Find Nearby Plumbers In Alexandria, Louisiana

Leon Angel Contractor demonstrates catastrophic failure across nearly all dimensions. All 8 reviews are uniformly negative with 1-star ratings spanning 2016–2024. Professionalism is severely compromised: reviews document intoxication on the job, no-shows, failure to return calls, unresponsiveness to voicemails and texts, and complete disregard for customer property and communication. Project completion is the most damaging dimension—jobs remain unfinished for years, promised callbacks never materialize, and work is abandoned mid-project. Experience/workmanship is poor: flooring installed incorrectly, plumbing redone by licensed professionals, cheap materials used, and structural defects (water intrusion, misaligned doors). Pricing shows evidence of taking payment without service delivery. This contractor is fundamentally unreliable and untrustworthy.

• CRITICAL: All 8 reviews are 1-star ratings with consistent, detailed complaints spanning 8 years (2016–2024). This is not a pattern of isolated incidents but systemic failure.
• Multiple reviews document no-shows, non-responsiveness, and abandonment of projects mid-completion—core business failures.
• Evidence of financial exploitation: Review from 2019 documents taking a $60 check and disappearing; Review from 2020 documents taking a full check for incomplete work.
• One review (2018) includes a detailed update where the customer directly accuses the contractor of lying and calls him a 'LIAR and a CROOK,' suggesting deliberate deception rather than incompetence.
• Reviews span multiple service types (plumbing, remodeling, appliance repair, water heater) with consistent failure across all categories.
• No positive reviews exist in the dataset. No evidence of any satisfied customers.
• Recency note: While oldest reviews are from 2016–2019, the most recent review is from October 2024, indicating ongoing problems with this contractor.

This WW Score of 1.3 is extremely reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 8 detailed, consistent, and corroborated negative reviews spanning 8 years with no contradicting positive feedback. This contractor should not be hired.

Of the 4 reviews provided, 3 contain no usable text whatsoever — two are labeled 'unknown' and one contains only the single letter 'l'. The sole review with any text states only that the customer uses this contractor repeatedly and rates them highly, which is a generic loyalty statement with no specific detail about any scoreable dimension. No information about professionalism, pricing, project completion, or experience can be extracted from this review set. As a result, no dimension scores can be calculated and no WW Score can be reliably produced.

• 3 out of 4 reviews contain no usable text ('unknown' or single character entries) — these reviews provide zero scoreable information.
• All reviews are from 2012–2014, meaning the most recent review is over 10 years old. This data is severely outdated and should not be used to assess current contractor quality.
• The one review with text is entirely generic ('we only use them, we use them all the time') with no specifics — this provides no evidence for any scoring dimension.
• Possible data collection or submission issue — the prevalence of blank/unknown review text suggests these reviews may not have been properly captured or may be placeholder entries.
• Insufficient data: fewer than 3 reviews contain usable content, making a reliable WW Score impossible to calculate.

This score set is entirely unreliable — with only 1 review containing any usable text, all reviews being over a decade old, and zero mentions of any scoreable dimension, no meaningful assessment of this contractor can be made from the available data.

This single review paints a deeply negative picture across nearly every dimension assessed. Professionalism was severely lacking: the contractor missed the first appointment due to illness, caused scheduling confusion on the second attempt, and took three weeks to even inspect the problem. Communication was dishonest or at minimum highly unreliable — the reviewer explicitly states they believe they were lied to, and the warranty company confirmed the contractor had not contacted them as claimed. Project completion was essentially a failure; the job was never finished by this contractor and had to be reassigned to another plumber who resolved it in a single day. Experience is scored marginally above zero only because the contractor did correctly identify the problem during inspection, but his inability to follow through on any subsequent steps reflects poorly on his overall competence and reliability. Pricing data was entirely absent from this review.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• This is a single 1-star review from 2014, making it over 10 years old. Recency weighting is extremely low and this score should not be used to represent current contractor performance.
• No pricing information was mentioned in any review — the Pricing dimension has been scored as null.
• The reviewer explicitly alleges dishonesty and misrepresentation by the contractor regarding communication with the warranty company — this is a serious credibility and ethics flag.
• With only one review, no fake review pattern detection is possible, but the review itself is highly specific and detailed, suggesting it is genuine.

This score is based on a single review from over 10 years ago and should be considered extremely unreliable as a representation of this contractor's current quality or practices.

The single review available is positive and detailed, describing punctual arrival, patience across multiple visits over a year, cleanliness, and helpfulness with decision-making — all pointing to strong professionalism. Project completion scores moderately well given the work was done in deliberate stages at the customer's pace, with the contractor returning reliably each time. Experience is reflected in the reviewer's description of the team as knowledgeable and careful. Pricing was not mentioned at all, leaving that dimension entirely unscored. With only one review from 2008, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated 2008-08-15, making it over 15 years old. This data is significantly outdated and should be weighted very low relative to recent performance.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension has no data.

This score report is based on a single review from 2008 and should not be considered a reliable indicator of current contractor quality or performance.

Only one review was analyzed, which is insufficient for reliable WW Score calculation. The single review praises Chris's professionalism, communication, and helpfulness in providing referrals and information. However, this review does not address pricing, project completion, or technical experience with actual plumbing work. The reviewer explicitly notes this is a supply company, not a contractor performing plumbing services.

• Insufficient review volume (n=1) — cannot calculate WW Score reliably
• Review is from 2019 (5+ years old) — recency is a concern
• This appears to be a supply company review, not a contractor/plumber review — may be out of scope for WW Score analysis
• No data on pricing, project completion, or technical experience

This score cannot be trusted for contractor evaluation purposes due to insufficient review volume (minimum 3 required), review age, and the fact that the business reviewed is a supply company rather than a service contractor.