Find Nearby Plumbers In Boynton Beach, Florida

Only two reviews exist for this contractor, making any scoring highly unreliable. The reviews are sharply divided: one 5-star review from 2012 praises punctuality, cleanliness, and a successful water heater installation, while a 1-star review from 2022 explicitly calls the contractor a crook, unprofessional, and reports abandoned unfinished work. The negative review is significantly more recent and carries greater weight under recency rules. Project completion is a serious concern given the explicit report of unfinished work left for others to complete. No pricing information was mentioned in either review.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules.
• The positive 5-star review is over 10 years old (2012) and should be treated with very low recency weight.
• The most recent review (2022) is a 1-star review explicitly alleging unprofessional conduct and abandoned work — a significant red flag.
• Directly conflicting reviews with no middle-ground data make scoring highly speculative.
• Pricing dimension has zero data and cannot be scored.

This score report is not reliable — with only 2 reviews spanning a decade, sharply conflicting accounts, and the most recent review being strongly negative, no meaningful confidence can be placed in any dimension score or overall assessment.

With only 2 reviews, no reliable WW Score can be calculated. The two reviews are in direct conflict: one is a detailed 5-star review praising prompt arrival, efficiency, reasonable pricing, and clean workmanship on a plumbing repair, while the other is a serious 1-star review alleging fraud, double-billing for work never performed, and active evasion of a court subpoena. The fraud allegation — including a filed lawsuit and a reportedly bogus registered business address — is a severe red flag that significantly drags down all dimensions. The positive review, while specific and credible on its own, cannot offset the gravity of the legal and ethical concerns raised in the negative review. Scores have been conservatively weighted to reflect this deep uncertainty.

• SERIOUS LEGAL FLAG: One reviewer explicitly states they filed a lawsuit against this contractor for alleged fraud, double-billing, and non-performance of paid work.
• EVASION FLAG: The negative reviewer alleges the contractor is evading a court subpoena and that their registered business address on Sunbiz is bogus — this is a significant operational and legal red flag.
• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW COUNT: Only 2 reviews were provided. A minimum of 3 is required for a WW Score calculation. No aggregate score has been produced.
• RECENCY NOTE: Both reviews are older than 12 months (April 2024 and March 2023). No recent data is available to assess current business behavior.
• CONFLICT WARNING: The two reviews are diametrically opposed in sentiment and substance. This makes any scoring highly unreliable and should be treated with extreme caution.

This score report should not be trusted for hiring decisions — the extremely low review count, a serious unresolved fraud allegation with active litigation, and the complete conflict between the two available reviews make any scoring output unreliable and potentially misleading.

Only a single review was provided, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer mentions the company was experienced with the issue, fixed the problem, and cleaned up afterward, which supports modest scores in project completion and experience. Professionalism is loosely implied through the mention of excellent service and staff, but no specific details about punctuality, communication, or attitude are given. Pricing is entirely unmentioned and cannot be scored. The language in the review is somewhat generic and lacks specific detail, which limits confidence across all dimensions.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review language is generic and vague (e.g., 'quality is very high,' 'service is excellent') with no specific details about the work performed, technician names, or concrete outcomes. This pattern is consistent with low-detail or potentially embellished reviews.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension has no data.
• Recency note: The single review is dated 2024-04-20, which is within the past 12 months and is therefore given full recency weight, though this is moot given the sample size.

This score report is based on a single review with generic language and should not be considered a reliable indicator of this contractor's overall quality or consistency.

Insufficient data — only 1 review provided. The single review mentions honesty and pride in work (experience dimension) and implies positive attitude (professionalism), but provides no explicit information about pricing, project completion, timeliness, or specific technical details. The review is generic praise without concrete examples or specifics. A WW Score cannot be reliably calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.

• Only 1 review analyzed — insufficient for reliable scoring
• Review is generic praise with no specific examples or details
• Review date is from November 2021 — over 2 years old, outside the preferred 12-month window
• No mention of pricing, project completion, or timeline adherence
• Cannot calculate WW Score with confidence below 3 reviews

This analysis is unreliable and should not be used for decision-making. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to calculate a trustworthy WW Score.

This single review from August 2021 provides explicit praise across all four dimensions: punctuality (showed up on time), professionalism (clean, neat work with proper setup), competitive pricing (came in at lower end of quote), and technical skill (completed two water heater installations in 2 hours with proper temperature configuration). However, with only one review and no contradictory or comparative data, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated. The review is detailed and specific rather than generic, which reduces fake review concerns, but the sample size is critically insufficient.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. WW Score requires minimum 3 reviews to calculate reliably.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review is from August 2021, over 3 years old. No recent data available to assess current performance.
• SINGLE REVIEW BIAS: All dimensions scored based on one customer's experience. No validation or contradiction from other customers.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score with only one review. At minimum 3 independent reviews are required to establish baseline reliability; current data is insufficient for any confident contractor assessment.

Only a single review is available, dated January 2021, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer mentions honesty and a fair quote, supporting modest scores for pricing and professionalism. The reference to cleaning up before leaving suggests some follow-through on project completion. The word 'competent' implies adequate skill, but no specific technical detail is provided to justify a high experience score. All scores are deliberately conservative given the extremely limited data.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from January 2021, which is over 3 years old. Recency weighting is a concern.
• All dimension scores are based on a single brief review with minimal specifics — treat all scores as LOW confidence indicators only.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the review is too brief and singular to draw meaningful conclusions.

This score report is based on a single review from over three years ago and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of this contractor's current quality or consistency.