Find Nearby Plumbers In Malden, Massachusetts

Both available reviews are strongly negative and paint a concerning picture of this contractor across multiple dimensions. The first review describes a failed sewer camera inspection due to lack of proper specialized equipment, resulting in a $203 charge for no completed work. The second review details a serious breakdown in communication and scheduling reliability, where a Sunday emergency appointment was never recorded, the customer was left waiting for hours, and the responding plumber responded dismissively. Professionalism and project completion scores are critically low, reflecting appointment no-shows, dismissive staff behavior, and failure to deliver on promised services. Only two reviews exist, making any score highly provisional and insufficient for a reliable WW Score calculation.

• Only 2 reviews available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are dated 2014 and 2018 respectively — all data is more than 5 years old and may not reflect current business practices.
• Review 2 is detailed and specific, suggesting authenticity, but the small sample size prevents any generalization.
• No positive reviews present — scoring is based entirely on negative feedback, which may reflect selection bias or a genuinely poor service record for this contractor.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both of which are over 5 years old, making it highly unreliable as a current assessment of this contractor's performance — treat all dimension scores as directional indicators only.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a reliable WW Score calculation. Both reviews are severely negative, citing critical failures in professionalism (non-responsiveness to calls and messages), project completion (incomplete work, unresolved warranty issues, failure to return deposits), and experience (poor workmanship on sump pump installation). However, with only 2 data points and both from 2017–2018, the sample size is too small to produce a statistically meaningful score.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Both reviews are from 2017–2018 (5–6 years old). No recent reviews available to assess current business practices.
• SEVERE PATTERN: Both reviews cite identical critical failures — non-responsiveness to calls/messages and failure to complete work or honor commitments. This suggests systemic operational issues.
• NO PRICING DATA: Pricing dimension cannot be scored; no explicit pricing feedback in either review.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required) and age of data (both reviews from 2017–2018). The consistent pattern of non-responsiveness and incomplete work across both reviews is concerning, but a meaningful score cannot be calculated with this limited dataset.

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 is positive and mentions professionalism (cleanup, professional demeanor), reasonable pricing, and timely project completion (hot water restored in hours). However, no technical experience or skill level is explicitly discussed. All dimension scores are based on extremely limited evidence.

• Only 1 review available — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• All dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence due to single-review basis
• Cannot calculate aggregate WW Score with confidence below 3-review threshold

This analysis cannot be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality; a minimum of 3 reviews is required before a WW Score can be calculated.

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 professionalism (fast, efficient, helpful), project completion (work completed, went above and beyond), and experience (quality of furnace and radiator work), but provides no information on pricing. All dimension scores are based on extremely limited evidence.

• Only 1 review available — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2020 (over 4 years old) — recency is a concern
• No pricing information mentioned in any review
• Generic praise language without specific technical details about workmanship

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=1). Do not rely on any dimension scores for decision-making. Collect at least 3 additional recent reviews before attempting to assess this contractor.

Only one review is available, making any scoring highly provisional. Dave demonstrated strong professionalism and honesty by not charging the customer when he was unable to resolve the issue, which is explicitly praised. On pricing, his decision to waive the charge entirely reflects exceptional fairness and transparency. However, project completion scores low because the core job — clearing the clogged drain — was not successfully completed, regardless of the honest handling of the outcome. Experience is scored conservatively, as the reviewer notes Dave spent 45 minutes without resolving the problem, suggesting the issue may have exceeded his technical capability, though no negative characterization was made.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores are based on a single review and carry LIMITED confidence only — treat all scores as highly provisional.
• Review is dated 2022-11-29, which is more than 12 months ago — recency weighting is reduced.
• No pattern of fake reviews detected; review contains specific situational detail and nuanced praise, suggesting authenticity.

This score report is based on a single review from over two years ago and should not be considered a reliable indicator of this contractor's overall quality or consistency.

This single review documents severe failures in professionalism and project completion. The contractor failed to show up repeatedly despite promises, did not respond to multiple communication attempts, left the customer without hot water for 2 weeks and without a kitchen for 1 month, and never delivered or installed critical HVAC units. The customer was forced to hire another contractor to complete the work at additional expense. No information is available regarding pricing fairness or technical experience.

• CRITICAL: Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per Rule 4 (minimum 3 reviews required)
• Review is from October 2018 — over 6 years old; recency is severely limited
• Severe allegations of non-completion, abandonment, and non-responsiveness documented
• Customer explicitly recommends checking BBB complaints, suggesting pattern of issues beyond this single case

This analysis is based on a single review from 2018 and therefore cannot produce a reliable WW Score; however, the documented failures in professionalism and project completion are severe enough to warrant caution and independent verification through BBB records and recent customer references.