Find Nearby Plumbers In Baton Rouge, Louisiana

This contractor demonstrates catastrophic failure across all measured dimensions. Every single review reports incomplete work, non-appearance for callbacks, and fraudulent billing practices. Professionalism is severely compromised by unresponsiveness, dishonesty, and lack of licensing/bonding. Pricing is exploitative with inflated charges for minimal or non-existent work. Project completion is consistently abandoned mid-job. Technical competence is dangerously low, evidenced by improper installation techniques (missing cement on joints, non-functional repairs). The pattern of deception—including false insurance claims and use of multiple business names to hide reviews—indicates systematic fraud rather than isolated incidents.

• CRITICAL: All 6 reviews are 1-star ratings with consistent allegations of fraud, incomplete work, and non-appearance for callbacks. This is not a confidence issue but a genuine pattern of severe misconduct.
• LICENSING VIOLATION: Multiple reviews explicitly state the contractor is NOT a licensed plumber and NOT bonded, creating legal liability for customers.
• FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Reviews document false claims to insurance companies, inflated billing, and deliberate use of multiple business names (Affordable Plumbing, Kings Plumbing) to hide negative reviews.
• FINANCIAL EXPLOITATION: Documented cases of overcharging ($2,800, $1,250, $1,000 for trivial work) and non-refundable deposits for incomplete jobs.
• SAFETY HAZARD: Improper installation techniques (missing cement on joints) caused structural damage and drainage failures within weeks.
• LEGAL ACTION: At least one customer reports filing a civil suit; BBB complaints documented.

This score is extremely reliable and should be treated as a definitive warning: this contractor should not be used under any circumstances. The consistency, specificity, and severity of allegations across all reviews, combined with documented licensing violations and fraud patterns, make this assessment highly trustworthy.

This contractor demonstrates severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. All six reviews are uniformly negative, with consistent patterns of incomplete work, non-responsiveness to callbacks, financial misconduct, and broken promises. While one review acknowledges competent workmanship when work is completed, this is vastly outweighed by systematic failures in project completion, professionalism, and pricing integrity. Multiple reviews document abandoned jobs, refusal to honor agreements, and financial exploitation. The contractor cannot be recommended based on available evidence.

• CRITICAL: All 6 reviews are 1-star ratings (5 reviews) or 3-star (1 review) with uniformly severe complaints. This is not a fake review pattern but rather consistent evidence of serious contractor failure.
• All reviews are from 2019 (oldest data: April 2019, most recent: November 2019). No recent reviews available to assess whether behavior has changed.
• Multiple reviews document financial misconduct: non-refunded deposits, mid-job price increases, requests for additional funds with little progress shown, and money allegedly kept without work performed.
• Pattern of excuses, broken promises, and unresponsiveness documented across multiple independent reviews.
• One review mentions suspected substance abuse; another documents property theft and security negligence.
• Insurance fraud suspected: contractor claimed to have filed insurance claim but policy was lapsed and no claim existed.
• Licensing concerns raised: family unable to locate business license.
• Recommendation: DO NOT HIRE. Evidence of systematic fraud and incompetence.

This score is highly reliable but represents a severe contractor failure. All six reviews consistently document serious problems across professionalism, completion, and pricing. However, all reviews are from 2019 with no recent data; if this contractor is still operating, current reviews should be sought to confirm whether patterns persist.

With only 3 reviews, reliable scoring is not possible. However, the data present reveals severe concerns: two 1-star reviews document critical failures in professionalism (rude behavior, hung-up call), project completion (warranty never processed, compressor replacement unresolved after 2 months and 5 visits), and pricing transparency (warranty fee charged for unprocessed warranty). One 5-star review praises responsiveness and reasonable fees, but is heavily outweighed by documented systemic failures including breach of warranty obligations and miscommunication by management.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 reviews analyzed — insufficient for reliable WW Score calculation
• CRITICAL: Two reviews (67%) are 1-star with detailed documentation of serious failures: warranty fraud (warranty fee charged but never processed with manufacturer), failed project completion (2-month unresolved issue, 5 visits, manager commitment not honored), and unprofessional conduct (hung-up call)
• CRITICAL: Review from 2023-08-31 documents potential fraud — warranty processing fee charged but warranty never submitted to manufacturer Rheem as claimed on invoice
• CRITICAL: Systemic accountability issue — manager made commitment to replace compressor under warranty, but follow-up call revealed no record of this commitment
• The single 5-star review (2024-06-01) provides insufficient counterweight to two detailed 1-star reviews documenting specific failures
• No reviews mention technical skill or workmanship quality (Experience dimension)

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume (n=3). However, the pattern of documented failures — particularly warranty fraud and unresolved project completion — suggests serious operational and ethical concerns that warrant extreme caution before engaging this contractor.

This contractor exhibits severe and consistent failures across professionalism and project completion. Two detailed negative reviews from June 2021 describe abandonment of work, blocking customer calls, repeated false promises to return, and alleged financial scams targeting a vulnerable elderly customer. One positive review from August 2022 claims improved service, but this single recent review cannot overcome the weight of two corroborating detailed complaints describing systematic deception and non-completion. The pattern of excuses (sorority emergency, illness, multiple rescheduled dates) and customer blocking suggests intentional avoidance rather than isolated incidents. No technical experience data is available to assess workmanship quality.

• CRITICAL: Two detailed, corroborating negative reviews describe alleged scam behavior including blocking customer phone numbers, taking payment without completing work, and making repeated false promises to return. These are serious allegations with specific dates and witness claims.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The single positive review is from August 2022, while the two detailed negative reviews are from June 2021 (over 1 year old). However, the negative reviews are so specific and corroborating that age does not diminish their credibility.
• PATTERN RECOGNITION: Both negative reviews mention identical details (water/toilet left off, sorority emergency excuse, blocking phone numbers, multiple rescheduled dates), suggesting either genuine repeated behavior or coordinated complaints. Either scenario is highly problematic.
• INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR WW SCORE: With only 3 reviews total and conflicting evidence, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated. The positive review appears isolated against two detailed, corroborating negative accounts.

This score should NOT be trusted for decision-making. The data set is too small (3 reviews) and contains serious, specific allegations of fraud and abandonment that require independent verification before engaging this contractor. The single positive review does not credibly offset two detailed, corroborating complaints describing systematic deception.

With only two reviews, the data is insufficient to produce a reliable WW Score. The two reviews are sharply contradictory: one describes a severely negative experience involving repeated appointment cancellations, being lost in the booking system, and a rude office staff hang-up, while the other praises quick response, honest pricing, and work quality. Professionalism and project completion scores are dragged down heavily by the 1-star review, which details explicit failures in reliability, communication, and follow-through. The single positive review contributes modestly to pricing and experience scores, but with only one mention each, those scores carry very low confidence.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The two reviews are diametrically opposed (1-star vs 5-star), suggesting high variability in customer experience or possible inconsistency in service quality across jobs or time periods.
• Both reviews are from 2021–2022, meaning all data is older than 12 months from a typical 2024–2025 evaluation window. Recency is a concern — current performance may differ significantly.
• The 5-star review uses somewhat generic praise ('went above and beyond', 'super sweet', 'great company') with limited specifics, which warrants mild caution, though it does include some concrete details (explained issues, fixed unknown problems, did not overcharge).
• The 1-star review is highly specific and credible, detailing a multi-day appointment failure, a booking system error, and a staff hang-up — this level of detail increases its reliability as a genuine negative experience.

This score report should not be trusted for decision-making purposes — with only 2 reviews spanning 2021–2022, the data is too sparse and too dated to draw any reliable conclusions about this contractor's current quality or consistency.

Both reviews are positive and speak to Paco's professionalism, friendliness, and technical ability. The second review provides more concrete detail, describing a slab leak diagnosis and repair completed quickly with clear communication, which lends some credibility. The first review mentions favorable pricing compared to competitors, though this is a single data point and somewhat vague. All dimension scores are held conservative due to the very small sample size of only two reviews.

• Only 2 reviews provided — far below the minimum threshold for a reliable WW Score. Results should not be used as a definitive assessment.
• Both reviews are 5-star with generally positive but limited specificity. The first review in particular uses enthusiastic but generic praise ('best of the best', 'top notch', 'impeccable') with no concrete project details, which is a mild fake review risk indicator.
• With only 2 reviews, there is no way to assess consistency of performance over time or across different project types.
• Both reviews are from 2023, so recency is acceptable, but the dataset is too small to draw meaningful conclusions.

This score is highly unreliable due to an insufficient number of reviews (2 total); no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's overall quality should be drawn until significantly more review data is available.