Find Nearby Plumbers In Palm Bay, Florida

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 of 4 reviews contain substantive content; two reviews consist of single periods with no evaluable information. The two usable reviews mention project completion (drywall/roof repair, trim replacement completed) and experience/workmanship quality (described as 'really good work' and 'fantastic job'), but provide no explicit information on professionalism, punctuality, communication, or pricing. The sample size is below the minimum threshold for reliable scoring.

• Two reviews (2017-08-05 and 2017-07-23) contain only a period (.) with no substantive content — these appear to be placeholder or spam entries
• All usable reviews are 5-star ratings with generic praise and minimal specificity, limiting confidence in dimension scoring
• Two reviews are older than 1 year (2017); only one review is recent (2024)
• No explicit mentions of professionalism dimensions (punctuality, communication, responsiveness, attitude) in any review
• No pricing information provided in any review

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient usable data (only 2 substantive reviews) and absence of critical dimension coverage. Any WW Score derived from this dataset would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

Both available reviews are strongly negative and paint a concerning picture of this contractor. The first review details a serious customer service failure where a staff member responded to a legitimate complaint with dismissiveness and a hostile attitude, explicitly saying she was 'just listening to you complain.' The second review describes an incomplete job where the plumber broke fixtures and abandoned the homeowner without resolution, which is a direct failure of both project completion and workmanship. No positive experiences, pricing information, or evidence of quality work were mentioned in any review. Scores across all measured dimensions are extremely low due to explicit negative evidence.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules (fewer than 3 reviews).
• Both reviews are dated between 2015 and 2018, meaning all data is more than 5 years old. These scores may not reflect current business practices.
• No pricing or value-related information was mentioned in any review — the Pricing dimension has been scored null.
• Review 2 describes property damage caused by the plumber (broken water controls and backing), which is a significant workmanship red flag beyond just incomplete work.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both of which are over 5 years old, making it insufficient and unreliable for drawing confident conclusions about the contractor's current quality or practices.

Insufficient data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews analyzed, with contradictory claims about licensing and qualifications. One review praises listening skills, communication, and successful project execution; the other raises serious legal concerns about licensing status. No pricing information provided. The conflicting narratives about credentials and the extremely small sample size prevent reliable scoring.

• CRITICAL: Contradictory claims about plumber licensing — one review explicitly states 'doesn't even have a plumbers license' while the other praises 'his license plumber knowledge.' This is a major red flag requiring immediate verification.
• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — cannot establish reliable patterns or confidence in any dimension.
• One review is highly detailed and positive (5-star); one is brief and negative (1-star) with no specifics — suggests potential polarization rather than balanced feedback.
• No pricing data available across any reviews.
• Review dates span 3 months (Sept-Dec 2023) — both older than 12 months from current date.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2) and contradictory claims about licensing status that raise serious legal and credibility concerns. Do not rely on this analysis until more reviews and licensing verification are obtained.

With only two reviews, the data is sharply polarized and insufficient for a reliable WW Score. The first review praises Eric and Annie as communicative, meticulous, and consistently dependable across multiple projects over time. The second review is a serious 1-star complaint alleging botched shower work and theft of materials, which is a significant red flag that cannot be dismissed. These two reviews directly contradict each other, making it impossible to establish a trustworthy baseline for any dimension. No pricing information was mentioned in either review.

• CRITICAL: One review alleges theft of customer materials — this is a serious misconduct claim that warrants significant caution.
• CRITICAL: One review alleges damaged/ruined shower work, indicating a potential major workmanship failure.
• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews total. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules.
• POLARIZED REVIEWS: The two reviews are diametrically opposed (5-star vs 1-star), making any averaged score highly misleading.
• NO PRICING DATA: Pricing dimension cannot be scored due to complete absence of relevant mentions.

This score report should not be trusted for hiring decisions — with only 2 reviews and a direct conflict between a glowing endorsement and a serious misconduct allegation, no reliable conclusion can be drawn about this contractor's quality or integrity.

With only two reviews spanning a wide date range (2016 to 2019), the data is too sparse to draw reliable conclusions. The positive review praises Bob for resolving a leak quickly and affordably in under an hour, suggesting competence and fair pricing in that instance. However, the negative review describes a serious professionalism and project completion failure — arriving 30 minutes late, refusing to complete the job, and being unwilling to work weekends — leaving the customer without hot water over a weekend. These two reviews directly contradict each other across nearly every dimension, making any score highly uncertain. The recency of both reviews is also a concern, as neither falls within the past 12 months relative to a current evaluation.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are older than 5 years (dated 2016 and 2019), significantly reducing their relevance to current performance.
• The two reviews are in direct conflict across professionalism, pricing, and project completion — scores reflect a heavily averaged and uncertain middle ground.
• The negative review describes an abandoned job and unprofessional conduct, which is a serious project completion flag that weighs heavily despite the small sample size.

This score report should not be trusted for decision-making purposes — with only 2 reviews, both over 5 years old, and directly contradictory accounts, there is insufficient evidence to assess this contractor's current quality or reliability.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. Both reviews are uniformly positive (5-star ratings) with generic praise and no substantive detail about pricing, timelines, or specific problem-solving. The reviews lack critical information about value for money and contain suspiciously similar enthusiastic language patterns.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 2 reviews provided; minimum 3 required for reliable scoring
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Both reviews are 5-star with generic, enthusiastic language ('awesome company', 'wonderful experience', 'highest recommendation') lacking specific technical or pricing details
• RECENCY CONCERN: One review is from 2015 (9+ years old); only one review from recent period (2022)
• PRICING DIMENSION ABSENT: No reviews mention pricing, value, quotes, or affordability — cannot assess Price Friendly dimension
• LIMITED MENTION COUNT: All scored dimensions based on only 2 mentions each, resulting in LOW confidence across all metrics

This score cannot be calculated and should not be used for decision-making. The sample size is too small, reviews show signs of potential fabrication, and critical dimensions like pricing are entirely absent from the data.