Find Nearby Plumbers In Plymouth, Minnesota

All three reviews are negative and paint a consistently poor picture of this contractor across multiple dimensions. Professionalism is severely undermined by broken promises, no-shows, vague communication, and failure to follow through on commitments. Project completion is critically damaged by one review describing a complete failure to perform the contracted work, collecting payment anyway, and then refusing to issue a refund. Pricing concerns are raised by one reviewer who felt recommendations were misleading and excessively expensive after seeking second and third opinions, and by another who paid $770 for work that was never completed. Technical experience is also called into question, as the contractor failed to locate a blocked drain that a subsequently hired plumber resolved without difficulty.

• All three reviews are 1-star ratings — while this is a small sample, the consistency of negative sentiment across different reviewers and different types of complaints adds credibility to the negative picture.
• One review (2020-08-08) is over 3 years old and may not reflect current business practices; however, the pattern of complaints is consistent with the more recent 2023 review.
• The 2020 review describes potential deceptive business practices: collecting $770 for unperformed work and refusing to refund it until a credit card dispute was filed. This is a serious flag warranting caution.
• The 2022 review alleges misleading upselling during a free sewer inspection, which may indicate a pattern of predatory quoting practices.
• Sample size is only 3 reviews — scores and WW Score should be treated as preliminary indicators only and not definitive assessments of overall contractor quality.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all of which are 1-star, and should be treated as a limited but consistently negative signal — the score cannot be considered fully reliable due to small sample size, but the severity and specificity of complaints across all three reviews warrants serious caution.

Only 3 reviews contain usable data (1 review is blank). All reviews are older than 8 years, with the most recent from December 2016. While the available reviews are uniformly positive and mention professionalism, pricing, completion, and experience favorably, the extremely limited sample size and age of reviews prevent reliable scoring. Each dimension is mentioned in only 1–2 reviews, resulting in LIMITED confidence across all metrics.

• CRITICAL: All 4 reviews are older than 8 years (2012–2016). No recent data available to assess current performance.
• One review contains only 'unknown' text and provides no usable information.
• Sample size of 3 usable reviews is below the minimum threshold of 5 reviews for reliable WW Score calculation.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with generic positive language; no specific details about pricing, timelines, or problem-solving complexity provided.
• Insufficient data to calculate WW Score reliably per Step 4 rules.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (only 3 usable reviews) and extreme age of all data (8+ years old). Any score derived would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a reliable WW Score calculation. Both reviews are severely negative, citing poor responsiveness, failure to return calls, and no-shows for scheduled appointments. No pricing information was provided in either review, and experience/workmanship quality was not explicitly evaluated. The reviews are from 2013, over 10 years old, and may not reflect current business practices.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring
• RECENCY ISSUE: Both reviews are from 2013 (over 10 years old) — do not reflect current operations
• Both reviews are 1-star ratings with identical severe complaints about non-responsiveness and no-shows
• No pricing data available for evaluation
• No explicit workmanship or experience data mentioned
• First review mentions positive past work (basement, addition) but current service failure dominates narrative

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required). The available data is extremely dated (2013) and may not represent current business operations. Any scoring would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

With only two reviews, confidence across all dimensions is severely limited. Professionalism scores moderately well — both reviewers noted responsiveness, punctuality, and pleasant demeanor, though no strong detail was provided. Pricing is a concern: one reviewer explicitly stated the price was higher than expected, pulling that dimension down meaningfully. Project completion is mixed — the iron filter installation had an initial leak requiring a return visit, and cleanup was left incomplete (dust and dirt remaining), which are notable negatives; the other review simply noted fast, good work with no specifics. Experience received a single mention via the iron filter installation, which was ultimately completed but required a callback, suggesting competent but imperfect workmanship.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are significantly outdated: dated 2014 and 2016, meaning they are 8–10+ years old. These reviews may not reflect current quality or business practices.
• One review (2016) is very generic with no specific detail — 'Good work. Fast to respond. Showed up on time. Fair prices.' — which limits its analytical value and raises minor concern about authenticity or usefulness.
• The 2014 review notes a post-job leak requiring a callback and incomplete cleanup, which are concrete negative indicators that should be weighted seriously despite the 5-star rating given by the reviewer.

This WW Score report has very low reliability due to only 2 reviews being available, both of which are over 8 years old and lack sufficient detail to draw confident conclusions about current contractor performance.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was provided, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a reliable WW Score calculation. The single review documents serious concerns regarding disrespectful behavior and significant price overcharging ($100 markup), along with non-responsiveness to complaints. However, a single data point cannot support a trustworthy overall assessment of contractor performance.

• CRITICAL: Only 1 review provided — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2011 (13+ years old) — does not reflect current business practices or responsiveness
• BBB documentation shows company failed to respond to formal complaint, resulting in case closure as 'unanswered'
• Severe professionalism and pricing concerns documented, but cannot generalize from single incident
• No data on project completion quality or technical experience

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (1 review, minimum 3 required). The single available review is also significantly outdated (2011) and documents serious service failures, but one negative review alone does not constitute a valid basis for contractor assessment.

This single review paints a consistently negative picture across nearly all dimensions. The contractor failed to complete the job on the initial visit, avoided a callback by dismissing the complaint, and explicitly admitted he did not understand the type of faucet he was hired to repair. Project completion is scored extremely low as the job was never properly finished and ultimately required a second plumber to resolve. Experience is also scored very low given the contractor's own admission of unfamiliarity with the fixture type and the poor outcome. Professionalism suffers due to the ignored callback and lack of follow-through, though he did respond promptly on the initial call. Pricing is scored moderately as the reviewer explicitly noted the price was acceptable.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from 2013, which is over 10 years old. This data should be treated with significant caution regarding current contractor performance.
• Contractor explicitly admitted mid-job that he lacked knowledge of the fixture type — this is a direct competency red flag, not an inference.
• Callback was effectively ignored on first attempt, with the contractor deflecting using an anecdote about his wife rather than returning to resolve the issue.

This score is based on a single review from 2013 and carries very low reliability — no conclusions about current contractor quality should be drawn from this data alone.