Find Nearby Plumbers In South Bend, Indiana

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. The single review provided contains only generic praise ('They are good') with no specific evidence addressing any of the four scoring dimensions. No details about professionalism, pricing, project completion, or experience are mentioned.

• Only 1 review available; minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is suspiciously vague and generic with no specifics or details
• Review is from 2012 (12+ years old); recency is severely compromised
• No actionable information provided to assess any dimension

This score cannot be calculated or trusted; the single review lacks sufficient detail and is too old to provide meaningful assessment of contractor quality.

Only one review is available, making any scoring highly tentative. The single reviewer praises Ryan's honesty, dependability, and personable demeanor, supporting a moderately high professionalism score. On the experience dimension, Ryan demonstrated meaningful technical skill by identifying an incorrectly vented water heater releasing CO² — a potentially life-saving discovery — which justifies a solid but conservatively scored experience rating. Project completion is noted as in-progress at the time of the review (the correction and new water heater installation had not yet been completed), so that score is held conservative. Pricing was not mentioned at all and receives no score.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Project completion was not fully confirmed at time of review — the corrective work was scheduled but not yet done, which introduces uncertainty into that dimension.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — that dimension carries no data.
• Single review from December 2023 — recency is acceptable but sample size is far too small to draw reliable conclusions.

This score report is based on a single review and should be considered highly unreliable — far more reviews are needed before any dimension score or overall WW Score can be trusted.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. The single review praises quick response and friendly demeanor (professionalism) but severely criticizes pricing practices, alleging a $1,700 unnecessary replacement when a $450 valve repair was the actual solution. Technical competence is questioned given the misdiagnosis or overselling of services. The reviewer explicitly warns others to seek second opinions due to potential overcharging.

• CRITICAL: Only 1 review provided — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring
• Serious allegation of overcharging and unnecessary upselling ($1,700 vs. $450 actual cost)
• Potential diagnostic error or intentional overselling of replacement over repair
• Review is 8+ years old (May 2016) — recency is a concern for current assessment
• No opportunity to verify contractor's response or current practices

This score cannot be calculated reliably with only 1 review. The single data point suggests significant pricing and diagnostic concerns, but a single negative review from 2016 is insufficient to establish a trustworthy overall assessment of current contractor performance.

Only a single review is available, dated July 2017, making this analysis highly limited in reliability. The reviewer noted prompt responsiveness, on-time arrival, timely job completion, satisfactory workmanship, and clean cleanup — all positive indicators across professionalism, project completion, and experience. Pricing was not mentioned at all and cannot be scored. Scores have been kept conservative given the single-review basis and the age of the review (over 7 years old), which significantly reduces its relevance to current performance.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is dated July 2017, which is over 7 years old. This data is significantly outdated and may not reflect current contractor performance.
• Pricing dimension has no data whatsoever and was excluded from scoring.
• With only one review, no pattern analysis for fake review detection is possible.

This score should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — it is based on a single, heavily outdated review with no pricing data and insufficient volume to draw meaningful conclusions.

The single available review is a severe 1-star complaint describing non-completion of paid work ($7,600 accepted), poor workmanship quality, and outright fraud allegations. Project completion received a score of 0 as the reviewer explicitly states the work was not finished despite full payment. All other dimensions were scored near the floor based on the reviewer's characterization of the contractor as a fraud producing horrible work. Because only one review exists, no WW Score can be reliably calculated, but every scored dimension reflects serious concern.

• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW COUNT: Only 1 review analyzed. A minimum of 3 reviews is required for a reliable WW Score.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: Reviewer explicitly accuses the contractor of fraud and accepting $7,600 without completing the work.
• WORKMANSHIP COMPLAINT: Reviewer describes the quality of work as 'horrible,' indicating potential skill or effort deficiencies.
• HIGH FINANCIAL RISK INDICATOR: The combination of full payment accepted and work not completed is a strong red flag for prospective customers.
• SINGLE-REVIEW LIMITATION: All dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence and should not be treated as representative of overall contractor performance without additional reviews.

This score report is based on a single review and cannot be considered statistically reliable; however, the severity of the allegations — including fraud, non-completion of paid work, and poor workmanship — warrants serious caution for any prospective customer.

The single review available is a 1-star complaint describing multiple serious failures across all dimensions. The reviewer reports unresolved plumbing issues including a leaking sink, no hot water, and no water pressure in the shower after work was completed. Communication was described as dismissive and unprofessional, with the office contact (identified as the owner's wife) refusing to prioritize customer callbacks. The contractor also charged the customer again to return and address problems stemming from their original work, raising a significant pricing fairness concern. With only one review available, no reliable WW Score can be calculated, but all indicators from this single data point are strongly negative.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• This review is dated December 2018, making it over 5 years old. Recency weighting is very low and current performance cannot be assessed.
• All four scoring dimensions were negatively impacted by this single review. Scores should be treated as directional only, not definitive.
• No positive or neutral reviews exist to balance this assessment. The contractor's true performance profile is unknown.

This score report is based on a single review from 2018 and should not be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's overall quality or current performance.