Find Nearby Plumbers In Wilmington, Delaware

This contractor shows highly inconsistent performance across a very small sample of reviews. Professionalism is severely compromised by a documented failure to return urgent voicemails regarding a water heater emergency, directly contradicting positive feedback about punctuality and responsiveness in other jobs. Pricing appears fair based on two mentions of reasonable costs. Project completion and technical skill are evidenced by successful toilet repair and sewer inspection work, though the sample size is minimal. The extreme recency gap (oldest review from 2012, newest from 2020) and very limited review volume (only 3 reviews) make this score unreliable for decision-making.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 reviews analyzed — insufficient volume for reliable scoring. Recommend collecting at least 10+ recent reviews before making hiring decisions.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Reviews span 2012–2020 with significant gaps. Most recent review is 4+ years old. Current business practices may differ substantially.
• INCONSISTENCY RED FLAG: One review explicitly criticizes non-responsiveness to urgent voicemails (1-star), while another praises punctuality (4-star). This suggests either inconsistent service quality or potential changes in business operations over time.
• LIMITED DATA: Each dimension is based on only 2 mentions, resulting in LOW confidence across all scores. No dimension has sufficient evidence for HIGH confidence.

This WW Score should be treated with extreme caution due to insufficient review volume (only 3 reviews), significant age gaps, and conflicting evidence on professionalism. Do not rely on this score for contractor selection without obtaining additional recent reviews and direct references.

Marano P&H demonstrates significant inconsistency in service quality. While one review (2015) praised punctuality and professionalism, multiple reviews (2018-2019) document serious failures in project completion, including improper float device installation that nearly caused basement flooding twice, and repeated HVAC failures in new homes requiring multiple service calls. Professionalism scores are dragged down by reports of unprofessional technician behavior, poor phone communication, and failure to follow up on callbacks. Technical competency appears limited, with skilled competitors (Sobieski) needed to correct their work. The company shows poor responsiveness to scheduling requests and unreliable follow-through.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document incomplete or failed work requiring callbacks and corrections by competitors. This is a major red flag for project completion reliability.
• CRITICAL: Two separate reviews (2018, 2017) report repeated HVAC failures in new homes requiring multiple service calls within months—suggests systemic installation or diagnostic problems.
• Unprofessional technician behavior documented: one tech complained about personal drug addiction issues during service call; phone staff described as 'bullying and threatening.'
• Scheduling and callback failures: customer reported promised callback on Tuesday that never occurred, then another promised callback on Thursday that also failed to materialize.
• Aggressive upselling documented: technician recommended $10,000 HVAC replacement without properly diagnosing the actual AC issue.
• Review dates span 2015-2019 with most negative reviews concentrated in 2017-2018 period; oldest positive review is from 2015 (9 years old).

This score should be treated with caution but leans toward accuracy given the consistency of failure patterns across multiple independent reviews. The WW Score of 42.3 reflects genuine service quality concerns, particularly in project completion and technical competency, though the small sample size (6 reviews) and age of some reviews limit absolute certainty.

Perti Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. On the positive side, one reviewer praised friendly communication, drop cloths, and high-quality work, while another highlighted easy scheduling, COVID sensitivity, and reasonable pricing. However, two negative reviews significantly drag down the scores: one customer was quoted $485 just for a camera inspection before any actual work, only to find a competitor who completed the full job for $450 total, raising serious pricing transparency concerns. A second negative review described a poor installation where the fix for a misplaced vanity was to saw off door woodwork, indicating a meaningful quality-of-workmanship failure. The result is a contractor with some genuinely satisfied customers but documented instances of overpricing and substandard workmanship that cannot be ignored.

• Very small sample size of only 4 reviews — scores should be treated as highly provisional and not representative of consistent performance.
• Review date range spans from 2014 to 2023 — nearly a decade of data with no clustering. The oldest review (2014) and the 2017 review are well outside the 12-month recency window and were weighted less heavily.
• The most recent review (2023) is a 1-star complaint about pricing, which is the most relevant data point for current customers.
• The 5-star reviews contain some specific details (names Paige and Marty, drop cloths, specific work performed) which reduces fake review suspicion, but the 2017 review reads somewhat like a promotional testimonial with a branded slogan ('Don't get dirty. Call Perti!'), which warrants mild scrutiny.
• No reviews fall within the past 12 months from a typical current evaluation date, meaning there is no recent data to confirm whether quality or pricing practices have improved or worsened.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning nearly 10 years and should be considered LOW reliability — prospective customers are strongly advised to seek additional recent references before hiring.

RM Crossan shows a deeply mixed track record across reviews spanning 2015 to 2023. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a negative experience with an answering service that failed to capture basic customer information, a dismissive office response to a legitimate complaint about missed diagnostics, and a billing dispute where charges were applied without a breakdown — though positive reviews do praise friendliness, promptness, and communication. Project completion is similarly split: two reviews describe work that failed shortly after completion (a missed duct hole on an AC repair, and a $5,000 water system that became non-functional within 4 years), while other reviews highlight fast turnaround and thorough follow-through. Pricing concerns are notable, with one reviewer describing over $500 charged for effectively a drain plug installation and unauthorized card charges without itemized billing. Experience scores reflect genuine skill gaps evidenced by missed diagnoses and a failed water filtration system, partially offset by positive accounts of competent HVAC and water heater work.

• RECENCY WARNING: Only 1 review is from the past 12 months (2023). Two reviews are from 2020, one from 2022, and the remaining three are from 2015–2018. The majority of data is over 3 years old and may not reflect current business practices.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — DISMISSIVENESS: Two separate reviews (2020-03-05 and 2020-11-03) describe the company refusing to acknowledge responsibility for failed or incomplete work, suggesting a possible systemic issue with accountability.
• BILLING CONCERN: One reviewer (2020-03-05) explicitly states charges were applied to their card without providing an itemized breakdown, which is a serious transparency and trust issue.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 7 reviews total. This is a very small sample size and the WW Score should be treated with caution. Scores can shift dramatically with even one or two additional reviews.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in length, detail, tone, and rating. No suspicious repetition or generic phrasing patterns were identified.

This WW Score is based on only 7 reviews, the majority of which are more than 3 years old, making it a LOW-reliability snapshot that should not be used as a definitive assessment of current business quality.

Nickson Home Services receives overwhelmingly negative reviews across all four scored dimensions, with the vast majority of customers reporting missed appointments, no-shows, unreachable customer service, and poor communication. Project completion is the most critically impacted dimension, with dozens of reviews describing abandoned installs, multiple failed appointment windows, and jobs left incomplete or in worse condition than found. Professionalism scores are severely dragged down by reports of rude technicians, unauthorized charges, no identification upon arrival, and a pattern of not calling customers when running late or canceling. Where positive experiences exist — roughly 10 out of 46 reviews — they tend to highlight specific named technicians (Bill, Derek, Ray, Adam, Chuck) who performed well, suggesting quality is highly inconsistent and technician-dependent rather than systemic. Experience scores reflect a meaningful number of reports of damaged property, leaks caused by improper installation, incorrect fittings, and shoddy workmanship, though a minority of reviewers report clean, competent installs.

• No fake review patterns detected — positive and negative reviews contain specific names, dates, and situational details consistent with genuine experiences.
• Strong technician-dependency pattern: positive reviews almost exclusively name specific individuals (Bill, Derek, Ray, Adam, Chuck, Curtis/Joe), suggesting company-wide quality is unreliable and outcome depends heavily on which technician is assigned.
• Recurring pattern of upselling: multiple reviews mention technicians demanding extra payment ($89–$200) on-site for parts or services not disclosed at booking, which is a significant consumer protection concern.
• Multiple reviews report property damage including flooded kitchens, damaged hardwood floors, scratched cabinetry, drilled holes in finished cabinets, and a gas leak — indicating serious workmanship liability risk.
• Chronic no-show and scheduling failure pattern spans reviews from 2018 through 2024, suggesting these are systemic operational issues rather than isolated incidents.
• Reviews span 2018–2024 with consistent negative themes throughout; no evidence of sustained improvement over time. Most recent reviews (2023–2024) continue to reflect the same core complaints.
• Customer service infrastructure appears severely inadequate: multiple reviews cite full voicemail boxes, endless hold times, unanswered phones, and unreturned calls across multiple years.
• Pricing dimension flagged: several reviewers note installation costs charged by Lowe's or Costco are high relative to service quality received, and on-site upcharges without prior authorization were reported in at least 3 reviews.

This WW Score of 28.1 is based on 46 reviews with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions and should be considered a reliable and conservative reflection of this contractor's overall service quality, with the data strongly and consistently indicating poor performance at scale.

This contractor exhibits severe and consistent deficiencies across all dimensions. Two detailed reviews document catastrophic project failures including incomplete work, code violations, safety hazards, and refusal to honor warranty obligations or callbacks. Two older positive reviews (2018-2019) praise responsiveness and friendliness, but are heavily outweighed by recent damaging evidence of systematic incompetence and deceptive practices. The owner's documented behavioral shift post-payment and threats of violence represent critical professionalism failures. The WW Score of 28.3 reflects a contractor with fundamental reliability and competency issues.

• CRITICAL: Two detailed 1-star reviews (2022, 2020) document systematic project failures, code violations, safety hazards (carbon monoxide risk), and refusal to complete work or honor warranties. These are specific, detailed, and credible.
• CRITICAL: Owner documented threatening violence ('threatened to punch me in the face') when asked to complete work—severe professionalism red flag.
• CRITICAL: Pattern of deceptive behavior: personality change post-payment, false promises to return, warranty manual discarded, model numbers never registered, repeated non-completion of callbacks.
• CRITICAL: Two positive reviews (2018-2019) are significantly older and generic in praise ('friendly and professional,' 'dependable and honest'). They predate the documented failures and may not reflect current business practices.
• CRITICAL: Legal action initiated by customer due to $6,000 in additional remediation costs on top of $17,500 paid—indicates potential fraud or gross negligence.
• Safety hazards documented: bare wiring exposed to weather, condensate line 6 inches off ground creating carbon monoxide backup risk, improper ductwork creating no airflow pressure.
• Recency bias: Most recent reviews (2022, 2020) are highly negative; positive reviews are 4-6 years old and predate major documented failures.

This WW Score should be trusted with MODERATE-to-HIGH confidence. The two recent detailed negative reviews provide extensive, specific, and corroborated evidence of systematic failures, safety violations, and deceptive practices. The older positive reviews are insufficient to counterbalance documented catastrophic performance and legal action. This contractor presents significant risk.