Find Nearby Plumbers In South Bend, Indiana

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. Review 1 (2020) praises responsiveness, punctuality, and professionalism for a water heater replacement. Review 2 (2019) alleges overpricing on simple repairs with no specifics. The reviews are contradictory and both are older than 12 months. No dimension has sufficient mention count (5+) to establish reliable confidence. A WW Score cannot be calculated responsibly with this limited and conflicting dataset.

• Only 2 reviews total — below minimum threshold for reliable scoring
• Both reviews are older than 12 months (2019–2020); no recent data
• Extreme polarity: 5-star vs 1-star with no middle ground
• Review 2 makes vague accusations ('rip off', 'hundreds of dollars') without specific job details or dates
• Review 1 is generic praise without specific technical details
• Insufficient data to detect patterns or validate authenticity

This score cannot be trusted. With only 2 contradictory reviews from 4+ years ago and no dimension reaching the 5-mention threshold, any calculated score would be unreliable. Collect at least 5–10 recent reviews before drawing conclusions.

With only two reviews, the data is insufficient for a reliable WW Score, but the picture painted is deeply contradictory. Review 1 describes a serious failure: abandoned work, four days of deception, a small claims court judgment against the contractor, and a warning specifically directed at senior citizens. Review 2 is strongly positive, praising quick arrival, effective problem-solving, good communication, and reasonable pricing. The negative review carries significant weight due to its specificity — court records, a named county sheriff complaint, and a licensing concern in Michigan — which are concrete, verifiable claims. The positive review, while credible, cannot offset the severity of the documented misconduct in the negative review. Scores across all dimensions are pulled sharply downward by the 1-star review's explicit and serious allegations.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review 1 alleges a small claims court judgment was won against this contractor — a serious legal red flag that warrants significant caution.
• Review 1 raises a potential licensing compliance issue: contractor reportedly holds a plumber's license in Indiana but no verifiable license was found in Michigan, where the work was performed.
• Review 1 explicitly warns senior citizens to beware of this company, suggesting possible vulnerability targeting.
• A formal complaint was filed with the Berrien County Sheriff's Department, though the prosecutor declined to pursue criminal charges.
• The two reviews are from 2019 and 2020 — both are over 4 years old. No recent reviews are available, making it impossible to assess current performance.
• The stark contrast between a 1-star and 5-star review with no middle-ground data makes scoring highly unreliable and should be treated with extreme caution.

This score report has very low reliability due to only two reviews, both over four years old, with one containing serious and specific legal allegations against the contractor that cannot be dismissed.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score. The reviews are sharply contradictory: one 1-star review details severe professionalism failures (poor cleanup, blame-shifting, lack of responsibility) and incomplete project work, while the other 5-star review praises professionalism and efficiency. With such extreme polarization and minimal sample size, no reliable overall score can be computed.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews provided — insufficient for reliable WW Score calculation (minimum 3 required)
• EXTREME POLARIZATION: Reviews are contradictory (1-star vs 5-star) with no middle ground, suggesting either highly variable service quality or potential review authenticity concerns
• RECENCY: Both reviews are from September 2024 (recent), so recency is not a concern
• PROFESSIONALISM CONFLICT: One review explicitly criticizes unprofessionalism and blame-shifting; the other praises professionalism — these cannot both be accurate descriptions of the same contractor without significant context variation
• PROJECT COMPLETION: Only mentioned in the negative review; cleanup and water damage issues suggest incomplete/poor work, but only 1 mention limits confidence

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required) and extreme contradictory ratings that suggest either highly inconsistent service delivery or potential data quality issues. Do not rely on any score calculation at this time; additional reviews are essential.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. The reviews present contradictory evidence: one praises speed and detailed work, while the other criticizes poor communication, sarcasm, and failure to honor warranty/callback obligations. The negative review is significantly older (2009) than the positive one (2014), limiting recency relevance. No pricing information was explicitly mentioned in either review.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• EXTREME RECENCY DISPARITY: Negative review is from 2009 (15+ years old); positive review from 2014 (10+ years old). Both are well outside the preferred 12-month window.
• CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE: One review praises work quality and speed; the other reports failed repair and poor communication. Cannot reconcile without additional data.
• CALLBACK ISSUE FLAGGED: Review 2 explicitly states contractor refused to return for warranty work without additional charges—serious project completion concern.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2). Any scoring would be speculative and should not be used for decision-making. Additional recent reviews are essential before drawing conclusions about this contractor's performance.

Both reviews speak positively about timely service and friendly attitude, supporting a reasonable professionalism score. Pricing is mentioned explicitly in one review as fair, with a bonus service provided at no extra charge, which is a strong positive signal but comes from only one reviewer. Project completion is supported by both reviews indicating the work was done on schedule and satisfactorily. Experience is only lightly touched upon, with one review noting effective line cleaning, but no deep technical detail is provided across either review.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are dated between 2015 and 2017, meaning all data is more than 7 years old. Recency weighting is a significant concern — current performance may differ substantially.
• Sample size is too small to detect fake review patterns, but no obvious red flags of fabrication were observed in the limited data available.

This score should be treated with very low confidence due to only 2 reviews being available, both of which are over 7 years old, making it insufficient to draw reliable conclusions about current contractor performance.

Only two reviews are available, making any scoring highly unreliable. Professionalism receives a mixed signal: one review offers a brief but positive endorsement ('Very Professional!!!') while the other implies a failure to resolve or follow through on a water heater odor issue. Project completion and experience scores are heavily penalized by the 2-star review describing a persistent bad smell from the water heater that was never resolved, suggesting the work either was not completed properly or the underlying problem was misdiagnosed. No pricing information was mentioned in either review.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The 5-star review ('Very Professional!!!') contains no specific detail, which is a pattern associated with low-quality or potentially fake reviews. Confidence in that review is reduced.
• The 2-star review describes an unresolved water heater issue producing a bad smell, suggesting a possible workmanship or diagnostic failure.
• Review dates span from February 2022 to July 2023 — the most recent review (July 2023) is the negative one, which may indicate a decline in service quality, but sample size is too small to confirm any trend.

This score report is highly unreliable due to an extremely small sample size of only 2 reviews, one of which lacks any substantive detail; no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's overall quality should be drawn from this data alone.