Find Nearby Plumbers In Port St. Lucie, Florida

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed, both from 2010–2012 (12+ years old). Review 1 mentions fair pricing and good work completion. Review 2 mentions responsiveness and competence. No explicit detail on punctuality, communication quality, project timeliness, or workmanship specifics. Age of reviews severely limits reliability of any scoring.

• CRITICAL: Both reviews are extremely old (2010 and 2012). No recent data available to assess current performance.
• Insufficient review volume (n=2) to calculate WW Score reliably per Step 4 threshold.
• Reviews lack specific detail about dimensions — generic praise without concrete examples.
• No mention of project completion timeliness, callbacks, or follow-through.
• Cannot assess pricing fairly with only 1 mention across 2 reviews.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (fewer than 3 usable reviews) and extreme age of all available data (12+ years). Any scoring would be speculative and should not be trusted for decision-making.

With only two reviews — one strongly negative and one strongly positive — this contractor's profile is deeply polarized and no reliable pattern can be established. The negative review (2017) describes a technician consulting a phone forum mid-job, a faucet left unrepaired, and zero follow-up communication over two weeks, raising serious concerns about technical competence and project follow-through. The positive review (2016) praises fast response, complete repair, fair pricing of $225, and professional demeanor. Because the total review count falls below the minimum threshold of 3, a formal WW Score cannot be calculated. Both reviews are also over seven years old, significantly limiting their relevance to current performance.

• INSUFFICIENT REVIEWS: Only 2 reviews provided. A minimum of 3 is required for a reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY WARNING: Both reviews are from 2016–2017, making them over 7 years old. They may not reflect the contractor's current quality or practices.
• CONTRADICTORY SIGNALS: The two reviews are diametrically opposed in quality assessment, making any aggregate score highly unreliable.
• TECHNICAL COMPETENCE CONCERN: The negative review explicitly describes the technician referencing an online forum to diagnose a basic faucet issue and failing to resolve it, which is a meaningful red flag for experience.
• NO FOLLOW-THROUGH: The negative review documents a failure to respond or return after an incomplete repair, which is a serious project completion failure.

This score profile should not be trusted for decision-making purposes — only 2 reviews exist, both are over 7 years old, and they directly contradict each other, making any conclusion about this contractor's current performance speculative at best.

Both reviews speak positively about professionalism, highlighting punctuality, respectful communication, and courteous behavior — including a technician going above and beyond for a disabled customer. Project completion is supported by both reviews, with same-day water heater replacement and successful faucet installation noted. Experience is implied through competent handling of a permit-required water heater job and navigating an older home's plumbing, though neither review goes into deep technical detail. Pricing is entirely unmentioned across both reviews, leaving that dimension with no scoreable data. With only two reviews total, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 2 reviews provided — this is below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• One review is from 2020 (over 4 years old) and should be weighted significantly less than the 2024 review.
• No pricing information was mentioned in either review — the Price Friendly dimension cannot be scored.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings; while the reviews contain specific details and appear genuine, the very small sample size limits any meaningful pattern analysis.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, one of which is over 4 years old, making any conclusions about this contractor's current performance highly unreliable and insufficient for a trustworthy WW Score.

The two reviews present a sharply divided picture of this contractor. The 2023 review is a severe indictment across nearly every dimension: the technician abandoned the job mid-service, refused to address the root cause (the toilet), made the problem worse, and was openly disrespectful to the customer. The 2020 review is strongly positive, praising responsiveness, quality of employees, and fair emergency pricing. Because the negative review is more recent and describes concrete, specific failures, it carries greater weight. With only two reviews total, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews provided. A minimum of 3 is required for a reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The positive review is from April 2020, over 4 years old. The negative review is from August 2023 and is significantly more recent. The more recent review is weighted more heavily in dimension scoring.
• SEVERE INCIDENT FLAG: The 2023 review describes a technician who explicitly refused to complete the job, stated he 'did not want to hear my crap,' and left mid-conversation. This represents a serious professionalism and project completion failure.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERN: The 2023 review states the technician's visit actively worsened the problem, with the toilet now overflowing and water coming from the floor after the visit.
• NO FAKE REVIEW CONCERNS DETECTED: Both reviews contain specific, detailed, and distinct language consistent with genuine customer experiences.

This score report is highly unreliable due to the critically small sample size of only 2 reviews spanning a 3-year gap; no meaningful conclusions about current contractor quality should be drawn from this data alone.

Both reviews explicitly praise Kellet & Sons for professionalism (pleasant, efficient, professional, kind, thoughtful), project completion (quick service, completed installations, responsive to issues), and experience (successful problem-solving, skilled work). However, with only 2 reviews total, the sample size is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. No pricing information is mentioned in either review. The reviews are older (2019 and 2021), with no recent data from the past 12 months.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Both reviews are older than 2 years (2019 and 2021). No recent reviews from past 12 months available.
• MISSING PRICING DATA: No reviews mention pricing, value, or cost-related factors. Cannot assess Price Friendly dimension.
• SAMPLE SIZE TOO SMALL: Confidence in all dimensions is LIMITED due to only 2 mentions each. Results should not be used for decision-making.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (only 2 reviews) and lack of recent data. At minimum, 3 reviews are required, and ideally reviews should include recent experiences within the past 12 months.

Both reviews explicitly praise professionalism (punctuality, respectfulness, responsiveness), project completion (work finished quickly and completely), and experience (quality of work described as 'fantastic'). One review mentions fair pricing relative to competitor quotes. However, with only 2 reviews total, all dimensions carry LIMITED confidence. The sample size is too small to produce a reliable WW Score calculation.

• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — cannot calculate WW Score reliably per Step 4 threshold
• One review is from 2021 (3+ years old); only one review from past 12 months
• Both reviews are 5-star with generic praise language ('highly recommended', 'best service'); limited specific technical detail
• No negative feedback or balanced perspective provided

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. With only 2 reviews, all dimensions carry LIMITED confidence. A minimum of 3 reviews is required, and ideally 5+ recent reviews per dimension for trustworthy scoring.