Find Nearby Plumbers In Troy, Michigan

Only one review was provided, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review makes serious allegations of fraud and theft but lacks specific project details, timelines, or concrete evidence of incomplete work. The review mentions financial loss ('thousands of dollars scammed') which relates to pricing/trust, but does not provide enough detail to assess professionalism, project completion, or experience dimensions. A minimum of 3 reviews is required for meaningful analysis.

• Insufficient review volume: only 1 review provided. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably.
• Single review contains serious allegations (fraud, theft, scamming) but lacks specificity regarding what work was performed, when, or what was left incomplete.
• No verifiable project details provided to substantiate claims.
• Cannot assess multiple dimensions without additional reviews.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient data; at least 3 reviews are required for meaningful contractor evaluation.

Only a single review is available, which describes a deeply negative experience. The reviewer explicitly reports rude behavior and evasiveness from the contractor, driving professionalism to near zero. The appointment was never fulfilled and was ultimately cancelled by the customer, indicating a complete failure of project completion. No information was provided regarding pricing or technical experience, so those dimensions cannot be scored. With only one review, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 1 review available — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• The sole review is a 1-star complaint describing rudeness and appointment abandonment — no positive data exists to balance this assessment.
• Pricing and Experience dimensions have zero data and cannot be evaluated.
• Score should be treated with extreme caution due to insufficient review volume.

This score is not reliable — with only one review and two dimensions entirely lacking data, no meaningful or trustworthy WW Score can be produced for this contractor.

Only one review was provided, which contains no specific, actionable detail across any of the four scoring dimensions. The reviewer mentions a broken pipe was addressed and expresses general satisfaction, but provides no information about professionalism, pricing, project completion quality, or technical experience. As a result, no dimension scores can be assigned and a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated.

• Only 1 review analyzed — minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is extremely vague with no specifics about the work performed, pricing, timeliness, or workmanship — limits scoring utility entirely.
• Generic praise ('It's great working with you') with no supporting detail raises mild concern about review authenticity, though sample size is too small to draw conclusions.

This score report cannot be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — only one highly generic review was available, falling well below the minimum data threshold required for meaningful analysis.

Only a single review exists for this contractor, which is strongly negative. The reviewer explicitly calls out unprofessional behavior and an unwillingness to resolve problems or complete work, directly impacting both the Professionalism and Project Completion dimensions. Pricing and Experience were not mentioned at all and cannot be scored. With only one review, no reliable WW Score can be calculated, and all dimension scores carry very low confidence.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Single review is a 1-star rating with explicit complaints about professionalism and work abandonment — no positive signal exists to balance this assessment.
• Pricing and Experience dimensions have zero data and were excluded from scoring entirely.

This score report is based on a single negative review and should be considered highly unreliable — no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's overall quality can be drawn until substantially more reviews are available.

This single review describes a negative experience with Robert, a plumber. While the reviewer acknowledged Robert was knowledgeable and performed initial work competently, the engagement deteriorated significantly. The customer felt the $200+ charge for 45 minutes of work was excessive given that an adjacent drain issue remained unresolved. Most critically, when the customer requested a callback to complete the job, the plumber allegedly became verbally abusive, using profanity and accusing the customer of wanting free work. This represents a severe professionalism failure and incomplete project delivery. The review was filed with the BBB, indicating serious dissatisfaction.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review analyzed. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per Rule 4 (minimum 3 reviews required).
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review is from January 2017 — over 7 years old. Does not reflect current business practices.
• SEVERE PROFESSIONALISM INCIDENT: Alleged verbal abuse and profanity during callback communication is a critical red flag.
• INCOMPLETE PROJECT DELIVERY: Customer's drain issue was not fully resolved; callback request resulted in conflict rather than service recovery.
• BBB COMPLAINT FILED: Customer escalated to Better Business Bureau, indicating unresolved dispute.

This score is unreliable and should not be used for decision-making. Only one review exists, all dimensions are marked LIMITED confidence, the review is over 7 years old, and it describes a serious service failure with alleged abusive behavior. At least 3 recent reviews are required to produce a trustworthy WW Score.