Find Nearby Plumbers In Kissimmee, Florida

Only one review was available for analysis, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review explicitly criticizes workmanship quality and reports poor professional behavior (agitation when issues were pointed out). However, with only 1 review and no data on pricing or project completion, no meaningful overall score can be derived.

• Insufficient data — only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• Review is highly negative with limited specificity on what workmanship issues occurred.
• No information provided on pricing, value, or project completion status.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume; at least 3 reviews are needed for meaningful assessment.

This single review paints a deeply negative picture across multiple dimensions. The technician arrived with minimal equipment and demonstrated no apparent competence in clearing a basic stoppage, indicating very poor experience and skill level. The job was not completed and a second plumber had to be called, representing a total failure in project completion. Professionalism was also called into question by the reviewer's use of scare quotes around 'plumber,' suggesting the technician did not present as a credible professional. With only one review available, no reliable WW Score can be calculated, but the signals from this review are strongly negative.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from 2018 — data is over 6 years old and may not reflect current service quality.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension has no data.
• Reviewer explicitly recommends against using this company and had to hire a second plumber to resolve the issue.

This score assessment is based on a single review from 2018 and should be considered highly unreliable as a representation of overall contractor quality — far more reviews are needed before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn.

Only a single review is available, dated June 2006 — nearly two decades ago — which severely limits the reliability of any scoring. The reviewer noted punctuality, on-time completion, and an accurate price quote, which are positive signals across professionalism, project completion, and pricing. However, the review is brief and generic, offering no specific detail about the nature of the work, the contractor's technical skill, or workmanship quality, leaving the Experience dimension entirely unscored. All scores have been kept conservative in line with the single-mention, low-detail evidence available.

• Only 1 review provided — minimum threshold of 3 reviews not met; WW Score cannot be calculated reliably.
• Review is dated June 2006, making it approximately 18–19 years old. This data is extremely stale and should not be considered representative of current contractor performance.
• Review language is brief and generic ('They were very good') with no specific details about the type of work performed, which limits scoring confidence across all dimensions.
• Experience dimension could not be scored — no mention of skill, workmanship quality, or technical ability in any review.

This score should not be trusted as a meaningful indicator of contractor quality — it is based on a single, vague, nearly 20-year-old review with no usable data on technical experience.

The single review available is a detailed 1-star account describing serious problems across all four dimensions. The contractor allegedly misrepresented the project timeline (3 days became 3 weeks), increased the price mid-job by $2,500 above the original $7,000 quote, and attempted to charge additionally for reconnecting work he had disconnected — all pointing to very poor professionalism, pricing transparency, and project completion. Most critically, the reviewer alleges the contractor is not a licensed plumber and used another plumber's license to pull the permit, which is a significant legal and safety concern that severely impacts the experience score. The reviewer does acknowledge he can handle basic plumbing, which prevents the experience score from reaching zero, but overall the picture painted is deeply negative.

• CRITICAL: Reviewer alleges contractor is NOT a licensed plumber and fraudulently used another plumber's license to pull the permit. This is a serious legal and regulatory red flag that should be independently verified before hiring.
• PRICE ESCALATION: Original quote of $7,000 allegedly grew by at least $2,500 mid-project, plus additional undisclosed charges for reconnecting work the contractor himself disconnected.
• TIMELINE FAILURE: A stated 3-day job allegedly took 3 weeks to complete.
• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review is available. The WW Score cannot be calculated reliably. All dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence and should not be treated as representative of overall contractor quality.
• SECONDARY COMPLAINT: Reviewer references a neighbor who also used this contractor and reportedly regrets it, suggesting this may not be an isolated incident — but this cannot be independently verified from the data provided.
• RECENCY NOTE: This review is from October 2021, which is more than 12 months old. Contractor performance may have changed since then.

This score report is based on a single review and should be considered highly unreliable as a general assessment; however, the specific and detailed nature of the allegations — particularly the licensing fraud claim — are serious enough to warrant significant caution before engaging this contractor.