Find Nearby Plumbers In Kissimmee, Florida

Analysis is severely limited by only 2 reviews spanning 5 years (2013 and 2018), making trend assessment impossible. Review 1 (2013) praises professionalism, pricing, and timely completion, but Review 2 (2018) directly contradicts project completion quality, reporting the installed A/C unit does not match specifications and fails to cool the house. This fundamental conflict in project outcome evidence prevents reliable WW Score calculation. Experience dimension has no explicit mentions. The extreme recency gap and contradictory outcomes suggest either different service quality periods or unresolved quality issues.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews analyzed; minimum 3 required for reliable scoring
• RECENCY CONCERN: Reviews span 5 years (2013–2018); most data is older than 12 months
• CRITICAL CONFLICT: Review 1 claims successful installation; Review 2 reports unit does not match replacement and fails to cool—direct contradiction on project completion
• UNRESOLVED QUALITY ISSUE: No follow-up or resolution documented for the 2018 complaint
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: 2013 review contains generic praise language ('DID IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME!') with no specific technical details, contrasting sharply with 2018 specific failure complaint

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2), extreme age of most data (5-year gap), and direct contradiction between reviews on core project completion quality. No WW Score should be reported until at least 3 recent reviews are available.

Only two reviews are available, both of which are positive but lack the volume needed for reliable scoring. Professionalism received the strongest signal, with one reviewer noting Gerry arrived masked and ready to work, and describing him as an honest, hard worker. Project completion is inferred from one review where a sprinkler controller issue was addressed and all zones were checked, suggesting the job was completed satisfactorily. Experience is loosely supported by references to a system tune-up, zone inspection, and a mention of state-certified backflow specialist credentials, though no detailed workmanship critique is provided. Pricing is entirely unmentioned across both reviews, leaving that dimension with no data.

• Only 2 reviews total — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• The 2015 review is approximately 9 years old and should be treated with very low recency weight; it may not reflect current service quality.
• The 2015 review reads somewhat like a promotional listing (includes phone number, lists services, uses call-to-action language) and may not be an organic customer review — treat with caution.
• Both reviews are 5-star with limited specific detail, which is consistent with low-volume fake review patterns, though the sample size is too small to confirm this definitively.
• No negative feedback exists, but this is almost certainly due to the extremely small sample size rather than an absence of issues.

This WW Score cannot be calculated reliably due to an insufficient number of reviews (only 2), significant recency concerns with one review dating back to 2015, and a possible promotional review inflating the positive signal.

Both reviews are positive in tone, but the dataset is too small to draw reliable conclusions. Professionalism is the best-supported dimension, with both reviewers explicitly noting responsiveness and professional conduct, including availability on a Sunday. Pricing is mentioned in one review where the contractor was noted as more affordable than a competitor, though no detailed quote transparency is described. Project completion is touched on in one review where an urgent gas line repair was completed immediately, suggesting follow-through under pressure. Experience is lightly implied by the successful gas line repair but is not described in technical detail by either reviewer.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are dated between 2021 and 2022, meaning all data is older than 2 years at time of analysis — recency is a concern.
• Review volume is too low to detect or rule out fake review patterns with any confidence.
• All dimension scores should be treated as highly speculative given the extremely limited evidence base.

This score profile is based on only 2 reviews, both over 2 years old, and should not be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's current quality or consistency.

Both available reviews are severely negative and describe serious misconduct. The first review alleges outright theft of $3,333, complete non-performance of contracted work, deception about permits, and deliberate evasion of contact — representing a total failure across all dimensions. The second review documents repeated no-shows, bait-and-switch pricing tactics, arriving to a job unprepared (no ladder), damaging customer property, and leaving a mess without remediation. Across both reviews, there is not a single positive data point in any dimension. Scores are near-zero or zero where data exists, reflecting explicit and serious failures rather than mere absence of praise.

• CRITICAL: First review alleges criminal theft — contractor allegedly took $3,333, performed no work, lied about permits, disconnected phone, and is avoiding contact. This is a potential fraud/criminal matter, not merely a service complaint.
• Second review describes predatory pricing behavior — performing work without agreed estimate and then overcharging, as well as attempting to raise prices after job completion on a separate occasion.
• Only 2 reviews are available. Per scoring rules, a minimum of 3 reviews is required for a reliable WW Score. No composite score has been calculated.
• Both reviews are dated 2022. No reviews from the past 12 months are present, meaning recency weighting cannot favor any positive trend or improvement.
• All available reviews are 1-star. While this could theoretically suggest a fake negative campaign, the level of specific detail (dollar amounts, specific incidents, named individual 'Antonio', described property damage) makes fabrication unlikely. These reviews appear credible.
• Extreme caution is advised. The pattern across both reviews suggests systemic issues with honesty, reliability, and professional conduct.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and cannot produce a reliable WW Score; however, the severity and specificity of both reviews — including an allegation of criminal theft — provide strong grounds to treat this contractor as extremely high risk.

Both reviews are 1-star and paint a consistently negative picture across all dimensions. Professionalism scores extremely low due to rude office staff, failure to communicate proactively, inconsistent information given by answering service versus office staff, and a technician leaving without speaking to the customer. Pricing scores poorly due to a refused new-customer coupon, unwillingness to cover a stop-payment fee caused by their own security lapse, and a $30 reduction deemed inadequate for significant inconvenience. Project completion is also poor, as the core sewer problem was never resolved despite multiple paid visits and a camera inspection that missed visible root damage later confirmed by a competitor. Experience scores low primarily because the camera inspection in Review 1 failed to identify roots and pipe damage that a competing plumber found immediately, suggesting either inadequate technique or dishonest reporting.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are 1-star; while this consistency is credible given the level of specific detail, the small sample size means scores should be treated with caution.
• No positive reviews are present, so there is no counterbalancing data. Scores reflect only negative experiences and may not represent the contractor's full performance range.
• Review 1 (2023-09-27) is within the past 12 months relative to a late-2023/2024 evaluation window and carries slightly more recency weight. Review 2 (2022-09-03) is older but still within a reasonable window.
• No fake review patterns detected — both reviews contain specific, detailed, and credible accounts with distinct scenarios, reducing suspicion of fabrication.

This report is based on only 2 reviews, which is below the minimum threshold for a reliable WW Score; all dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence and should be interpreted as early warning signals rather than definitive assessments.

With only 2 reviews available, reliable scoring is not possible. The reviews are sharply contradictory: one praises professionalism and pricing (5-star, 2019), while the other severely criticizes professionalism and describes property damage (1-star, 2015). Professionalism scores average 42.5 due to the extreme conflict. Project completion is unclear—one review confirms work was done, the other confirms drain was unclogged but with collateral damage. Pricing data comes from only one review. The age gap (2015 vs. 2019) and polar opposite ratings suggest either significant service inconsistency or potential data quality issues.

• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per protocol
• Extreme rating polarity (5-star and 1-star) with contradictory claims about professionalism and care
• Significant age gap between reviews (2015 and 2019) — older review may not reflect current service
• One review alleges property damage and lack of situational awareness; other praises service quality — suggests either major service variance or reviewer credibility concerns
• Experience dimension has zero mentions — cannot assess technical skill or workmanship quality

This score cannot be trusted for decision-making. Only 2 reviews with contradictory narratives and a 4-year gap provide insufficient and conflicting evidence to establish reliable contractor performance metrics.