Find Nearby Plumbers In Portland, Maine

Richard P. Waltz receives overwhelmingly negative reviews across all four scored dimensions, with pricing and project completion being the most consistently criticized areas. Billing practices are the single most-cited complaint: hidden travel time charges, truck fees, mileage fees, and labor billed from the moment technicians leave the office are mentioned in dozens of reviews, with customers frequently reporting final bills two to three times higher than expected. Project completion failures are severe and recurring — multiple reviewers describe paying hundreds or thousands of dollars for work that was never finished, problems that were made worse, technicians who left without resolving the issue, and a near-total failure to honor callbacks or warranties. Professionalism scores are dragged down sharply by the operations manager Dana Collins, who is named repeatedly across years of reviews as rude, dismissive, and combative when customers raise legitimate complaints. A minority of positive reviews — primarily older ones or those involving specific well-regarded technicians like Jay, Justin, Elijah, and Jack — describe prompt, courteous, and competent service, which prevents the scores from reaching zero but does not offset the dominant pattern of negative experiences.

• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A cluster of reviews dated 2022-06-10 and 2024-06-09 contain only a rating with no review text (blank body), which is unusual and may indicate review manipulation or padding. These were excluded from scoring as they contain no usable data.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW-MODERATE: Several older 5-star reviews (2011–2014) contain only generic praise with no specifics ('They are very good,' 'Work was great,' 'Very satisfied') and some are labeled 'unknown.' These may be legacy reviews of questionable authenticity and were weighted conservatively.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The boiler/Viessman review (1-star) appears twice with nearly identical text, dated 2023-06-10 and 2023-04-26. Only one instance was counted in scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of detailed negative reviews are concentrated in 2020–2025, suggesting a significant and sustained decline in service quality over recent years. Positive reviews are disproportionately older (pre-2015). Recent positive reviews exist but are outnumbered roughly 5-to-1 by negative ones in the 2020–2025 window.
• NAMED INDIVIDUAL PATTERN: Operations Manager 'Dana Collins' or 'Dana' is named negatively in at least 8 separate reviews spanning 2017–2025, consistently described as rude, dismissive, and unwilling to resolve billing disputes. This is a systemic leadership issue, not isolated incidents.
• SAFETY CONCERN FLAGGED: At least two reviews describe dangerous outcomes — one involving a gas leak left unresolved for three days after a generator hookup (2024), and another involving a CO hazard from a furnace installation (2021). These represent potential public safety failures beyond ordinary service complaints.

This WW Score of 34.2 is based on a large volume of detailed, specific, multi-year reviews and carries HIGH confidence — the pattern of poor pricing transparency, incomplete work, and unprofessional management is consistent, well-documented, and corroborated across dozens of independent reviewers spanning more than a decade.

CZ Plumbing has a deeply troubled review profile dominated by serious complaints across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most heavily cited concern, with multiple reviews describing the owner screaming at customers, threatening behavior from employees who refused to leave a property until paid, abusive text messages sent to clients, chronic lateness without notice, and failure to show up to scheduled appointments entirely. Pricing is a significant red flag, with multiple reviewers describing surprise bills, no upfront quotes, charges for work not completed, and pressure to purchase overpriced fixtures — one reviewer was quoted $3,100 to reverse work they never wanted done in the first place. Project completion is severely undermined by multiple accounts of unfinished work, abandoned jobs, and refusal to return to complete outstanding tasks. The few positive reviews — all dated 2015–2018 and focused primarily on responsiveness and reasonable pricing — provide modest relief to the experience and professionalism scores but are substantially outweighed by the volume and severity of negative accounts.

• RECENCY WARNING: All positive reviews (3 of 4 five-star or four-star reviews) are dated 2015–2018, making them 6–9 years old. The most recent reviews (2021–2022) are uniformly 1-star with serious allegations.
• PATTERN WARNING: Negative reviews describe a consistent behavioral pattern — no upfront quotes, inflated bills presented only after work is done, refusal to finish jobs, and aggressive/abusive responses when customers complain. This consistency across unrelated reviewers increases credibility of the complaints.
• LEGAL/ETHICAL FLAG: One reviewer alleges the contractor attempted to resell a used water heater as new, which the reviewer states is illegal. Another alleges the contractor took equipment (circulator and relay control) that was not part of the agreed scope of work.
• CONDUCT FLAG: One reviewer received a written message from CZ Plumbing containing profane and insulting language directed at the customer. Another reviewer describes employees refusing to leave private property until payment was made, which may constitute threatening or coercive behavior.
• INCOMPLETE WORK FLAG: At least two separate reviews describe work that was explicitly left unfinished, with the owner refusing to return to complete it after payment was received.
• POSITIVE REVIEW NOTE: The three positive reviews are generic in nature and lack specific job detail, though they are not identical in phrasing. Their age (2016–2018) significantly limits their relevance to current performance.

This WW Score is based on 9 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions, but the score should be treated with caution due to the stark split between older positive reviews and more recent severely negative ones — the trend strongly suggests a deterioration in service quality over time, and the current score likely reflects the contractor's present state of operations more accurately than any averaged figure would suggest.

This contractor's reviews paint a deeply concerning picture dominated by repeated no-call/no-show incidents, chronic cancellations, and near-total communication failures across three of the four reviews. Professionalism scores are severely depressed by multiple reviewers explicitly describing being stood up, strung along for weeks, and receiving no follow-up contact whatsoever. Project completion fares similarly poorly, as the majority of reviewers report that work was never started or completed due to the contractor's failure to show up or follow through. The sole positive review does describe a knowledgeable technician who completed the job properly, which provides a small upward pull on the experience dimension, but this is a single data point against a backdrop of overwhelmingly negative feedback. Pricing was not mentioned in any review and therefore cannot be scored.

• Three of four reviews describe the same pattern of no-call/no-show behavior, suggesting a systemic and ongoing operational failure rather than isolated incidents.
• The one positive review (5-star, dated 2021) is notably generic in tone and stands in stark contrast to the other three reviews. While not definitively fake, it should be treated with caution given the surrounding context.
• Review dates span from 2017 to 2023, indicating this pattern of poor service has persisted for at least six years with no apparent improvement.
• The most recent review (September 2023) explicitly notes the contractor is not BBB-listed and may not hold a valid contractor's license — this is a significant credibility and safety concern.
• Only 4 total reviews are available. While the WW Score has been calculated, the small sample size limits statistical reliability.

This WW Score carries moderate confidence given the small review pool of 4, but the consistency and specificity of the negative feedback across multiple years makes the low score directionally trustworthy — this contractor demonstrates a well-documented pattern of unprofessional behavior.

The overwhelming majority of reviews describe a pattern of serious misconduct: accepting deposits ranging from $135 to $3,925, then ghosting customers, abandoning jobs mid-work, and failing to return calls, texts, or emails. Multiple reviewers explicitly allege that Sean Murphy operates without a valid plumbing license, which directly undermines any claim to professional experience or legitimacy. Only 3 reviews — all dated 2021 or earlier — describe positive experiences with punctuality, communication, and competent work, and these are heavily outweighed by 14 negative reviews spanning 2021 through 2024. The pattern of fraud, no-shows, and financial deception results in near-floor scores across all dimensions, with the small positive signal from early reviews preventing an absolute zero.

• SERIOUS FRAUD ALERT: Multiple reviewers across different dates and contexts allege that Sean Murphy accepted large deposits and then abandoned jobs, ceased all communication, and refused to issue refunds. This is a consistent, multi-year pattern of behavior.
• UNLICENSED CONTRACTOR ALLEGATION: At least one reviewer (2024-08-17) explicitly states that Sean Murphy admitted to having no plumbing license when directly asked. This is a critical legal and safety concern.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: The 3 positive reviews (all from 2021 or earlier) are notably generic in praise and lack the specific detail present in negative reviews. One negative reviewer (2022-03-09) explicitly claims the positive reviews are fabricated, stating 'All his reviews are versions of the same.' The positive reviews may not be authentic.
• VEHICLE AND LICENSE VIOLATIONS: One reviewer (2024-08-17) reports that police ticketed Sean Murphy for an unregistered, uninspected vehicle and a suspended, expired driver's license at the time of a confrontation — suggesting broader issues with legal compliance.
• RECENCY TREND IS SEVERELY NEGATIVE: All reviews from 2022 onward are 1-star. The only positive reviews are from 2021. The trajectory of this business is clearly and consistently downward.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews from 2022-03-08 and 2022-03-09 appear to be near-identical submissions from the same reviewer (Sisters Gourmet Deli), likely posted on different platforms or submitted twice. Only one was counted as a unique data point for mention tallies.
• VULNERABLE VICTIM REPORTED: One reviewer (2024-07-22) describes the contractor allegedly defrauding an elderly, terminally ill man — indicating a willingness to target vulnerable individuals.

This WW Score is highly reliable and based on 17 reviews with strong, specific, and corroborated evidence of systematic fraud, job abandonment, and unlicensed operation — this contractor should not be hired under any circumstances.

All four reviews are overwhelmingly negative, with three 1-star ratings and one 2-star rating. Professionalism is severely compromised across multiple dimensions: poor responsiveness (texts/calls ignored), unprofessional conduct (bringing unauthorized personnel, dismissive attitude toward customer), and lack of communication follow-through. Project completion is problematic with incomplete work, abandoned jobs, and failure to return as promised. Pricing concerns emerge in one review citing $400 for minor work with pressure for additional service. The single mention of experience-related work (furnace service) was performed inadequately, requiring a different contractor to complete the job properly. This contractor demonstrates consistent patterns of unreliability and poor customer service across all reviewed interactions.

• All reviews are negative (3×1-star, 1×2-star) with no positive counterbalance — suggests systemic operational issues rather than isolated incidents
• Multiple reviews cite communication breakdown and non-responsiveness — consistent pattern across different customers and time periods
• Two reviews explicitly mention incomplete work and abandonment (furnace job never completed, dishwasher installation never scheduled)
• Pricing complaint includes vague upselling pressure ($400 for 'quick cleaning and small part replacement' with demand for future winter work)
• Review dates span 2016–2023 (7 years), indicating long-standing problems, not recent deterioration
• One customer notes previous satisfaction ('many years') but can no longer access service — suggests business may be declining or no longer accepting new/returning customers

This score should be treated with extreme caution due to the very small sample size (4 reviews), which falls below the 3-review minimum threshold for reliable calculation. However, the consistency of negative feedback across multiple years and different complaint categories (communication, pricing, completion, professionalism) suggests genuine operational deficiencies rather than random negative outliers. Any engagement with this contractor carries substantial risk based on available evidence.

All three reviews are uniformly positive (5-star ratings) with consistent praise for Eric Flink's professionalism, responsiveness, speed, and technical knowledge. Reviews explicitly mention punctuality, quick service, knowledgeability, and willingness to accommodate busy schedules. One review explicitly addresses pricing as reasonable and good value. However, the sample size of only 3 reviews is insufficient to establish a reliable WW Score. All reviews are positive with no negative feedback or complaints, which limits the ability to assess true performance variance.

• Sample size of only 3 reviews is below the minimum threshold of 5 for reliable scoring
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language; no negative feedback or complaints present to validate claims
• One review dates to 2019 (5+ years old); only one review from past 12 months; recency is limited
• Reviews lack specific detail about pricing (only one mentions it) and project scope varies significantly (boilers, furnace, mixing valve), limiting comparability
• No reviews mention any issues, delays, callbacks, or problems, which is atypical and may indicate selection bias

This assessment should be treated with caution due to insufficient sample size (3 reviews) and lack of negative feedback or variance. A minimum of 5-8 reviews with mixed ratings is needed to produce a trustworthy WW Score.