Find Nearby Plumbers In Palm Bay, Florida

Both reviews describe severe failures across all dimensions. The contractor failed to deliver paid materials, abandoned the job mid-project, and demanded additional payment without completing work. Communication was poor, with false assurances about material delivery. Workmanship quality was subpar on completed portions. Most critically, both customers filed police reports alleging intentional fraud and theft of prepaid funds. One review documents threatening behavior toward the customer. These are not isolated complaints but consistent patterns of alleged criminal conduct.

• CRITICAL: Both reviews allege criminal fraud, theft of prepaid funds, and intentional project abandonment. Police reports filed by both customers.
• CRITICAL: One review documents threatening behavior by owner toward customer after negative review was posted.
• CRITICAL: Contractor misrepresents credentials on website (claims contractor license but only has business tax license; unable to provide proof of insurance).
• Both reviews are recent (July 2024) and highly detailed with specific dollar amounts, timelines, and corroborating evidence (supplier confirmation, invoice analysis).
• Reviews are NOT fake — they contain distinct details, different perspectives, and specific incidents that cross-validate each other.
• Insufficient review volume (only 2 reviews) prevents reliable WW Score calculation, but the severity and consistency of allegations warrant extreme caution.

This contractor should be considered high-risk based on consistent allegations of fraud, theft, and threatening behavior across both available reviews. The limited review count (2) prevents a statistically robust WW Score, but the severity of documented conduct (police reports, credential misrepresentation, alleged threats) suggests serious legal and safety concerns that override normal scoring methodology. Do not hire without independent legal and licensing verification.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. Review 1 (2021) praises professionalism, knowledge, and quality work but provides no specifics. Review 2 (2017) criticizes pricing practices (tax added after quote) while acknowledging reasonable work quality. The reviews are contradictory and separated by 4+ years, making trend analysis impossible. Each dimension is mentioned in only 1 review, resulting in LIMITED confidence across all scores.

• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per STEP 4 threshold
• Significant recency gap: Review 1 from Nov 2021 (3+ years old); Review 2 from Jun 2017 (7+ years old) — both outside ideal 12-month window
• Contradictory signals: 5-star review vs. 2-star review with no middle ground — suggests potential business practice changes or inconsistent service delivery
• Review 1 is generic praise with no specific examples of work performed
• Pricing concern in Review 2 is specific and actionable (tax not included in quote) — this is a legitimate red flag for transparency

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2 is below the minimum threshold of 3). The two reviews are contradictory, separated by years, and each dimension is supported by only one mention. Any score derived would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

Both reviews describe severe failures across all dimensions. Review 1 documents aggressive sales tactics targeting an elderly customer, fraudulent loan paperwork, incomplete AC installation requiring multiple callbacks, and hostile management response. Review 2 describes a critical diagnostic error (cutting the wrong water line), lack of follow-up, and complete non-responsiveness to refund requests totaling over $2,100 in damages. With only 2 reviews and both uniformly catastrophic, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated. The pattern suggests systemic operational and ethical failures.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed — insufficient data for reliable WW Score calculation per Rule 4 (minimum 3 reviews required)
• Both reviews are recent (2024) and describe severe, specific failures with documented evidence (loan paperwork fraud, water line damage, repair invoices)
• No signs of fake reviews detected — both contain detailed, credible narratives with specific dates, dollar amounts, and technical details
• Pattern of non-responsiveness and poor management escalation appears in both reviews
• Review 1 alleges fraudulent loan paperwork and verbal abuse; Review 2 alleges technical negligence and complete non-responsiveness despite multiple contact attempts

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2). However, the two reviews present consistent, detailed allegations of serious professional failures, fraud, and non-responsiveness that warrant extreme caution. Any engagement with this contractor should be considered high-risk based on available evidence.

With only two reviews spanning five years apart, meaningful scoring is extremely limited. The 2015 review describes a highly responsive and professional experience — same-day diagnosis and repair of a garage roof leak — suggesting solid professionalism and competence at that time. However, the 2020 review raises a serious concern: the contractor appears to be unreachable, with no website, no email response, and a voicemail-only phone line, which significantly drags down professionalism and project completion confidence. No pricing information was mentioned in either review, making that dimension entirely unscoreable. The gap between reviews and the apparent unresponsiveness in the most recent review are major red flags.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules.
• Most recent review (2020) suggests the contractor may be out of business or no longer actively operating — phone goes to voicemail, no website, no email response.
• The positive review is from 2015, making it over 9 years old and carrying very low recency weight.
• No pricing data available in any review — Pricing dimension is entirely unscored.
• With only 2 reviews, all dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence and should not be treated as representative of consistent performance.

This score report is highly unreliable due to an insufficient number of reviews (only 2), a large time gap between them, and strong indicators that the contractor may no longer be in business as of 2020.

Neither of the two reviews provided contains any usable data about contractor or plumber service quality. Both reviews are entirely about internal employment and HR matters — one praising the owner's generosity toward employees, and one describing a deeply negative employment experience involving a termination. Neither review mentions professionalism toward customers, pricing, project completion, or technical workmanship. As a result, no dimension scores can be calculated and no WW Score can be produced.

• CRITICAL: Both reviews are employee reviews, not customer reviews. They describe internal company employment experiences and contain zero information about contractor service quality.
• These reviews are not suitable inputs for the WW Score Engine, which is designed to evaluate contractor performance from a customer perspective.
• With only 2 reviews total, the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a reliable WW Score is not met regardless of content.
• The two reviews present a stark contradiction in sentiment (5-star vs 1-star) about the same company, but since neither is a customer review, this conflict cannot be resolved or scored.
• Potential data integrity issue: reviews sourced for this contractor may be pulling from an employee review platform rather than a customer review platform. Verify the data source before proceeding.

This WW Score report cannot be trusted or used for any contractor evaluation purpose, as the input reviews contain no customer-facing service data whatsoever and fall below the minimum review threshold.

Both available reviews are 1-star and describe serious failures across every dimension. Professionalism scores near zero because both reviewers explicitly state the company refused to respond to complaints and ignored repeated phone calls. Project completion is catastrophically low — one reviewer describes a failed inspection with no follow-up, and the other describes a crooked, water-infiltrating repair that was never remediated. Experience scores are similarly devastated, with one reviewer explicitly calling the workmanship a 'hack job' with 'very little skill,' and the other describing a visibly poor repair that allows water into the wall. Pricing received a marginally higher score only because one reviewer noted the company 'charges professional prices' despite subprofessional work, which is still a negative indicator. With only 2 reviews, no reliable WW Score can be calculated, but all available signals are strongly negative.

• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW COUNT: Only 2 reviews were provided. A minimum of 3 is required for a reliable WW Score calculation. All dimension scores should be treated as highly preliminary.
• RECENCY WARNING: The most recent review is from June 2022, which is over 2 years old. The older review is from January 2020. Neither falls within the past 12 months, meaning current performance cannot be assessed.
• SERIOUS SAFETY CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly describes dangerous conditions left in their home, including water leaking from a tub and a failed inspection that was never remediated. This is a significant red flag beyond typical poor workmanship.
• UNRESPONSIVENESS PATTERN: Both reviewers independently report that the company refused to respond to complaints or return calls after the work was completed. This is a consistent and serious pattern across both available reviews.
• NO POSITIVE REVIEWS PRESENT: There are zero positive reviews in this dataset. While this may reflect a selection bias in the data provided, all available evidence is uniformly negative.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both of which are over 2 years old, making it insufficient for a statistically reliable WW Score — however, the consistency and severity of complaints across both reviews strongly suggests significant risk in hiring this contractor.