Find Nearby Plumbers In New Orleans, Louisiana

This single review is severely negative across nearly every dimension. The reviewer alleges theft of $2,000 worth of belongings, poor quality workmanship resulting in a leaking repair and a still-wobbling toilet requiring a $600 follow-up fix, and describes the contractor as taking far longer than expected. Professionalism scores near zero due to the alleged theft and dishonest conduct. Project completion and experience scores are also extremely low, as the work failed within months and required paid remediation by another contractor. Because only one review exists, no WW Score can be reliably calculated, but the signals present are deeply alarming.

• CRITICAL: Only 1 review exists — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATION: Reviewer explicitly accuses contractor Thomas Cox of All Wayze Plumbing of theft ($2,000 in belongings). This is a criminal allegation and should be treated with significant weight pending corroboration.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURE: Completed work failed within approximately 8 months, requiring $600 in repairs by a third party — a direct indicator of poor quality.
• REVIEWER REFERENCES CRIMINAL RECORDS: The reviewer mentions pre-existing criminal records for this contractor, which if verifiable would be a major red flag for hiring.
• SINGLE REVIEW WARNING: With only 1 review, all dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence and should not be treated as statistically representative of overall contractor performance.

This score report is based on a single 1-star review and cannot be considered statistically reliable; however, the severity and specificity of the allegations — including theft, workmanship failure, and references to criminal history — make this review a serious warning signal that warrants extreme caution.

This single review from February 2023 describes severe failures across professionalism, pricing, and project completion. The contractor demanded excessive upfront deposits, remained unresponsive to phone calls, and failed to complete a commercial water line and sprinkler system project over several months. No information about technical skill or workmanship quality was provided. With only one review and limited data points, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated.

• Insufficient review volume (n=1) — cannot calculate WW Score reliably per Step 4 guidelines
• Review is over 1 year old (February 2023) — recency is limited
• No data on experience/technical skill dimension
• Single negative review does not establish a pattern but indicates serious operational issues

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (minimum 3 reviews required). The single review provided documents serious concerns but cannot be generalized to overall contractor performance.

Only a single review was available for analysis, and the reviewer explicitly stated they were unable to rate NuDrain due to never receiving service. The sole data point relates to a delayed callback — the contractor did not respond until Monday, which the reviewer found unacceptably slow. No work was performed, so project completion, experience, and pricing cannot be assessed at all. The professionalism score is conservatively low based solely on the communication delay noted.

• Only 1 review available — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• The reviewer explicitly declined to rate the contractor, meaning even the available data is of very limited evaluative value.
• No dimensions other than professionalism had any usable data — three of four dimensions return null scores.
• The single mention of professionalism relates to a negative experience (delayed response), but the reviewer's stated inability to rate the contractor introduces ambiguity.

This WW Score cannot be calculated or trusted in any meaningful way — only one review exists and the reviewer themselves declined to rate the contractor, leaving nearly all scoring dimensions completely empty.

This single review provides explicit positive evidence across all four dimensions: Julio demonstrated strong professionalism through punctuality, clear communication, and protective work practices; pricing was described as fair; the project was completed thoroughly with excellent texture matching and cleanliness; and his craftsmanship was praised as top-flight. However, with only one review, confidence in these scores is severely limited and cannot support a reliable overall WW Score calculation.

• Insufficient data — only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• Review is from 2022 (over 2 years old). Recency is a concern for current reliability assessment.
• Single positive review with no counterbalancing negative feedback provides no basis for confidence in scoring.

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

This single review addresses only professionalism, specifically communication and responsiveness. The reviewer explicitly criticizes the contractor's inability to answer phones, failure to return calls promptly, and poor office management. No work was completed, pricing was not discussed, and technical skill was not evaluated. With only one review and no data on three critical dimensions, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated.

• Insufficient review volume: only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• Review is from 2015 (9+ years old). Does not reflect current business practices.
• No actual work was performed per this review—customer abandoned before service delivery.
• Only professionalism dimension has data; three dimensions have zero mentions.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. A single review from 2015 with no information on pricing, project completion, or experience provides an unreliable basis for contractor evaluation.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review provided, which is below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for reliable scoring. Additionally, this review is from 2016 (8+ years old) and describes a retail supply purchase experience rather than a plumbing service/contractor engagement, making it unsuitable for evaluating contractor performance dimensions.

• Review is from September 2016 — significantly outside the 12-month recency window
• Review describes retail fixture/supply purchasing, not plumbing service work or contractor performance
• Only 1 review provided — minimum 3 reviews required for valid WW Score calculation
• No explicit mentions of professionalism, pricing, project completion, or experience in the context of plumbing work

This score cannot be calculated or trusted due to insufficient review volume (1 review, minimum 3 required), extreme age of the review (2016), and misalignment between review content (retail supply purchase) and contractor evaluation criteria.