Find Nearby Plumbers In Duluth, Minnesota

All three reviews are strongly negative, painting a consistent picture of poor performance across every dimension. Professionalism is severely damaged by reports of an owner mocking a customer, ignoring follow-up communications, arriving late, and leaving a worksite in a filthy condition. Pricing concerns are explicit and serious, including charges for declined services, unexplained truck surcharges, and disputed overtime billing — with one reviewer threatening legal action. Project completion is also poor, with work left incomplete or improperly finished, a water heater not tested before departure, and a week-and-a-half delay before partial job completion. Experience scores marginally higher only because the work was physically attempted, but dirty water output after installation and a messy worksite suggest inadequate workmanship and quality control.

• All three reviews are 1-star ratings — while this could reflect genuine poor performance, the total review count is very low (only 3 reviews), which limits statistical reliability.
• Review dates span from 2016 to 2021, meaning the most recent review is over 3 years old. No recent reviews are available to assess whether performance has improved or declined.
• No positive reviews were provided for analysis. It is unknown whether this sample represents the contractor's full review history or a filtered subset.
• The small sample size (3 reviews) means this WW Score should be treated with caution — it may not be representative of overall contractor performance.

This score is based on only 3 reviews, all negative and spanning a 5-year period, making it directionally informative but statistically unreliable as a comprehensive assessment of this contractor.

All three reviews are strongly negative, painting a consistent picture of a contractor with severe operational and ethical failures. Professionalism scored near zero due to repeated failures to return calls, cancelled appointments without notice, and an active cease-and-desist order from the State of Minnesota for misrepresenting licensure. Project completion is marginally above zero only because one reviewer noted the system was eventually finished, while the other two describe work that was never started or completed after large down payments were collected. Pricing received a very low score due to explicit reports of $10,000 down payments taken with no work performed and one customer having to pursue court action to recover funds. Experience scored slightly above the floor due to one report of an illegally designed system, suggesting not just negligence but fundamental technical incompetence.

• SERIOUS LEGAL FLAG: One review explicitly states this contractor lost their license to operate in the State of Minnesota and is under a cease-and-desist order for illegally representing plumbing and electrical service capabilities.
• FINANCIAL MISCONDUCT FLAG: Multiple reviews describe large down payments taken with no work performed and refusal to return funds, with at least one customer forced to pursue court action.
• ABANDONED WORK FLAG: At least two of three reviews describe work that was never started despite payment, constituting a pattern of potential fraud.
• RECENCY WARNING: Only one review is within the past 5 years (2020). The other two are from 2015. The contractor's current operational status is unknown, but the 2020 review suggests problems persisted at least through that date.
• SAMPLE SIZE WARNING: Only 3 reviews were available. While all are consistently negative and corroborate each other, the small sample size limits statistical confidence in the exact dimension scores.

Despite the small sample size of only 3 reviews, the consistency and severity of the complaints — including documented legal action, license revocation, and financial misconduct — make this score highly credible as a warning signal, though the exact numerical scores carry only limited-to-moderate statistical confidence.

With only 3 reviews, this analysis lacks sufficient data for a reliable WW Score calculation. The reviews present sharply conflicting narratives: one 2024 review praises professionalism and responsiveness but criticizes billing practices and office communication; a 2019 review offers unqualified praise; and a 2010 review alleges serious misconduct including drilling a pipe and blaming the customer, combined with aggressive billing. The 14-year gap between the oldest and newest reviews raises questions about consistency and whether issues have been resolved. Professionalism scores are pulled down by documented office communication failures and alleged dishonest practices, while pricing concerns appear consistently negative across multiple reviews.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 reviews analyzed — insufficient for reliable scoring. Recommend collecting minimum 10-15 reviews before drawing conclusions.
• RECENCY ISSUE: One review is from 2010 (14 years old), one from 2019 (5 years old), one from 2024. Historical reviews may not reflect current business practices.
• CONFLICTING NARRATIVES: Review 2 (5-star, 2019) provides generic praise with no specifics, while Reviews 1 and 3 detail serious concerns. This inconsistency suggests either significant business changes or potential review authenticity issues.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS: Review 3 alleges the technician drilled a hole in a pipe and blamed the customer, then charged $300 for ice maker installation. This is a major red flag for honesty and integrity if substantiated.
• BILLING PATTERN: Both detailed reviews (1 and 3) independently report aggressive or questionable billing practices, suggesting this may be a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.
• OFFICE COMMUNICATION: Review 1 explicitly documents poor office communication, refusal to answer questions, and supervisor non-responsiveness — a professionalism concern.

This score should NOT be trusted for decision-making. With only 3 reviews spanning 14 years and containing sharply contradictory claims, no reliable assessment is possible. The 2010 review may reflect outdated practices, but the 2024 review's detailed billing complaints corroborate concerns raised in the 2010 review, suggesting potential ongoing issues. Obtain significantly more recent reviews before engaging this contractor.

Both reviews are highly positive and highlight strong technical expertise, particularly with specialized equipment like high-tech tankless water heaters. Professionalism is evident through phone support without charge, thorough explanations, and customer referrals. Pricing appears fair based on one explicit mention. However, with only 2 reviews total, all from 2017 and 2023, the sample size is too small to calculate a reliable WW Score. The limited mention counts across all dimensions (1–2 each) result in LOW confidence for any individual dimension.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: One review is from 2017 (7+ years old); only one review from the past 12 months. Historical data may not reflect current service quality.
• SAMPLE SIZE: With fewer than 5 mentions per dimension, confidence in any individual score is limited.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. The sample size of 2 reviews is below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a trustworthy overall score.

Both reviews are strongly negative and paint a consistent picture of poor performance across all dimensions. The first review describes a senior customer being charged $273 for a $15 nozzle replacement with no returned call to address the complaint, indicating serious pricing and communication failures. The second review explicitly states the system was incorrectly installed and that the customer was left without heat for days during a Minnesota winter waiting for parts, reflecting critical failures in both workmanship and project follow-through. Responsiveness and customer service are flagged as poor in both cases. With only two reviews available, no reliable WW Score can be calculated, but all available signals are negative.

• Only 2 reviews available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are dated 2014 and 2018 respectively — all data is more than 5 years old and may not reflect current business practices.
• Review 1 explicitly mentions an unanswered callback, indicating a responsiveness failure.
• Review 2 explicitly states incorrect installation, which is a serious workmanship and liability concern.
• No positive reviews present — scoring is based entirely on negative feedback, which may reflect selection bias or a genuinely poor service record for this contractor.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both of which are over 5 years old, making it insufficient for a reliable WW Score — treat all dimension scores as directional indicators only and not as a definitive assessment of current contractor quality.

Only two reviews exist, making any scoring highly unreliable. The first review praises reliability, speed, quality of work, and competitive pricing from a repeat commercial client. The second review directly contradicts the pricing praise, alleging a $2,500 charge for a water heater installation with no itemized invoice, which the reviewer characterizes as unethical gouging. The pricing dimension is sharply divided between these two reviews, pulling the score down significantly. Project completion and professionalism receive modest scores because the positive review speaks to reliability and doing work right the first time, but the negative review raises concerns about transparency and business ethics.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The first review is from a home renovation company that claims to use Brandon on 'several projects' — this could indicate a business relationship that introduces bias toward an overly positive review.
• The negative review (2019) raises a specific and credible concern about lack of invoice itemization and potentially excessive labor charges, which is a concrete ethical flag worth noting.
• The positive review (2022) and negative review (2019) are separated by approximately 2.5 years, limiting direct comparability. The negative review is older than 5 years and may not reflect current practices, but it has not been publicly addressed or rebutted.
• With only one review per sentiment (positive vs. negative), no pattern analysis is possible and scores carry very low evidentiary weight.

This score is highly unreliable due to only 2 reviews being available, with directly conflicting accounts on pricing and ethics — no meaningful conclusions should be drawn until substantially more reviews are collected.