Find Nearby Plumbers In Tallahassee, Florida

This single review describes a deeply troubling experience across every scored dimension. The contractor arrived 90 minutes late, used broken equipment that damaged the customer's home, demanded a deposit after agreeing to full payment at job completion, and then abandoned the project entirely for 7 weeks before refusing to issue any refund. Project completion scores at 0 because the job was never finished and the contractor became unreachable. Professionalism and experience scores are near-zero due to the use of faulty tools, deceptive payment practices, and complete disregard for the customer's repeated attempts to make contact. Pricing scores low because the agreed quote became meaningless once the contractor took a deposit and disappeared, effectively defrauding a vulnerable senior citizen.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review describes potential fraud: contractor accepted a deposit exceeding 50% of the total job cost, then abandoned the project and refused to issue a refund.
• Contractor allegedly used broken equipment (clutch saw) that caused property damage and left a burning odor in the customer's home for approximately one week.
• Contractor reportedly stopped answering calls and communicated only via text after abandonment, a pattern consistent with intentional avoidance.
• Review is from July 2022 — over 12 months old. No recent reviews are available to assess whether behavior has changed.
• Vulnerable customer exploitation flagged: reviewer explicitly identifies as a senior citizen on a fixed income, and the contractor allegedly refused a partial refund request of only $100.

This score is based on a single review and must be treated as highly unreliable for statistical purposes; however, the specific and detailed nature of the complaint — including dates, dollar amounts, and named behaviors — lends credibility to the account and warrants serious caution for any prospective customer.

This single review paints a positive picture of Jerry Harrell from Elite Plumbing across all four dimensions. The reviewer explicitly praised his responsiveness, cordial attitude, and honest communication — notably that he did not upsell an unnecessary water heater replacement. He completed three separate tasks (leak repair, shower fixture, outdoor faucet) efficiently and charged a price described as 'really reasonable.' However, with only one review from September 2021, all scores are conservative and carry very limited confidence.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be reliably calculated per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from September 2021, which is more than 1 year old. Recency weighting is reduced.
• Single review cannot be cross-validated for authenticity, though the review contains specific job details and honest nuance (e.g., noting the contractor did NOT upsell), which reduces fake review suspicion.

This score should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — it is based on a single review from over three years ago and falls well below the minimum data threshold required for a meaningful WW Score.

Only a single review is available, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer noted the plumbers who contacted them seemed 'capable, respectful and helpful,' which provides limited signals for professionalism and experience. The reviewer expressed satisfaction with the outcome of a plugged toilet emergency, suggesting the job was completed successfully. However, no pricing information was mentioned at all, and the review describes a referral/dispatch service (Home Advisors) rather than a direct contractor relationship, which adds ambiguity to the data. Scores have been kept conservative given the extremely limited evidence base.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be reliably calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.
• This review appears to describe a referral/dispatch service (Home Advisors) rather than a specific individual contractor, which may mean the review reflects the dispatch experience rather than the plumber's own performance.
• No pricing or cost information mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension has no data.
• All scores carry LIMITED confidence due to single-review data set — treat all dimension scores with significant caution.

This score report is based on a single review and should not be considered a reliable assessment of this contractor's overall quality; at least 3 reviews are required for a meaningful WW Score.

Only a single review exists for this contractor, making any reliable scoring impossible. The sole review does not address the quality of plumbing or contracting work at all — it describes an alleged off-site vehicle incident involving an employee named Eddie Myers, including a disputed claim of fault. This speaks negatively to professionalism and character, which is why a very low professionalism score was assigned. No data exists for pricing, project completion, or experience, so those dimensions cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The single review does not describe any actual contracting or plumbing work — it concerns an alleged vehicle collision involving an employee, making it impossible to assess trade-specific performance.
• No data available for pricing, project completion, or experience dimensions.
• Review is from December 2019 — over 5 years old. No recent reviews exist to assess current performance.

This score report is essentially unusable for decision-making purposes — with only one review that does not address the contractor's actual work quality, and data that is over five years old, no meaningful or trustworthy assessment of this contractor can be made.

This single review describes severe failures across professionalism, pricing, and project completion. The reviewer alleges the contractor (Carl, 'God's Touch') failed to purchase materials despite receiving payment, abandoned the job incomplete, pressured for early payment via CashApp, and violated agreed payment terms. No information about technical skill or workmanship quality is provided. With only one review and no corroborating data, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. WW Score requires minimum 3 reviews for reliability.
• SINGLE NEGATIVE REVIEW: Cannot establish pattern or confidence without additional reviews.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS: Review contains claims of fraud, incomplete work, and payment manipulation. These are critical issues but unverified by additional sources.
• NO EXPERIENCE DATA: Technical skill and workmanship quality not addressed in this review.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score with only one review. At minimum 3 independent reviews are required to establish meaningful confidence in any scoring dimension.

Only a single review is available for analysis, which severely limits the reliability of any scoring. The reviewer explicitly praised the plumber Craig as professional and knowledgeable, and noted the job was completed promptly in an emergency situation. Pricing was not mentioned at all, so that dimension cannot be scored. All scores have been kept conservative given the extremely limited data pool of just one review.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• With a single 5-star review, there is no way to assess consistency of service quality or detect patterns.
• Pricing dimension has zero data and cannot be evaluated.
• Review is relatively recent (October 2023), which is a positive signal, but one data point is insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions.

This score should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — only one review exists, making all dimension scores highly speculative and the WW Score incalculable.