Find Nearby Plumbers In Lafayette, Louisiana

This contractor's review profile is overwhelmingly negative, with 13 of 20 reviews rated 1-star and spanning multiple years. Professionalism is the most-cited dimension and is severely damaged by repeated accounts of no-shows without notice, hanging up on customers including elderly clients, and outright verbal abuse from the owner. Project completion is similarly poor, with multiple reviews describing abandoned jobs, missed appointments, unresolved warranty callbacks, and work left incomplete. Pricing drew significant negative attention, including allegations of bait-and-switch estimates, a disputed 'free estimate' policy, and a charge of $375 for a 10-minute job. Experience scores marginally higher due to a handful of positive reviews praising workmanship, but is undercut by accounts of failed leak detection, improper repairs, and a plumber unable to locate his own cleanouts.

• OWNERSHIP TRANSITION RISK: Multiple reviews reference a change in ownership from 'Dennis' to 'Tim', with a sharp decline in service quality noted after the transition. Scores from the Dennis era may not reflect current operations.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent reviews (2021–2022) are predominantly 1-star and describe the same core failures — no-shows, rude owner, and warranty non-fulfillment — suggesting problems are ongoing and not improving.
• POSSIBLE FAKE POSITIVE REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews are vague, lack specific detail, and use generic praise ('best plumber in the Metroplex', 'amazing'). One reviewer explicitly states 'all of these positive reviews have to be fake.' This warrants reduced confidence in the positive signals.
• PATTERN OF OWNER MISCONDUCT: At least 5 independent reviews describe the owner personally hanging up on customers, using profane language, or making dismissive statements. This is a systemic behavioral pattern, not isolated incidents.
• WARRANTY FRAUD CONCERN: Two separate reviews describe the company advertising lifetime or labor warranties and then refusing to honor them or failing to return calls when warranty work was needed.
• ALL REVIEWS ARE OLDER THAN 12 MONTHS: The most recent review is dated 2022-09-13, meaning no data exists from the past 12 months. Current operational status is unknown.

This WW Score is based on 20 reviews with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically reliable as a reflection of documented customer experiences; however, the presence of suspected fake positive reviews and the age of all reviews (none within the past 12 months) means the score should be treated as a strong historical warning signal rather than a definitive current assessment.

Only 4 reviews exist, of which 2 contain no usable detail ('unknown' and 'Horrible, nightmare.' / 'Horrible.' with no elaboration). One positive review from 2014 describes a plumber who handled an old 1977 toilet hookup competently and completed the job in under an hour, suggesting adequate technical skill and follow-through. However, two 1-star reviews from 2008 — while lacking detail — represent a meaningful negative signal that cannot be ignored. The data is far too sparse and too old to support a reliable score across any dimension.

• Only 4 reviews total — well below the minimum threshold for a reliable WW Score.
• Two reviews ('Horrible, nightmare.' and 'Horrible.') contain no actionable detail, making it impossible to identify what went wrong.
• One review is marked 'unknown' with no text — entirely unusable.
• All reviews are between 8 and 16 years old (2008–2016). None fall within the past 12 months. Recency is extremely poor and this data should not be used to assess current contractor quality.
• The two negative reviews from 2008 share near-identical single-word phrasing, which may suggest low-effort or coordinated negative feedback, but cannot be confirmed either way.
• No mentions of pricing, professionalism, communication, or appearance in any review.

This score is not calculable and should not be trusted — the review pool is critically small, entirely outdated, and lacks the detail needed to assess any dimension with confidence.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 3 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for a reliable WW Score calculation. While all three reviews are highly positive and mention professionalism, project completion, and experience favorably, the sample size is too small to produce a statistically meaningful composite score. Additionally, pricing information is entirely absent from all reviews, preventing assessment of that critical dimension.

• Sample size of only 3 reviews is insufficient for reliable WW Score calculation
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language; no negative feedback or critical details present
• Significant recency gap: one review from 2024, one from 2021, one from 2016; most data is older than 1 year
• No pricing information mentioned in any review; Price Friendly dimension cannot be assessed
• Limited specificity on actual work quality or problem-solving complexity; reviews are largely generic praise

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (3 reviews minimum required). Any score derived from this data would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

With only two reviews spanning a wide date range (2014 and 2018), the data is too thin to draw reliable conclusions. The 2018 review is strongly positive, praising punctuality, professionalism, and skilled leak detection that even a specialist company could not accomplish. However, the 2014 review describes a serious breakdown in communication, repeated delays, arriving with wrong equipment, and ultimately never completing the job — all critical failures in both professionalism and project completion. These two reviews directly contradict each other, resulting in middling scores that reflect genuine uncertainty rather than average performance. Pricing was not mentioned in either review, leaving that dimension entirely unscored.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rule (fewer than 3 reviews).
• The two reviews are nearly 4 years apart (2014 and 2018); the more recent review is itself over 6 years old as of 2024, meaning there is no recent data to assess current performance.
• The negative review (2014) describes what may constitute abandoned work — the contractor never returned or completed the job — which is a serious project completion failure.
• No pricing data available in any review; the pricing dimension cannot be scored.

This score should not be trusted for decision-making purposes — it is based on only 2 reviews, both older than 6 years, with directly conflicting accounts of professionalism and job completion.

With only 2 reviews, reliable scoring is not possible. The reviews are contradictory and separated by nearly 3 years (2015 vs 2018), making trend analysis unreliable. The 2018 review documents severe professionalism failures (non-responsiveness, abandoned follow-up) and project incompletion (no callback, no quote, no service delivered). The 2015 review praises speed and pricing but provides minimal detail. The extreme polarity and small sample size prevent confident WW Score calculation.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• TEMPORAL GAP: Reviews span nearly 3 years (2015–2018) with no recent data. Cannot assess current performance.
• CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE: One 1-star review documents serious professionalism and completion failures; one 5-star review praises service. No middle ground or pattern clarity.
• LIMITED DETAIL: 2015 review lacks specifics on workmanship or technical skill. 2018 review is detailed but highly negative.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent review is 6+ years old (2018). No data on current contractor performance.

This score cannot be reliably calculated or trusted due to insufficient review volume (n=2), extreme polarity, temporal gap, and lack of recent data. At least 3–5 recent reviews are needed to produce a trustworthy WW Score.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. While both reviews are positive and mention professionalism, pricing, project completion, and experience, the sample size is too small to calculate a reliable WW Score. Both reviews are older than 1 year (2019 and 2021), limiting recency. The reviews show consistent praise but lack sufficient volume and recent data to establish trustworthy dimension scores.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 2 reviews provided. Minimum 3 reviews required for WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Both reviews are older than 12 months (2019 and 2021). No recent reviews available to assess current service quality.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Both reviews use similar superlative language ('amazing', 'best', 'perfect work', 'love this company') with generic praise and no specific problem-solving details. However, sample size too small to confirm pattern.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (only 2 reviews) and lack of recent data. At minimum 3 reviews are required, and ideally reviews should include recent activity within the past 12 months.