Find Nearby Plumbers In Flint, Michigan

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. The reviews are contradictory and separated by 8 years (2016 vs 2024), making trend analysis unreliable. The recent 2024 review documents serious professionalism failures (hostile attitude, billing disputes, threats of collections) and project completion issues (delayed warranty claim processing, late fees applied). The 2016 review praises service quality and pricing but lacks specificity and is too old to reflect current operations. With only 2 reviews and extreme polarity, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 2 reviews provided. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• EXTREME RECENCY GAP: One review from 2016 (8 years old) and one from 2024. The 2016 review does not reflect current business practices.
• CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE: Polar opposite ratings (1-star vs 5-star) with no middle ground. Suggests either significant business change or inconsistent service delivery.
• LACK OF SPECIFICITY IN POSITIVE REVIEW: The 5-star review uses generic praise ('A++++ company') with minimal concrete details, reducing its evidentiary weight.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS IN RECENT REVIEW: The 2024 review documents billing disputes, unresponsiveness to warranty claims, late fees, hostile customer service, and threats of collections — all critical red flags for professionalism and project completion.

This score cannot be reliably calculated with only 2 reviews, especially when separated by 8 years and showing extreme polarity. The recent 2024 review raises serious concerns about current business practices, but a single negative review cannot establish a trend. Minimum 3-5 recent reviews are required for trustworthy scoring.

Only one review was provided, and it does not describe any plumbing work performed. The review exclusively documents an incident of harassment by employees at a gas station and a failure to return a complaint call. Professionalism received a near-zero score due to the explicit description of cat-calling behavior by multiple employees in public, group laughter, and a complete lack of follow-up after a complaint was left. No data exists for pricing, project completion, or experience, as no service was rendered or described. With only one review and no work-related content, this score is highly unreliable.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• This review does not describe a plumbing service engagement. No work was performed or evaluated.
• The sole review documents employee misconduct (harassment) in a public setting, not a service interaction.
• No callback was received after a formal complaint was left — indicates potential responsiveness issue at the company level.
• Three dimensions (pricing, project_completion, experience) have NO DATA and could not be scored.
• Review is dated 2020-09-27 — over 4 years old. Recency weighting is low.

This WW Score is not calculable and should not be trusted as a representation of this contractor's service quality, as only one review was submitted and it describes employee conduct outside of a work context rather than any plumbing service performed.

The single available review describes a severely failed bathroom installation with multiple critical defects: reversed hot and cold water, a toilet that backs up when laundry runs, and unglued pipes in the crawl space that leaked raw sewage. The homeowner was forced to file a homeowners insurance claim and hire a separate contractor to remediate the crawl space and correct the plumbing. Project completion scores near zero because the work was not only unfinished but actively harmful. Experience scores near zero due to fundamental errors — unglued pipe joints represent a basic code violation and safety hazard. Professionalism scores very low as no follow-through or accountability is evident. Pricing data was not mentioned in the review and cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Review is dated 2012-04-27, making it over 12 years old. This data may not reflect current contractor performance.
• Described defects (unglued drain pipes, reversed supply lines, improper venting causing toilet backup) suggest serious workmanship failures and potential building code violations.
• Homeowner required insurance claim and third-party contractor to remediate damage caused by this contractor's work — a significant red flag.

This score is based on a single review from 2012 and should be treated as highly unreliable for assessing current contractor quality; however, the severity of the described failures warrants serious caution.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed, which is below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a statistically meaningful WW Score. The single review provided contains serious allegations regarding professionalism (threatening behavior, poor treatment of workers) and pricing practices (15% quote increase), but a single data point cannot establish reliable contractor performance metrics.

• CRITICAL: Only 1 review analyzed — minimum 3 reviews required for WW Score calculation
• Single negative review with serious allegations (threats, quote manipulation) — cannot be validated without corroborating evidence
• No positive reviews to balance assessment
• Insufficient data to determine if this is an isolated complaint or systemic issue

This assessment cannot be trusted as a reliable contractor evaluation due to insufficient review volume; a minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a meaningful WW Score.

This single review paints a positive picture across three dimensions. The contractor demonstrated strong professionalism by responding on a Sunday with no extra charges and working through light rain into the evening to finish the job. Pricing was noted as fair with no hidden fees for the weekend call-out, which is a meaningful positive signal. Project completion is well-supported — the reviewer explicitly describes the job being seen through to the end under inconvenient conditions. However, no technical or skill-based commentary was provided, leaving the Experience dimension entirely unscored. With only one review, all scores carry very low confidence and should be treated as directional only.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from 2016 — over 8 years old. This data is significantly outdated and may not reflect current service quality.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention and carry LIMITED confidence only.
• Experience dimension has no data — technical skill and workmanship quality cannot be assessed from available reviews.

This score report is based on a single review from 2016 and should not be considered a reliable indicator of this contractor's current or consistent performance.

Only a single review is available, which limits the reliability of any scoring. The reviewer mentions professionalism and excellent workmanship, and notes the crew cleaned up after the job — suggesting reasonable project follow-through. However, with just one review and no pricing information provided, scores are conservative and carry very low confidence. No WW Score can be calculated reliably from a single data point.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• No pricing or value-for-money information mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension scored as null.
• Single review with generic positive language and no specific details about the scope, timeline, or challenges of the project — treat all dimension scores as low confidence.

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