Find Nearby Plumbers In Deltona, Florida

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 3 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 5 reviews needed for a statistically meaningful WW Score. While the three reviews available are uniformly positive and mention professionalism, punctuality, and reasonable pricing, the sample size is too small to produce a reliable overall score. Additionally, two of the three reviews are significantly dated (2020 and 2021), with only one review from 2024, limiting recency validity.

• Sample size of 3 reviews is below minimum threshold for reliable scoring
• Two of three reviews are older than 3 years (2020, 2021); only 1 review from past 12 months
• No explicit mention of technical skill, problem-solving, or workmanship quality in any review
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback; pattern suggests potential selection bias rather than fake reviews

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume and recency. A minimum of 5 reviews with at least 3 from the past 12 months is required for reliable scoring.

With only two reviews spanning five years, this dataset is far too small to draw reliable conclusions. The most recent review (2023) is a serious 1-star account alleging deliberate time-padding, fraudulent billing, camera evidence of workers standing idle, and complete non-responsiveness to written complaints — all of which heavily drag down professionalism, pricing, and project completion scores. The older 5-star review (2018) describes a positive, helpful visit for leak detection and valve testing, contributing modestly to experience and professionalism scores. The stark contrast between these two reviews — one highly positive, one alleging outright fraud — creates significant uncertainty across all dimensions. No reliable WW Score can be produced from just two reviews.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews total. A minimum of 3 is required for a WW Score calculation. Results should not be used for hiring decisions.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: The 2023 review explicitly alleges deliberate time fraud — workers instructed to stand idle on camera to inflate billable hours. This is a significant red flag that warrants serious caution.
• BILLING DISPUTE: Reviewer claims they were charged for 3 hours and $100 in parts when camera footage showed less than 1 hour of actual work using minimal materials.
• NON-RESPONSIVENESS: Contractor allegedly failed to respond to two written emails after being confronted with camera evidence, indicating a pattern of avoiding accountability.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: The 2023 reviewer requested a quote for additional proactive repairs; the crew reportedly did not gather any information to fulfill this request.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The only recent review (2023) is the negative one. The positive review is from 2018 — over 5 years old — and should be weighted significantly less.
• REVIEW CONTRAST WARNING: Two reviews with opposite ratings (1-star vs 5-star) and a 5-year gap provide no stable baseline for scoring. Treat all dimension scores as highly speculative.

This WW Score report is based on only 2 reviews and should be considered unreliable for decision-making purposes; the serious fraud allegation in the most recent review combined with the age of the only positive review means prospective customers should seek additional references before hiring.

With only two reviews, no reliable WW Score can be calculated. The positive review from 2021 describes a plumber (Ryan) who was friendly, transparent, undercharged relative to market expectations, and successfully completed a difficult repair under challenging conditions — all strong indicators across multiple dimensions. However, the 2023 review raises a serious concern: the customer experienced pressure loss and backflow of sand immediately after a fitting replacement, strongly implying a workmanship issue, and the contractor has not returned to investigate or resolve the problem. This unresolved callback situation weighs heavily on project completion and experience scores. The two reviews also reference different technicians (Ryan vs. Brian), which introduces further uncertainty about consistency across the business.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules requiring a minimum of 3 reviews.
• The two reviews reference different technicians (Ryan and Brian), suggesting scores may reflect different individuals rather than a consistent team standard.
• The 2023 review describes post-service issues (pressure loss, sand backflow) that began immediately after the fitting replacement and have not been resolved or investigated — a potential workmanship and callback failure.
• The positive review is dated 2021, making it over 3 years old and outside the preferred 12-month recency window. It should be weighted less heavily.
• No pricing information was mentioned in the 2023 review, so the pricing score is based on a single review only and carries very low reliability.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews referencing at least 2 different technicians, with the most recent review raising an unresolved workmanship concern — the overall data is insufficient and should not be used to make a confident hiring decision.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews analyzed, both with conflicting signals. Review 1 (2017) praises professional service and reasonable rates with Sunday availability. Review 2 (2016) reports non-completion, no-show, and communication failure. Both reviews are older than 12 months, limiting recency relevance. The extreme polarity and minimal detail in both reviews prevent reliable scoring.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews provided — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable WW Score calculation
• RECENCY ISSUE: Both reviews are 7+ years old (2016-2017); no recent data available
• CONFLICTING SIGNALS: Review 1 is highly positive (5-star); Review 2 is highly negative (1-star) with serious allegations of non-completion and unresponsiveness
• LIMITED DETAIL: Both reviews lack specificity; Review 1 contains generic praise; Review 2 lacks project scope details
• EXPERIENCE DIMENSION: No reviews mention skill level, workmanship quality, or technical knowledge

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2) and extreme age of data (7+ years old). The conflicting reviews suggest significant service inconsistency, but no trustworthy conclusion can be drawn without recent, detailed feedback.

Only two reviews exist, making any scoring highly unreliable. The most recent review (2023) is a detailed and damning 1-star account describing hidden upsell charges, a technician who disabled the HVAC system during a maintenance visit, and a dismissive company response — this heavily drags down all dimensions. The older 5-star review (2018) praises scheduling staff and a technician named Arnold for thoroughness and knowledge, but it is now over five years old and carries reduced weight under recency rules. The conflict between these two reviews creates a deeply uncertain picture, and the negative review's specificity and detail lend it considerable credibility. No reliable WW Score can be produced from only two reviews.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews analyzed. A minimum of 3 reviews is required for a reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The positive 5-star review is from April 2018, more than 5 years before the negative review. It carries significantly reduced weight.
• SERIOUS COMPLAINT FLAG: The 2023 review describes a technician leaving the HVAC system non-functional after a paid maintenance visit, which is a critical project completion and experience failure.
• PRICING CONCERN: The 2023 review describes a pattern of recurring undisclosed upsell charges during maintenance visits, totaling $1,386.47 in a single visit on top of a monthly maintenance contract — a strong indicator of non-transparent pricing practices.
• COMPANY RESPONSE CONCERN: The contractor reportedly told the customer they should have interrogated the technician about recommended add-ons, placing responsibility on the customer rather than acknowledging the issue.

This WW Score report is not calculable and should not be trusted as a basis for hiring decisions — only 2 reviews were available, the data is deeply conflicted, and the reviews span a 5-year gap with dramatically different outcomes.

Both reviews are negative and paint a concerning picture across multiple dimensions. Pricing is the most consistently flagged issue, with both reviewers explicitly describing charges as excessive, unexpected, and lacking upfront transparency — one calling it outright price gouging. Professionalism took a significant hit in the first review, where the plumber was described as rude and repeatedly interrupting the customer during a follow-up call. Project completion is also a red flag, as the first reviewer explicitly states the toilet was still running three days after the $245 repair, indicating the core problem was never resolved. The first reviewer also implies a skill deficiency by comparing Adams & Son unfavorably to their regular licensed plumber, suggesting limited technical competence. With only two reviews available, no reliable WW Score can be calculated, but all available signals are negative.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews analyzed. A minimum of 3 reviews is required for a reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY WARNING: One review dates to June 2020, which is over 3 years prior to the scoring period. Only the February 2023 review falls within a recent 12-month window relative to its date. Weight has been given to the more recent review.
• UNRESOLVED WORK: Review 1 explicitly states the plumbing issue (running toilet) was not fixed after payment of $245, indicating a failed service outcome.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY FAILURE: Both reviews cite lack of upfront cost discussion before work was performed, suggesting a systemic issue with quoting practices.
• RUDE BEHAVIOR FLAGGED: The plumber was described as rude and dismissive when the customer attempted to raise a concern, which is a direct professionalism failure.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both negative, making it statistically insufficient for a reliable overall assessment — all dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence and should be interpreted with caution.