Find Nearby Plumbers In Dearborn, Michigan

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. Both reviews are highly positive (5-star ratings) and mention all four dimensions favorably, but the sample size is too small to establish reliable patterns or confidence in the scoring.

• Sample size critically low: only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• Both reviews are from 2019 (4-5 years old). No recent reviews available to assess current service quality.
• Both reviews mention the same plumber by name (Spencer/Spence), suggesting limited review diversity.
• Suspiciously similar positive tone and structure across both reviews; both are 5-star with generic praise language ('pleasure to work with', 'masters at their craft', 'great experience'). Pattern warrants caution.
• No negative feedback or specific problem-solving examples provided in either review.

This score cannot be calculated and should not be relied upon. The sample size of 2 reviews is insufficient, reviews are outdated (2019), and the identical positive tone raises concerns about review authenticity. At least 5-10 recent reviews are needed for a trustworthy WW Score.

This single review paints a severely negative picture across nearly every dimension evaluated. The contractor failed to resolve the original leak, left work incomplete with missing and uninstalled gutters, and abandoned the customer entirely after payment. Responsiveness and follow-through were critically poor — the contractor repeatedly promised to return but never did, and has been unreachable since April 2018. The customer explicitly states the situation worsened after the work was completed and is now pursuing small claims court, indicating a complete breakdown of the contractor relationship and warranty obligations.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be reliably calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Review is dated 2018-08-08, making it over 6 years old. This data may not reflect the contractor's current performance.
• Pricing dimension could not be scored — no explicit mention of pricing fairness, value, or hidden charges in the review.
• Contractor appears to have ignored a signed warranty agreement, which is a serious legal and ethical red flag.
• Other contractors reportedly refused to touch the work left behind, suggesting substandard workmanship that may pose ongoing liability.

This score is based on a single review from 2018 and should be treated as highly unreliable for drawing broad conclusions about this contractor — however, the severity of the complaint is notable and warrants serious caution.

This single review describes a severely negative experience where the contractor charged a service fee ($75) but refused to complete the work, citing equipment concerns after minimal effort. The job was later completed by a competitor for less money ($60) in what was described as straightforward work. The review explicitly criticizes professionalism (abandoning the job), pricing (charging for non-service), project completion (zero follow-through), and experience (poor judgment on job difficulty). However, a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single review.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review is from February 2016 (8+ years old). Does not reflect current business practices.
• SINGLE NEGATIVE REVIEW: Cannot establish patterns or trends from one data point. Score is not representative of overall contractor performance.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. A single review, especially one from 2016, cannot provide a trustworthy assessment of current contractor performance.

Only one review exists for this contractor, and it contains no usable data about any of the four scored dimensions. The sole reviewer did not report on any actual work performed — instead raising concerns about whether the business is still operational, citing a disconnected phone number, a non-functional website, and reviews that are years old. No professionalism, pricing, project completion, or experience data can be extracted from this review. A WW Score cannot be reliably calculated.

• Only 1 review total — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• The sole review raises serious concerns about whether this business is still active, including a disconnected phone number and a non-functional website.
• All other reviews referenced in the review itself appear to be at least 3 years old as of the review date (2017), suggesting the business may have been inactive since approximately 2014.
• No actual work or service interaction is described — zero scorable content across all four dimensions.

This WW Score cannot be trusted or calculated — there is only one review and it contains no evidence of any completed work, making it impossible to assess this contractor's professionalism, pricing, project completion, or experience.

This single review paints a strongly positive picture of Brett across professionalism, project completion, and experience. The reviewer explicitly describes prompt arrival, clear communication, attentive problem-solving, careful property handling, and a fully resolved basement leak — all of which are concrete, dimension-relevant details. No pricing information was mentioned at any point, so that dimension cannot be scored. Because only one review exists, all scores are treated conservatively and carry LIMITED confidence, and no WW Score can be reliably calculated.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per the minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The review is highly detailed and specific, which reduces fake review suspicion, but the language is notably enthusiastic and reads somewhat like a composed testimonial rather than an organic review. Treat with mild caution.
• No pricing or cost information was mentioned anywhere in the review — the Pricing dimension has NO DATA.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention and should be considered LOW confidence data points only.

This score report is based on a single review and should not be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's overall performance — at least 3 reviews are required for a meaningful WW Score.

The single available review is strongly negative across nearly every measurable dimension. The technician (Chris) failed to complete the work, worsened the customer's situation by breaking a second faucet, became visibly frustrated, and never returned follow-up calls — indicating serious deficiencies in professionalism, project completion, and technical experience. Pricing was not mentioned at all and cannot be scored. With only one review, all scores carry very limited confidence and should be interpreted cautiously.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All scored dimensions are based on a single mention, making confidence extremely limited.
• No pricing information was provided in any review — that dimension is entirely unscored.
• Review is from October 2021, which is over 1 year old — recency weighting is a concern if this is the only data point available.

This score report is based on a single 1-star review and should not be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's overall performance — significantly more review data is required before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn.