Find Nearby Plumbers In Attleboro, Massachusetts

Dempsey Oil Inc. receives an extremely low WW Score of 12.8 based on overwhelmingly negative feedback across all four dimensions. All four reviews (100%) rate the company at 1.0 stars and document serious failures in professionalism (rude staff, threats to cancel work orders), pricing (inflated bills, hidden charges, $450 for 10 minutes of work vs. $125 elsewhere), project completion (incomplete repairs causing property damage, failure to respond to emergency calls, abandonment of work), and technical competence (improper installation, inadequate repairs). The consistency and specificity of complaints across independent reviews—combined with documented evidence of billing fraud and poor workmanship—indicates systemic operational failures rather than isolated incidents.

• CRITICAL: All four reviews are 1-star ratings with no positive mentions whatsoever. This is not a fake review pattern but rather a genuine consensus of severe dissatisfaction.
• Multiple reviews document specific billing fraud: $450 charged for 10-minute manual toilet auger work (vs. $125 by warranty company for same work); $9,000 invoice for 'modifications' on reconditioned system vs. $7,800 for new system elsewhere.
• Project completion failures documented: improper tank installation causing bathroom flood and floor replacement; emergency leak response failures (refusal to service past 1pm weekends, delayed response to Saturday emergency).
• Professionalism failures: phone staff yelled at and threatened customer; lack of transparency in billing (asked to sign tablet without showing total); deceptive communication to warranty company.
• Reviews span 2021-2024, indicating persistent problems over multiple years, not isolated incidents.
• Multiple reviews reference American Home Shield warranty assignments, suggesting pattern of poor performance with warranty work specifically.

This WW Score of 12.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on four detailed, specific, and mutually corroborating reviews with documented evidence of fraud, negligence, and poor service. The consistency of negative findings across all dimensions and the specificity of complaints (with dollar amounts, timelines, and comparative pricing) indicate genuine systemic failures rather than outlier experiences.

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 5 reviews were analyzed, with only 3 mentions of professionalism and 2 mentions of project completion. Two reviews are exact duplicates with identical text and dates, suggesting potential data quality issues. No reviews mention pricing or experience/workmanship quality. The oldest review dates to 2018, and most reviews lack specific detail about the work performed.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Reviews 1 and 2 are identical in text and date (2020-05-30). Reviews 3 and 4 are identical in text and date (2020-05-28). This suggests data duplication or potential fake review patterns.
• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW VOLUME: Only 5 total reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required, but confidence is severely limited with this small sample.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are from 2020 or earlier. Only one substantive review (2018-11-24) provides specific project details. No reviews from past 12 months.
• MISSING DIMENSION DATA: No reviews mention pricing or experience/technical quality. Cannot assess value for money or workmanship skill level.
• GENERIC PRAISE: Multiple reviews lack specificity (e.g., 'Great to work with them!' provides no actionable detail).

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (5 total), duplicate reviews suggesting data quality issues, lack of recent feedback, and missing data on critical dimensions like pricing and experience. Any score derived from this dataset would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

Both reviews are recent (within the past 12 months) and speak highly of Paul and his associate Samantha across multiple dimensions. The second review is notably detailed, citing specific technical problem-solving (resolving a water heater issue that three prior plumbers could not), consistent punctuality, strong communication, and patience with customers — all strong indicators of professionalism and experience. The first review confirms clean workmanship, same-day project completion, and affordable pricing. However, with only two reviews total, no reliable WW Score can be calculated, and all dimension scores carry only LIMITED confidence.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All reviews are 5-star; however, the second review contains substantial specific detail which reduces fake review concern. The first review is more generic but not conclusively suspicious.
• Small sample size means scores are highly sensitive to individual reviewer bias — treat all dimension scores as directional only, not definitive.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, which is below the minimum threshold for a reliable WW Score; the dimension scores shown are directionally positive but should not be treated as statistically meaningful until more reviews are available.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. Professionalism is supported by mentions of punctuality, politeness, and friendliness. Pricing shows mixed signals: one review found the service reasonable, while the other felt overpriced at $375 for one hour of work. Project completion is evidenced by timely service delivery and job fulfillment. Experience dimension has no explicit mentions.

• Sample size critically small (n=2) — results are not statistically reliable
• Reviews are dated 2019 and 2020 — both older than 12 months, limiting recency relevance
• Pricing feedback is contradictory across the two reviews, making fair pricing assessment uncertain
• No explicit mention of technical skill, workmanship quality, or problem-solving ability in either review

This analysis cannot be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor performance due to insufficient review volume (minimum 3 required) and age of reviews (both pre-2021). Additional recent reviews are essential before making any business decision.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. The single review mentions fair pricing (85/100) and strong workmanship/attention to detail (90/100), but provides no explicit information about professionalism dimensions (punctuality, communication, responsiveness) or project completion specifics. Long-term satisfaction is implied but not detailed.

• Only 1 review available — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2015 (9+ years old) — recency is a significant concern
• Generic praise language ('top notch', 'fantastic job') without specific project details
• No explicit mention of punctuality, communication, responsiveness, or project timeline adherence

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=1) and extreme age of the single review (2015). Do not rely on this assessment for decision-making.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a reliable WW Score calculation. The single review provides positive feedback on reliability, knowledge, and reasonable pricing, but this limited sample size cannot support a comprehensive assessment.

• Only 1 review available — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2012 (12+ years old) — does not reflect current service quality
• Project completion dimension has no explicit mention in the review

This assessment cannot be trusted as a reliable indicator of current contractor performance due to insufficient review volume and extreme age of the single available review.