Find Nearby Plumbers In Columbus, Georgia

Both reviews speak positively across multiple dimensions, citing Reuben's knowledge, quality of work, fair pricing, and follow-through on diverse projects including painting, custom builds, and full remodels. Professionalism is supported by mentions of courtesy, communication about cost-saving options, and post-job cleanup. Pricing is explicitly called fair in both reviews, with one reviewer noting they did not feel overcharged. Project completion is implied through descriptions of fully delivered, multi-scope jobs. However, with only two reviews, all scores carry very limited confidence and should be treated as preliminary indicators only.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules requiring a minimum of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback, which is statistically common in small review sets but warrants caution.
• No negative or neutral signals present across either review — scores are conservatively set below 90 to reflect this uncertainty.
• Review dates span approximately 5 months (April 2024 to September 2024), both within the past 12 months, which is a positive recency signal but the sample size remains too small to draw firm conclusions.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and should be considered highly preliminary — significantly more reviews are needed before any dimension score or overall assessment can be trusted with reasonable confidence.

Both reviews describe severe failures across all dimensions: non-completion of paid work (shed and roof projects abandoned), complete communication breakdown and blocking of contact, alleged theft of services resulting in felony warrant, and dangerous workmanship (damaged barn roof endangering animals). The contractor allegedly took $3,000 and $1,500+ in cash respectively without delivering services. However, with only 2 reviews total, a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated per protocol. The evidence of misconduct is explicit and consistent across both reviews, but sample size is critically insufficient.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation
• SEVERE ALLEGATIONS: Both reviews allege theft, fraud, and abandonment of work. First review mentions active felony warrant for theft of services and fugitive status across multiple states
• PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT: Consistent allegations of non-completion, communication avoidance/blocking, cash payment without delivery, and poor workmanship across both reviews suggest systemic issues rather than isolated incidents
• REVIEW RECENCY: First review from Feb 2023 (approximately 2 years old); second review from Feb 2022 (approximately 3 years old). Both outside 12-month window, but allegations suggest ongoing pattern
• LEGAL INVOLVEMENT: First review explicitly mentions police involvement and felony warrant — this is not a customer service complaint but a criminal matter

Insufficient data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably with only 2 reviews. However, the explicit allegations of theft, fraud, non-completion, and criminal charges warrant extreme caution; this contractor should not be engaged without independent verification of current legal status and business legitimacy.

This single review paints a severely negative picture across nearly every dimension assessed. The contractor confirmed a duct work installation error in a new home and then failed to follow through on repairs for nearly two months, leaving a family with a newborn in dangerous heat conditions. Professionalism was critically poor — the company failed to return multiple calls, had someone on call but did not respond to an emergency, and most damningly, reached out not to resolve the issue but to request removal of the negative review. Project completion scores near zero given that a confirmed installation defect was acknowledged but never remediated. Experience scores marginally above zero only because the technicians who visited were able to diagnose the problem, but the original faulty duct work installation reflects poor workmanship. Pricing data was entirely absent from this review.

• Only 1 review is present — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The contractor allegedly contacted the reviewer to request removal of the negative review rather than to address the underlying complaint — this is a serious ethical and professionalism red flag.
• No pricing information was mentioned in any review, so the Pricing dimension cannot be scored.
• All scores are based on a single review and carry LIMITED confidence only — treat all dimension scores with extreme caution.
• Review is dated 2020-09-27, which is more than 1 year old. No recent reviews are available to assess whether performance has improved.

This WW Score report is based on a single, highly detailed negative review from 2020 and should be considered unreliable as a comprehensive assessment — far more reviews across a broader time range would be required to draw confident conclusions about this contractor's overall performance.

This single review paints a deeply negative picture across all four dimensions. The contractor failed to resolve the original problem — a clogged drain — despite charging $663, indicating poor project completion and questionable technical competence. Unnecessary work was performed, including cutting into a cleanout that later required a $105 return visit to re-install a plug that, per the reviewer, does not come loose on its own. This suggests either incompetence or deliberate upselling, raising serious concerns about both experience and pricing transparency. All scores are heavily penalized and treated with LIMITED confidence given only one review is available.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Reviewer alleges unnecessary work was performed, which may indicate upselling or poor diagnostic ability.
• A return visit was required to fix a problem likely caused by the original service call, suggesting the contractor created an additional issue.
• Review is dated 2022-11-24 — this is older than 12 months from a typical 2024/2025 evaluation date; recency weight is reduced.
• All dimension scores are conservative due to single-review basis and severity of the complaint.

This score is based on a single 1-star review and should be considered highly unreliable as a general assessment of this contractor — far more reviews are needed before any confident conclusion can be drawn.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. The single review explicitly mentions poor professionalism (refused callback) and incomplete project follow-through (no callback for subsequent service request). However, a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single review. Pricing and experience dimensions are not mentioned. The review is dated October 2021 (over 3 years old), which limits its relevance to current performance.

• Only 1 review provided — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring
• Review is from October 2021 — over 3 years old and outside the preferred 12-month recency window
• Customer reports 14-year history with company but this single negative experience; context suggests possible isolated incident rather than systemic pattern
• Allegation of being 'blackballed' is subjective; no independent verification of company's stated reason for non-response

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score. A minimum of 3 reviews is required; only 1 was provided. Any scoring would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

This single review paints a severely negative picture of Bunn Home Improvement across the dimensions that can be assessed. On professionalism, the contractor failed to honor a rescheduled appointment, went completely silent, and ignored multiple texts and calls — behavior that warrants a near-zero score. On project completion, the job was never started at all; the contractor simply did not show up and abandoned the customer without any communication. Pricing and experience cannot be evaluated as the reviewer never reached the stage where work was performed or costs were discussed. With only one review available, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The sole review is dated January 2021, making it over 3 years old. No recent reviews are available to assess current performance.
• The contractor's behavior described — no-show after rescheduling and complete non-responsiveness — is a serious red flag for reliability and professionalism.
• Pricing and experience dimensions have NO DATA and were excluded from scoring entirely.

This score report is based on a single 1-star review from 2021 and should be considered highly unreliable as a representation of overall contractor quality — far more reviews are needed before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn.