Find Nearby Plumbers In Lafayette, Louisiana

This single review paints a mixed picture across time. The reviewer explicitly praised the contractor's work quality on two occasions in 2017, providing a basis for a modest experience score. However, the 2019 interaction was notably poor: scheduling required multiple phone calls, the contractor failed to show up on the appointed day, provided no advance notice, and then ignored the customer's follow-up attempts. These behaviors directly and severely impact both professionalism and project completion scores. Because only one review exists, no dimension can be scored with meaningful confidence, and the WW Score cannot be reliably calculated.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Recency note: The most recent interaction (April 2019) is the most relevant data point and reflects a significant service failure. The positive 2017 experiences are older and carry reduced weight.
• No pricing information was mentioned in any review — pricing dimension scored as null.
• Experience score is based solely on a brief positive reference to past work quality with no technical detail provided — treat as very low confidence.

This score report is based on a single review and should not be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's overall performance; at minimum 3 reviews are required for a meaningful WW Score.

Only a single review exists for this contractor, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer explicitly praised professionalism and responsiveness, and noted the hot water heater replacement went smoothly, suggesting adequate project completion and workmanship. However, no pricing information was mentioned at all, leaving that dimension entirely unscored. Scores across all dimensions have been kept conservative in line with the very low confidence derived from a single data point. The review is also over three years old, further limiting its reliability as a current indicator of performance.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated October 2021, making it over 3 years old. Performance may not reflect current standards.
• Single review with generic positive language and no granular detail — confidence in all dimension scores is LOW. Scores have been conservatively reduced.
• Pricing dimension has zero data — this dimension was entirely excluded from scoring.

This score should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — it is based on a single, years-old review with no pricing data and insufficient detail to validate any dimension with confidence.

This single review paints a deeply negative picture across multiple dimensions. Professionalism suffered significantly due to poor communication, failure to honor a promised callback if costs exceeded $125, and a dismissive response when the customer raised billing concerns. Pricing received the lowest score, as the customer was charged $276 against an agreed cap of $125, with no prior notification of the overrun and pricing that appeared inconsistent with local market rates. Project completion was marginally better in that the job was eventually finished, but the plumber arrived four days late relative to the original commitment, which represents a serious failure in timeliness and follow-through. Experience could not be assessed as the review contained no commentary on the quality of the actual workmanship itself.

• Only 1 review is available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated October 2014, making it over 10 years old. This data carries very low recency weight and may not reflect current business practices.
• Alleged billing discrepancy: customer was charged for 2 hours of labor and pipe replacement without prior authorization, despite an explicit agreement to call if costs exceeded $125. Tenant corroborated the 1-hour duration claim.
• Business response to billing dispute was dismissive and non-investigative, which compounds the professionalism concern.
• No other reviews are present to corroborate or contradict this account. All scores should be treated with extreme caution.

This WW Score report is based on a single review from 2014 and should not be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's current quality or practices — treat all dimension scores as highly provisional and seek additional recent reviews before making a hiring decision.

This single review paints a deeply negative picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism was severely lacking — the crew left work unfinished, showed up late, and the office stopped returning calls entirely. Pricing was explicitly deceptive, with the customer quoted $130/hour but charged $140–$180/hour, with a nonsensical justification involving truck count. Project completion failed outright: the drain was never moved to the correct location, the job was abandoned 2.5 weeks later, and a bill was handed over before work was finished. Workmanship quality was poor, with the drain placed incorrectly by multiple inches, forcing the customer to alter their new tub to compensate.

• Only 1 review is present — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• This review is dated July 2018, making it over 6 years old. It may not reflect current business practices.
• Review describes explicit billing discrepancies — quoted $130/hour, charged $140–$180/hour — which constitutes a potential consumer protection concern.
• Contractor abandoned the job and ceased communication entirely, which is a serious red flag for project completion and professionalism.
• No positive or neutral reviews are present to provide balance; the entire dataset is a single 1-star complaint.

This score is based on a single review from 2018 and should be treated as highly unreliable — it reflects one customer's experience and cannot be considered representative of the contractor's overall performance.

Only a single review from 2015 is available, making any scoring highly unreliable. The reviewer noted a significant timeline overrun — the job took four times longer than quoted (a week became a month) — which heavily penalizes project completion. Professionalism received a modest score based on the brief positive mention of staff being 'good,' though no specifics around punctuality, communication, or responsiveness were provided. Experience was scored conservatively upward based on mentions of 'good quality plumbing' and 'high end stuff,' but these are vague and undetailed. Pricing was not mentioned at all and cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from April 2015 — nearly a decade old. This data is severely outdated and should not be used to assess current contractor performance.
• Praise language is generic and lacks specifics ('good quality,' 'high end stuff'), reducing confidence in experience score.
• Project completion was notably poor — a 4x timeline overrun was explicitly stated, yet the reviewer still gave 4 stars, suggesting possible leniency bias in the rating.

This WW Score cannot be calculated and should not be trusted for decision-making — it is based on a single, decade-old review with vague language and no pricing data.

Only one review was provided, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review is highly positive, mentioning punctuality, responsiveness, cleanliness, and quality workmanship across multiple projects. However, with only one data point, there is no basis for confidence in any dimension score, and no pricing information was mentioned.

• Insufficient review volume: Only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• No pricing data available: Price Friendly dimension cannot be assessed.
• Single positive review may not represent typical customer experience.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score with only one review; at least 3 independent reviews are required to establish meaningful patterns and confidence levels.