Find Nearby Plumbers In Lafayette, Louisiana

Two of the three reviews contained usable detail; one review had no text. The detailed reviews paint a consistently positive picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism is supported by prompt response times — arriving within 20 minutes in one case and the next day in another — and courteous communication. Pricing is highlighted favorably, with one reviewer explicitly noting the final price matched the quoted price exactly and another calling the contractor 'very reasonable' at $200 for a multi-hour job. Project completion is strong, with a large 150-foot pipe replacement completed in under half a day versus a competitor's estimate of two days. Experience is inferred from the efficient execution of a technically complex sewer line replacement involving a backhoe and crew, though the sample size is very small and all reviews are over 10 years old.

• All reviews are significantly outdated — the most recent is from December 2014, over 10 years ago. Current performance cannot be reliably inferred from this data.
• One review (2014-12-18) contained no text whatsoever and was excluded from dimension scoring.
• Only 2 reviews contained usable data, which is the absolute minimum threshold. All dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence and should be treated with caution.
• Both usable reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback of any kind. While the reviews do contain specific details (reducing fake review risk), the absence of any critical perspective limits the reliability of the scores.

This WW Score should be treated as a very low-confidence historical snapshot only — with just 2 usable reviews, all dimensions scored at LIMITED confidence, and all data more than 10 years old, this score is not a reliable indicator of the contractor's current quality or consistency.

Aucoin's Plumbing shows a strong pattern of fast response times and courteous service, with multiple reviewers praising same-day or sub-hour arrival, which positively drives professionalism and project completion scores. However, two significant negative reviews — one citing a job not completed correctly with a refusal to return without additional charge, and another alleging a price quoted on the phone differing from what was actually charged — meaningfully drag down both the pricing and project completion dimensions. Pricing is a notable weak point, with three of four pricing-related reviews expressing concern about cost or transparency, including one reviewer explicitly calling out a lack of itemized billing. Experience scores are mixed but lean positive, with several reviewers praising knowledgeable and skilled plumbers, offset by one reviewer describing a technically poor approach to a drain clog. The overall picture is a contractor with genuine strengths in responsiveness but real, documented concerns around pricing transparency and job completion reliability.

• Three of the nine reviews are dated 2016–2018, making them over 5 years old. These carry reduced weight given potential changes in staff, pricing, and service quality over time.
• The 2016 review is highly generic ('faithfulness and quality of work') with no specific details, which limits its evidentiary value.
• No suspected coordinated fake review pattern detected, but the older 5-star reviews lack specificity and should be treated with caution.
• One review explicitly alleges price misrepresentation (quoted price vs. charged price), which is a serious transparency concern and was weighted accordingly in the pricing score.
• One review describes a completed job that failed to fix the problem, with the contractor refusing a free callback — this is a significant project completion failure and was factored into that dimension score.

This WW Score is based on 9 reviews spanning 7 years, with moderate overall confidence; the score is reasonably reliable for identifying pricing and completion risks, but a larger sample of recent reviews would be needed to fully trust the professionalism and experience scores.

This contractor has a mixed track record across the reviews analyzed. Professionalism is the most heavily flagged dimension, with one serious complaint about a rude and dismissive owner who failed to honor paid work, dragging the score down significantly despite several positive mentions of pleasant, punctual, and well-presented technicians. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with two reviewers explicitly expressing strong dissatisfaction over what they perceived as excessive flat-rate charges for minimal work, and only one review describing pricing as reasonable. Project completion scores moderately, with most jobs described as finished and responsive, but one credible account of a technician lying about completing a repair undermines confidence. Experience scores reasonably well based on technicians demonstrating problem-solving ability and completing jobs efficiently, though the sample is small and most positive reviews are from 2012–2016.

• Two reviews contain only the word 'unknown' with a 5-star rating and no usable content — these were excluded from scoring as they provide no verifiable information.
• Several reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'OK', 'The response was great and the service was exceptional') with no specific details, which reduces their evidentiary value.
• The majority of reviews (10 out of 12) are dated between 2012 and 2016, making them 7–12+ years old. Only one review is from the past 5 years (2019). This data is significantly outdated and may not reflect current business practices.
• The 2019 review is the most recent and is a serious 1-star complaint alleging fraud, unprofessional owner behavior, and failure to complete paid work — this recency gives it elevated weight under Rule 6.
• No reviews are from the past 12 months, meaning recency-weighted confidence is low across all dimensions.

This WW Score should be treated with caution: the review pool is small, predominantly very old (2012–2016), and the most recent review raises serious concerns about owner conduct and service integrity that cannot be offset by older positive feedback.

Fred's Plumbing and Air Conditioning shows highly polarized performance across three reviews spanning 6 years. Professionalism is severely compromised by documented failures in communication (multiple required callbacks, no advance notice, no follow-up on pricing), poor responsiveness, and unprofessional billing practices. Pricing is a major concern with one customer reporting an $800 invoice for drain cleaning with hourly rates charged during idle time before business hours. Project completion appears adequate when work is performed, with quick turnaround noted in one case. Technical experience is mentioned positively but undermined by the overall service failures. The most recent negative review (2021) carries significant weight and suggests systemic issues.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent detailed review is from December 2021 (2+ years old). Only one review from past 12 months, limiting current reliability assessment.
• EXTREME POLARIZATION: 5-star and 1-star reviews with no middle ground suggests inconsistent service delivery or potential quality control issues.
• BILLING PRACTICES RED FLAG: Detailed complaint about charging $175/hour for idle time before business hours and $800 total invoice without prior customer approval or callback with estimate. This suggests potential predatory billing practices.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple explicit mentions of poor responsiveness, lack of advance notice, customer required to initiate all contact, and failure to follow up on promised callbacks regarding pricing.
• SAMPLE SIZE LIMITATION: Only 3 reviews total severely limits statistical reliability. Scores should be treated as preliminary indicators only.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to very limited sample size (3 reviews), significant age of most data (oldest review from 2017, most detailed negative review from 2021), and extreme polarization between ratings. The score reflects serious documented professionalism and pricing concerns but lacks sufficient recent data to confirm whether issues persist or have been resolved.

The reviews for Pipes and Plugs paint a predominantly negative picture across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is severely damaged by multiple accounts of poor communication, dismissive attitudes, staff with unprofessional appearance, and a complete failure to return calls or escalate complaints to ownership. Pricing is a major concern, with multiple reviewers citing charges far above competitor quotes, billing for incomplete work, and one reviewer paying $2,600 for a problem that should have cost $300. Project completion is the most damaging dimension, with repeated accounts of abandoned work, unfinished jobs, exposed electrical hazards around children, and a plumbing job that required multiple return visits without resolution. Experience scores slightly higher due to a small number of positive reviews praising quality workmanship, but these are outweighed by accounts of incorrect wiring, improper pump installation, and misdiagnosis of plumbing problems.

• Two reviews dated 2007-03-02 appear to describe the same job by the same customer (Kerry and his crew, same dates, same work) and may be duplicate submissions — these were counted separately but treated with caution.
• Two reviews contain no usable text ('unknown' and 'See above') and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• The majority of reviews are older than 10 years (2007–2014), making recency a significant concern. No reviews from the past 12 months are present. Current performance cannot be reliably assessed.
• One 5-star review (2013-06-11) explicitly describes incorrect wiring and overpricing, which is inconsistent with the 5-star rating — this review was scored on its content, not its star rating.
• A pattern of billing disputes, unreturned calls, and unresolved BBB complaints suggests systemic operational failures beyond isolated incidents.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall confidence due to a meaningful number of mentions across all dimensions, but should be treated with caution given that all reviews are more than 9 years old and the score is heavily driven by a consistent pattern of serious negative experiences across multiple independent reviewers.

Ken Guidry Plumbing shows severe deficiencies in professionalism and project completion. The first review documents complete failure to honor commitments, with multiple no-shows and communication breakdown that delayed a project by 2-3 weeks. The second review, while rating 5 stars, contradicts this with complaints about poor responsiveness, delayed callbacks, and numerous workmanship flaws (undersized cuts, obvious defects), though the work ultimately passed inspection. Pricing is noted as competitive, and final outcomes (no leaks, inspection passed) suggest adequate technical capability, but execution and reliability are deeply problematic.

• Extreme contradiction between two reviews: 1-star review documents no-shows and communication failure; 5-star review documents poor responsiveness and multiple workmanship flaws. This suggests inconsistent service quality or possible contextual factors not captured.
• Both reviews are from 2013 (10+ years old). No recent data available to assess current performance or whether issues have been corrected.
• Second review's 5-star rating appears inconsistent with its detailed complaints about responsiveness, workmanship flaws, and quality issues. This may indicate rating inflation or reviewer tolerance for poor service.
• Sample size is critically small (n=2). Scores should be treated as preliminary indicators only.

This WW Score should be treated with extreme caution due to only 2 reviews, both over a decade old, with contradictory patterns and limited mention counts across all dimensions. The score reflects serious professionalism and completion concerns but lacks sufficient recent data to reliably assess current contractor performance.