Find Nearby Plumbers In Taunton, Massachusetts

This single review from June 2020 (nearly 4 years old) provides positive feedback across all dimensions: the contractor is described as a 'nice guy' with 'very reasonable rates,' 'fast service,' and 'quality work.' However, with only one review and no recent data, no reliable WW Score can be calculated. The review lacks specific technical details about the work performed, making it difficult to assess depth of experience or problem-solving ability with confidence.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review is from June 2020 (approximately 4 years old). No recent data available to assess current service quality.
• GENERIC PRAISE: Review contains general positive statements ('nice guy,' 'quality work') without specific technical details or examples of problem-solving.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=1) and significant age of the single data point; at least 3 recent reviews are needed for meaningful assessment.

This single review describes initial professional installation work (quick turnaround, responsive adjustments) but reveals critical failures in follow-through and technical knowledge. The contractor failed to install a required heating coil on a heat pump system, then abandoned the customer despite repeated contact attempts, warranty obligations, and escalation to York headquarters. While initial workmanship was adequate, the lack of technical knowledge about heat pump requirements and complete non-responsiveness to callbacks represent severe deficiencies in professionalism and project completion.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• RECENCY: Review is from February 2015 (9+ years old). Does not reflect current business practices.
• CRITICAL ISSUE: Customer explicitly states contractor abandoned warranty work and became unresponsive despite multiple contact attempts and third-party escalation.
• TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE GAP: Contractor unaware that heat pump systems require auxiliary heating coils during defrost cycles—a fundamental HVAC design requirement.

This score cannot be trusted as a general assessment because only one review was analyzed, which is below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for reliable scoring. Additionally, the review is nearly a decade old and may not reflect current operations.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review is available for analysis. The single review mentions project completion (work finished, looked beautiful) and experience (handled unexpected complexity with faucet hookup and toilet installation). However, with only 1 review, no dimensions related to professionalism or pricing are explicitly addressed. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a reliable WW Score.

• Only 1 review available — far below minimum threshold of 3 reviews for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2018 (over 5 years old) — recency is a significant concern
• No explicit mentions of professionalism, communication, pricing, or transparency
• Generic praise language ('very happy', 'looked beautiful') with limited specific detail

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume and age of the single available review.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was analyzed, which is below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a reliable WW Score calculation. The single review explicitly mentions unprofessionalism (late arrival, messy work) and project completion failure (toilet still non-functional), but these data points are too limited to establish a trustworthy overall score.

• Only 1 review analyzed — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2016 (8+ years old) — does not reflect current service quality
• Insufficient data to calculate weighted WW Score

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=1) and extreme age of the single review; no conclusions about current contractor performance should be drawn from this data.

Only a single review is available, making any scoring highly unreliable. That review is a 1-star complaint describing ongoing problems following a full heating, hot water, and A/C installation, with the contractor failing to respond to the customer afterward. Professionalism scored very low due to the explicit mention of non-responsiveness. Project completion scored very low because the customer reports persistent problems post-installation, suggesting the work was not delivered to a satisfactory standard. Experience received a marginally higher but still very low score because the reviewer implies defective workmanship rather than outright abandonment, though the outcome was clearly poor. Pricing was not mentioned at all and cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is over 10 years old (dated 2013-10-02) — this data is significantly outdated and should not be used to draw conclusions about current contractor performance.
• No recent reviews are available to assess whether issues described have been resolved or if contractor practices have changed.

This score is based on a single review from over a decade ago and carries extremely low reliability — no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's current quality or practices should be drawn from this data alone.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was provided. While this single review praises professionalism (daily updates, communication, going above and beyond) and project completion (finished on time despite delays and tight deadline), a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from fewer than 3 reviews. No information was provided regarding pricing or technical experience/workmanship quality.

• Only 1 review provided — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation
• Review is from 2013 (11+ years old) — does not reflect current service quality
• No pricing information mentioned in review
• No technical skill or workmanship quality details provided

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=1) and extreme age of the single review (2013). Additional recent reviews are required.