Find Nearby Plumbers In Kenner, Louisiana

Both reviews are strongly negative and paint a consistent picture of serious operational failures. The first review describes no-shows, ignored messages, and an abandoned job after collecting $2,898 upfront — a severe project completion and professionalism failure. The second review describes a pricing complaint where nearly $400 was charged for 45 minutes of work that amounted to identifying a non-plumbing issue, which the reviewer characterized as egregious gouging. No reviewer mentioned anything positive about technical skill or workmanship, leaving the Experience dimension entirely unscored. With only two reviews available, the WW Score cannot be calculated reliably, but all available signals are deeply negative.

• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW COUNT: Only 2 reviews were provided. A minimum of 3 is required for a reliable WW Score calculation.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAG: Review 1 describes taking $2,898 upfront and then failing to complete the job, ignoring client communications, and requiring the client to hire a replacement contractor — this is a significant red flag for business integrity.
• PRICING CONCERN: Review 2 explicitly accuses the company of price gouging, charging ~$389 for 45 minutes of work that did not resolve a plumbing issue.
• RECENCY NOTE: Review 1 is from September 2024 (recent). Review 2 is from March 2021 (over 3 years old). The more recent review carries greater weight and still reflects very poor performance.
• NO POSITIVE DATA: Neither review contains any positive commentary on any dimension. All scored dimensions reflect negative experiences only.

This report is based on only 2 reviews, both of which are 1-star complaints; while the negative signals are consistent and credible, the extremely small sample size means this score should be treated as directional only and not fully representative of the contractor's overall performance history.

Insufficient data — only 1 review analyzed. This single review raises serious concerns about oversight, licensing compliance, and pricing transparency, with the final bill exceeding the estimate by 20% and work performed by unlicensed personnel with minimal supervision from the licensed plumber. However, a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single review. Additional reviews are required to establish a trustworthy assessment.

• CRITICAL: Only 1 review provided — insufficient for reliable WW Score calculation (minimum 3 reviews required)
• Review is from 2018 (over 5 years old) — does not reflect current business practices
• Serious compliance concern: Review alleges work performed by unlicensed workers with minimal oversight from licensed plumber
• Pricing concern: Final bill exceeded estimate by 20% with no explanation provided
• No positive dimensions mentioned — cannot assess project completion quality or full scope of work delivered

This assessment cannot be considered reliable due to insufficient review volume (n=1) and age of the single review (2018). A minimum of 3 recent reviews is required to calculate a trustworthy WW Score.

This single review paints a severely negative picture of D.A. Plumbing's professionalism and follow-through. The contractor failed to deliver a promised estimate over the course of a full month, was unresponsive to phone calls and texts for two weeks at a stretch, and only responded after repeated attempts by the customer. The job was never completed — the customer ultimately had to seek another plumber entirely. No information was provided regarding pricing or technical skill, so those dimensions cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review is available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Pricing and Experience dimensions have NO DATA and were excluded from all calculations.
• Both scoreable dimensions (Professionalism and Project Completion) are based on a single negative review — treat all scores with extreme caution.
• No fake review concerns detected — the review is detailed, specific, and includes dates and a clear narrative timeline.

This score is based on a single review from 2021 and should not be considered a reliable representation of D.A. Plumbing's overall performance — far more reviews across multiple dimensions are needed before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn.

This single review paints a positive picture of Quillen Construction across several dimensions. Professionalism is supported by explicit mentions of easy communication, a clean and safe job site, and a responsive team member (Davis) who was readily available. Project completion is evidenced by the job being finished with before-and-after results noted, minor errors corrected promptly, and the reviewer describing it as the smoothest project in a lengthy renovation ordeal. Experience is inferred from the quality of the exterior painting, brick cleaning, and rotten fascia repairs, though no deep technical detail is provided. Pricing was not mentioned at all, leaving that dimension entirely unscored. With only one review, all scores must be treated as highly provisional.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Pricing dimension has zero data points and cannot be scored.
• All scores carry LIMITED confidence due to single-review basis — treat all dimension scores as directional only, not definitive.
• No fake review patterns detected; the review contains specific details (Hurricane Ida context, named team member Davis, Virginia/Louisiana coordination, before-and-after photos reference) that suggest authenticity.

This score report is based on a single review and should be considered highly unreliable for decision-making purposes; at least 3 reviews are required for a meaningful WW Score, and 5 or more are needed for any dimension to reach full confidence.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. The single review mentions punctuality and courtesy (professionalism) and timely service delivery (project completion), but provides no information on pricing or technical experience. No meaningful scoring can be performed with this limited dataset.

• Only 1 review available — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score
• No pricing information mentioned
• No technical experience or workmanship details provided
• Review is generic with minimal specifics about the actual work performed

This analysis cannot be trusted as a reliable assessment due to insufficient review volume; at least 3 reviews are needed to calculate a valid WW Score.

This single review documents a severe failure across multiple critical dimensions. The contractor accepted $4,300 in payment but failed to deliver appliances, materials, or begin work, and has not refunded the customer for months. This represents catastrophic failure in project completion, pricing integrity, and professionalism. However, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated from a single review, as the scoring methodology requires a minimum of 3 reviews to establish meaningful patterns and confidence levels.

• CRITICAL: Only 1 review analyzed — insufficient data for reliable WW Score calculation per methodology
• SEVERE: Review documents apparent fraud or abandonment — payment accepted without service delivery or refund
• RECENCY: Review is from October 2022 (over 1 year old) — does not reflect current business practices
• This appears to be a legitimate complaint with specific details (amount, services, timeline) rather than a fake review

This score cannot be reliably calculated or trusted due to insufficient review volume (n=1). The single review documents serious misconduct, but a WW Score requires minimum 3 reviews to establish statistical validity and account for potential outliers.