Sewer Repair In Columbus

This contractor demonstrates severe and consistent deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by repeated no-shows, failure to return calls, and unresponsiveness to customer contact attempts—documented across five reviews spanning two decades. Project completion is severely impaired, with multiple instances of abandoned work, incomplete jobs, and broken promises to return and finish tasks. Pricing concerns emerge in two reviews citing overcharges relative to poor service delivery. The single positive review (2005) acknowledges good work but notes inadequate cleanup, and is heavily outweighed by five overwhelmingly negative reviews documenting systemic operational failures. The contractor's lack of licensing is also flagged by customers.

• CRITICAL: Extreme recency bias in dataset—five of six reviews are from 2004–2021 (oldest data is 13+ years old). Only one review from past 12 months. Historical pattern may not reflect current operations, but no recent data to verify improvement.
• PATTERN DETECTED: No-show and non-responsiveness is the dominant complaint across multiple independent reviews (Reviews 1, 2, 3, 6), suggesting systemic operational/communication failure rather than isolated incidents.
• LICENSING CONCERN: Review 1 explicitly mentions 'no contractor license' as a customer observation, raising legal/regulatory compliance questions.
• DAMAGE ALLEGATION: Review 1 alleges the contractor caused sewer line breakage during service and then failed to complete remediation work.
• One positive review (2005) is extremely dated and lacks specificity; insufficient to counterbalance five detailed negative reviews with consistent themes.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE confidence due to severe data recency issues (most reviews 10+ years old), but the consistency of failure patterns across independent reviews over a 17-year span suggests genuine, persistent operational problems. The score is reliable as a historical assessment but may not reflect current business practices without recent corroborating data.

The overwhelming majority of reviews describe a pattern of serious misconduct including no-call no-shows, taking upfront payments and abandoning jobs, blocking customers after receiving money, and verbal abuse. Professionalism scores near zero due to repeated documented instances of rudeness, cursing at customers, and complete failure to communicate. Project completion is catastrophically low, with numerous reviewers explicitly stating work was never finished or never started after payment was collected. Pricing scores reflect a predatory pattern of demanding upfront deposits and then disappearing, which goes beyond mere unfair pricing into alleged fraud. The only positive reviews are sparse, very old (2011, 2013, and one from 2020), and lack the specificity of the overwhelmingly negative reviews, raising authenticity concerns.

• FRAUD PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple independent reviewers across several years describe an identical scheme — Tim Fannon collects upfront deposits or full payment, then abandons the job, blocks phone numbers, and refuses refunds. This is a documented recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• CRIMINAL ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviewers reference court records, BBB complaints, Ohio Attorney General filings, and police involvement. One reviewer mentions searching Franklin County Municipal Court records and finding an 'extensive career in theft.'
• POSSIBLE FAKE POSITIVE REVIEWS: The three positive reviews (5-star from 2011, 5-star from 2013, and 4-star from 2020) are extremely sparse in detail compared to the highly specific negative reviews. The 2011 review ('They were very good.') contains no usable information. The 2020 positive review references 'Right Way Plumbing' rather than 'Riteway Plumbing' and may refer to a different company entirely.
• RECENCY WARNING: The most recent review is from March 2025 and is a blank 1-star rating. The bulk of negative reviews span 2020–2022. All positive reviews are from 2020 or earlier, with two being over 10 years old.
• UNLICENSED CONTRACTOR ALLEGATION: One reviewer explicitly states Tim Fannon claimed to be licensed but could not be found in the state license database, and failed to have a water heater installation inspected as required.
• BLANK REVIEW: One review dated 2025-03-11 contains no text, only a 1-star rating. It was counted in total reviews but excluded from dimension scoring due to no usable data.

This WW Score is based on 16 reviews with usable data and carries HIGH confidence in its low result — the volume, specificity, consistency, and multi-year span of negative reviews paint a clear and credible picture of a contractor with serious integrity and reliability problems.

Only one review contained usable content out of four submitted. That single review paints a generally positive picture: the contractor proactively communicated a scheduling conflict, arrived on time, worked efficiently, left no mess, and was pleasant and direct with the customer. Pricing was described as competitive with other quotes, and the job — including an additional shutoff valve installation — was completed without issue. However, because all scored dimensions rest on a single review from 2015, no dimension can be scored with meaningful confidence, and no WW Score can be reliably calculated.

• 3 of 4 reviews contain only the text 'unknown' with no usable content — these reviews were excluded from all dimension scoring.
• All reviews are dated 2015, making them approximately 9–10 years old. Recency weighting is severely impacted; this data does not reflect current contractor performance.
• The three 'unknown' reviews each carry a 5-star rating with zero review text. This pattern is consistent with placeholder or incomplete review submissions and may also suggest rating inflation without substantiation.
• With only 1 usable review across all 4 dimensions, all confidence levels are LIMITED. No dimension has sufficient evidence to support a reliable score.

This WW Score report should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — it is based on a single usable review from 2015, with three additional reviews containing no content whatsoever.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 3 reviews analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for reliable scoring. While all three reviews are positive and mention professionalism, project completion, and experience, the sample size is too small to produce a trustworthy composite WW Score. Additionally, no reviews mention pricing or value, leaving a critical dimension completely unaddressed.

• Sample size critically small (n=3) — results are not statistically reliable
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with generic positive language and no specific criticisms or detailed accounts
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — cannot assess Price Friendly dimension
• Two reviews are older than 12 months (2022-2023), limiting recency
• Suspiciously uniform positive tone across all reviews with minimal specificity beyond general praise

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (minimum 3 required, only 3 available) and lack of diversity in feedback dimensions; pricing data is entirely absent, and the uniformly positive tone without critical detail raises concerns about review authenticity.

Insufficient data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 3 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 5 reviews needed for a statistically meaningful WW Score. All three reviews are positive (5-star ratings), with explicit mentions of prompt service, professionalism, cost efficiency, and quality craftsmanship. However, the sample size is too small to establish reliable confidence in any dimension, and one review dates from 2015, which significantly limits recency.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews analyzed. Minimum 5 reviews recommended for reliable scoring.
• RECENCY CONCERN: One review is from August 2015 (9+ years old). Only 2 reviews from the past 12 months (2024). Historical data may not reflect current service quality.
• POTENTIAL SELECTION BIAS: All 3 reviews are 5-star ratings with generic positive language. No negative or mixed reviews present to provide balance. This pattern warrants caution.
• LIMITED DETAIL ON PRICING: Only 2 mentions of pricing-related content, and both are vague ('cost efficient'). Insufficient evidence to score pricing dimension reliably.
• BUSINESS TYPE INCONSISTENCY: Review 3 mentions 'electric service' upgrade (200A service), which is electrical work, not plumbing. This may indicate business scope confusion or misclassification.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (3 reviews, minimum 5 required), heavy recency bias (1 review from 2015), and absence of any critical or mixed feedback. Any score derived from this data would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

With only 2 reviews, reliable scoring is impossible. Review 1 (May 2023) reports severe communication failures and non-responsiveness, scoring professionalism at 10 and project completion at 0 (no work completed). Review 2 (March 2023) praises politeness, respect, and pricing ($250 savings), scoring professionalism at 50 and pricing at 95. The stark contradiction between reviews—one describing complete service failure and the other praising the company—suggests either different service experiences or potential reliability issues. No WW Score can be calculated with confidence below the 3-review minimum threshold.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring
• Extreme contradiction between reviews: 1-star vs 5-star with opposite experiences
• Both reviews are from 2023 (over 1 year old) — recency is a concern
• Review 2 mentions this was company's first day on Yelp — possible selection bias or early-stage business variability
• Review 1 describes complete service failure (non-responsiveness, no callbacks) while Review 2 describes excellent service — suggests inconsistent service delivery or data reliability issue

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume (n=2, minimum n=3 required) and extreme contradictions between reviews that suggest either inconsistent service quality or potential data integrity concerns. Do not rely on any scoring from this analysis.