Find Nearby Plumbers In Panama City, Florida

All three reviews are negative and paint a consistent picture of serious reliability and professionalism failures. Two out of three reviews describe the contractor making initial contact or assessments and then completely failing to follow through — not returning calls, not showing up, and in one case having a full voicemail box on an emergency line. The one pricing mention is a significant complaint, with a reported rate of $300/hour for trivial tasks totaling nearly $400, which the owner defended without concession. Project completion scores are very low because in two of three cases the work was never completed at all, and in the third case a known issue (flapper replacement) was identified but left unaddressed. No reviews provided positive commentary on technical skill or workmanship quality, so experience cannot be scored.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as directional only, not definitive.
• Reviews span from 2013 to 2020 — the most recent review is over 4 years old as of 2025, limiting current relevance.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews are specific, varied in detail, and independently describe distinct incidents.
• A recurring pattern of no-call/no-show behavior is noted across multiple reviews from different years, suggesting a systemic reliability issue rather than isolated incidents.

This score is based on only 3 reviews with no positive data points, making it directionally informative but statistically limited — however, the consistency of complaints across multiple years increases confidence that the low scores reflect genuine patterns of behavior.

All three reviews are strongly negative, describing repeated failures in workmanship across multiple jobs and properties. Project completion is catastrophically poor, with one reviewer noting 6 out of 7 jobs failed almost immediately, and another describing a sewage flood caused by the company's work. Professionalism scores near zero due to reports of unresponsiveness during emergencies and a lack of accountability. Experience is rated extremely low as reviewers explicitly describe incompetent installations that required third-party contractors to repair. Pricing received a marginally higher score only because one reviewer acknowledged affordability, though they immediately qualified this by stating it was ultimately a waste of money given the resulting damage costs.

• Three reviews were posted within a very narrow time window (approximately 90 minutes on 2024-09-05 to 2024-09-06), which may suggest coordinated posting. However, the reviews contain distinct writing styles, specific details, and varied complaints, reducing the likelihood of fabrication.
• All three reviews are 1-star with no positive reviews present in this dataset. This may reflect a selection bias in the reviews provided rather than the contractor's complete review history. The WW Score should be interpreted with caution until a broader review sample is available.
• With only 3 reviews total, the dataset is at the minimum threshold for score calculation. Confidence in the WW Score is limited and should not be treated as a definitive assessment.

This score is based on only 3 reviews posted within a suspiciously short timeframe, all uniformly negative; while the individual details lend some credibility, the extremely small and temporally clustered sample means this WW Score should be treated as a preliminary signal only and not a definitive assessment of the contractor's overall performance.

This contractor presents a deeply contradictory profile that prevents reliable scoring. One detailed 2020 review documents severe professionalism failures including hostile behavior, foul language, discrimination, and problematic payment practices, while five older reviews (2015–2018) contain exclusively positive praise with minimal specificity. The stark contrast between the single detailed negative review and generic positive reviews, combined with suspicious patterns in the positive reviews (vague language, lack of detail, identical 5-star ratings), suggests potential fake review activity. The 2020 complaint is recent and detailed with corroborating witnesses, making it credible, but the older positive reviews lack substantive evidence. Project completion shows mixed signals: some work was completed, but one review explicitly states the contractor refused callbacks to fix faulty work.

• CRITICAL: Suspected fake reviews — five reviews contain generic praise with no specific details (e.g., 'I prefer Tri-State Plumbing' with no context, 'unknown' text, vague statements about daughters' bathrooms). These lack the specificity of genuine reviews.
• SEVERE PROFESSIONALISM CONCERNS: One detailed, dated 2020 review documents hostile behavior, foul language, discrimination, refusal to accept standard payment methods, and pressure tactics. Multiple witnesses corroborate the account.
• REFUSAL TO HONOR CALLBACKS: Explicitly stated in 2020 review — contractor performed faulty work and refused to return to fix it.
• RECENCY BIAS: Positive reviews are 2–5 years old (2015–2018); the most recent substantive review (2020) is highly negative. Older reviews may not reflect current practices.
• PAYMENT PRACTICE RED FLAGS: Contractor demands cash and cashier checks only, avoiding credit cards, PayPal, and Venmo — unusual for legitimate contractors and creates no paper trail.
• DISCRIMINATION ALLEGATION: 2020 review documents discriminatory behavior toward Latino contractors on-site.

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to contradictory evidence and suspected fake reviews. The single detailed, recent, and corroborated negative review raises serious concerns about professionalism and ethics that outweigh generic positive reviews lacking specificity. Extreme caution is warranted; this contractor should not be hired without independent verification and direct reference checks.

Both reviews describe severe service failures. The first review documents complete no-shows across three scheduled appointments with no communication. The second review reports a failed service attempt (unsuccessful jetting) at a significantly marked-up price ($455 vs. $325 quoted). Project completion is the most consistently mentioned failure point across both reviews. Professionalism, pricing transparency, and technical competence are all explicitly criticized. However, with only 2 reviews total, the WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per protocol.

• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — WW Score calculation suppressed per protocol
• Both reviews are negative (1-star ratings) — no positive data to balance assessment
• Oldest review is from 2020 (3+ years old) — limited recency; only one review from past 12 months
• No fake review patterns detected, but extremely limited sample size prevents confidence in any dimension score

This analysis is unreliable for decision-making. Only 2 reviews exist, both catastrophically negative, with one being 3+ years old. A minimum of 5–10 recent reviews is required to produce a trustworthy WW Score.

Only two reviews are available, both of which are over 10 years old, severely limiting the reliability of any scoring. Professionalism received modest positive signals from both reviews, with one describing the contractor as personable and another noting professional-seeming work. Pricing was mentioned once with favorable language including references to military and senior discounts. Project completion received a cautious score because the one review that touched on it explicitly noted the work was still in progress and final results had not yet been seen, which cannot be treated as a completed-job endorsement. No reviewer commented on technical skill, workmanship quality, or problem-solving ability, leaving the Experience dimension entirely unscored.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are from 2013–2015, making them over 10 years old. They carry very low recency weight and may not reflect current quality or business practices.
• One review explicitly states work was not yet complete at time of writing — project completion score has been penalized accordingly and should not be interpreted as a successful job finish.
• Sample size is too small to detect fake review patterns, but both reviews are vague and lack specific job details, which warrants caution.

This score profile should not be trusted for decision-making purposes — it is based on only 2 reviews, both more than a decade old, with incomplete job data and no coverage of the Experience dimension.

Both reviews highlight responsiveness, friendliness, and affordability, with the more detailed 2023 review specifically praising honest diagnostics and fair pricing. Professionalism scores moderately high based on mentions of the owner being friendly, easy to communicate with, and quick to respond. Pricing scores well due to explicit mentions of affordability and honest assessments in both reviews. Experience receives a conservative score as only one review alludes to diagnostic skill and honest assessment, which is thin evidence. Project completion cannot be scored at all, as neither review explicitly addresses whether work was fully completed, delivered on time, or followed through to the end.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• One review is dated 2019 (over 4 years before the other), meaning recency weighting is uneven and the older review may not reflect current service quality.
• Both reviews are 5-star with limited specifics about actual work performed, which limits verifiability. The 2023 review is more detailed and credible; the 2019 review is brief and generic.
• Project completion dimension has zero data — a critical scoring dimension (35% weight) is entirely unscored, which significantly limits score reliability.

This score should be treated as highly unreliable due to the critically low review count of 2, the absence of any data on project completion (the highest-weighted dimension), and the 4-year gap between the only two reviews available.