4 years old) and carries reduced recency weight; the more recent review is from April 2024.
• No pricing or experience data exists in any review — two dimensions are entirely unscored.
• Both reviews describe a pattern of non-communication and job abandonment before work began, which is a serious operational red flag.
• One reviewer explicitly alleges the contractor works primarily to deny home warranty claims rather than complete work — this is a reputational risk flag that warrants scrutiny.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and should be considered highly unreliable as a representative assessment — the WW Score cannot be formally calculated, and two of four dimensions have no data whatsoever.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed, which is below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation. The reviews are also severely contradictory: one 1-star review from 2018 documents extensive failures across multiple installations (leaking pipes, improper installations, no-shows, unprofessional behavior), while one 5-star review from 2017 praises responsiveness and quality. With only 1–2 mentions per dimension and conflicting evidence, no reliable overall score can be computed.

• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW COUNT: Only 2 reviews provided; minimum 3 required for reliable scoring.
• EXTREME CONTRADICTION: One 1-star and one 5-star review with opposite conclusions about the same contractor suggest either significant service variability, different contractors, or data quality issues.
• REVIEW RECENCY: Both reviews are from 2017–2018 (5–6 years old); no recent data available to assess current performance.
• LIMITED MENTION COUNTS: All dimensions have 1–2 mentions only, resulting in LIMITED confidence across all scored dimensions.
• CANNOT CALCULATE WW SCORE: Insufficient reviews and data quality prevent reliable WW Score computation.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required) and extreme contradictions between reviews that suggest either significant service inconsistency or data integrity concerns; any score derived would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. Both reviews are severely negative, citing critical failures in project completion (incorrect water heater size, missing flu vent, code violations, non-responsiveness), poor professionalism (rudeness, lack of accountability), and questionable technical competence. However, with such a small sample size and no positive reviews to balance the assessment, a composite score cannot be reliably calculated.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 2 reviews analyzed; minimum 3 required for reliable scoring.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Both reviews are older than 3 years (2019 and 2021); no recent data available.
• SEVERE SAFETY ISSUES REPORTED: First review alleges serious code violations including improper carbon monoxide venting for 4 years and lack of required permits. These are critical safety and legal concerns.
• PATTERN OF POOR ACCOUNTABILITY: Both reviews cite lack of follow-up, non-responsiveness, and failure to address problems created by the contractor.
• NO PRICING DATA: Neither review mentions cost or pricing, so Price Friendly dimension cannot be evaluated.

This assessment is unreliable due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews vs. 3 minimum required). The extremely negative feedback raises serious red flags about safety and professionalism, but a statistically valid WW Score cannot be calculated from this limited data. Additional recent reviews are essential before making a hiring decision.

Both reviews are exclusively focused on pricing concerns, with both reviewers explicitly stating the contractor charges significantly more than competitors. One reviewer cited $500 for two faucets and a garbage disposal installation as excessive, while the other noted the contractor openly acknowledges his high prices. On the positive side, both reviewers did indicate the work itself was done competently — one said 'he did do a good job' and the other described the contractor as 'reliable and competent' relative to cheaper alternatives. No data was available for professionalism or project completion, making a full WW Score calculation impossible with only 2 reviews.

• Only 2 reviews provided — insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score per scoring rules.
• Both reviews are older than 1 year (2017 and 2021); pricing and service quality may have changed significantly since then.
• No reviews mention professionalism, punctuality, communication, or project completion — these dimensions cannot be scored.
• Experience score of 65 is conservative due to only 2 mentions and vague quality references ('good job', 'competent') with no technical specifics provided.

This score report should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of overall contractor quality — only 2 reviews were available, both are over 3 years old, and usable data exists for only 2 of the 4 scoring dimensions.

With only two reviews spanning 2015–2016, there is very little data to draw meaningful conclusions. The first review is strongly positive, praising Jesse and his crew for responding professionally to a Christmas Eve sewer emergency and coordinating with other contractors — a clear indicator of competence and follow-through. However, the second review raises a serious concern: the company advertises 24/7 availability but refused to help a customer on a Saturday, which constitutes false advertising and a direct failure of responsiveness and service delivery. These two reviews pull in opposite directions, resulting in middling scores across all measurable dimensions. All scores carry LIMITED confidence due to the very small sample size.

• Only 2 reviews available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are from 2015–2016, making them over 8 years old. These scores should not be considered representative of current service quality.
• Review 2 explicitly flags false advertising: company markets 24/7 plumbing service but declined a Saturday service call. This is a significant trust and reliability concern.
• No pricing information was mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension cannot be scored.
• Small sample size (n=2) means a single negative review has outsized impact on all dimension scores.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews from 2015–2016 and should be considered highly unreliable — no meaningful conclusions about current contractor quality can be drawn from this data.