Find Nearby Plumbers In Warren, Michigan

This single review from 2013 (over 10 years old) describes severe failures across professionalism, pricing, and project completion. The customer reports being charged three times in four months for work that did not resolve the drain backup issue, and describes being hung up on during a complaint call. However, a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single review, and the extreme age of this review (2013) significantly limits its relevance to current contractor performance.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. WW Score requires minimum 3 reviews for reliability.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Review is from November 2013 — over 10 years old. Does not reflect current business practices or personnel.
• SINGLE NEGATIVE REVIEW: Cannot establish patterns or trends from one data point. Contractor may have changed significantly since 2013.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. A single review from 2013 is too limited in volume and too old in date to produce a trustworthy score.

This single review paints a severely negative picture across the dimensions that can be assessed. The contractor failed to arrive at the scheduled 10am appointment, provided a false promise of arriving within 10-15 minutes when contacted at 11am, and then never showed up at all. Communication completely broke down, with the voicemail box being full and no callback ever made, indicating serious deficiencies in both professionalism and follow-through. Project completion scores near zero as the job was never even started, representing a complete failure to deliver on the commitment made. Pricing and experience cannot be assessed as the contractor never arrived to perform any work.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated 2015-01-27, making it over 9 years old. This data may not reflect the contractor's current performance.
• No pricing or experience data available — two dimensions scored as NO DATA due to complete absence of relevant information.
• The contractor's voicemail box being full at the time of contact may suggest a pattern of poor communication management or business disorganization.

This score is based on a single review from 2015 and should be considered extremely unreliable as a representation of the contractor's overall quality — far more reviews, particularly recent ones, would be needed before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn.

Only a single review exists for this contractor, making any reliable scoring impossible. That sole review is severely negative, describing a no-show appointment, complete failure to communicate, and no return calls despite multiple attempts. Professionalism scores near zero due to the explicit failure to show up and respond. Project completion also scores at zero as no work was ever started or delivered. Pricing and experience cannot be assessed as neither topic was mentioned.

• Only 1 review total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from 2018 (over 6 years old) — recency is very low and may not reflect current contractor behavior.
• No positive reviews exist to balance assessment — score is based entirely on a single 1-star complaint.
• Pricing and experience dimensions have zero data and are excluded from all scoring.

This score report is based on a single review from 2018 and should be considered highly unreliable — no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's overall quality can be drawn from this data alone.

This single review paints a severely negative picture across multiple dimensions. The reviewer explicitly describes two no-show appointments without any communication, a rude and unapologetic owner, and characterizes the work performed as shoddy — directly impacting professionalism, project completion, and experience scores. Pricing was not mentioned at all and cannot be scored. Because only one review exists, no WW Score can be reliably calculated, and all dimension scores carry only LIMITED confidence.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All scored dimensions are based on a single review, making confidence extremely low across the board.
• Review is from February 2017, which is more than 1 year old. Current contractor performance may differ significantly.
• No pricing information was mentioned in any review — that dimension returns null.

This score report is based on a single review from over seven years ago and should be considered highly unreliable as a representation of the contractor's current or overall performance.

Only one review was available for analysis, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review is highly negative, citing non-responsiveness, poor communication, failure to follow through on commitments, and a perception that the contractor prioritizes profit over service quality. However, a single data point cannot establish a trustworthy overall assessment of contractor performance.

• Insufficient review volume (n=1) — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per Step 4 guidelines
• All scores based on single mention carry LIMITED confidence only
• No recent corroborating reviews to validate the negative assessment
• No data on technical experience/workmanship quality

This assessment is unreliable and should not be used for decision-making; a minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a meaningful WW Score.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. The single review praises professionalism (punctuality, responsiveness, attitude, politeness), pricing (reasonable rates), and experience (technical knowledge, quality workmanship). However, project completion is not addressed. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a statistically meaningful WW Score.

• Only 1 review provided — below minimum threshold of 3 reviews for reliable scoring
• Review is very recent (2024-09-27) and highly positive (5.0 rating) with detailed specifics, which is credible, but single data point cannot establish pattern
• Project completion dimension has no data — service was inspection only, not a full project with completion milestones

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score with only 1 review; a minimum of 3 independent reviews is required to establish baseline reliability.