Sink Repair In Columbus

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.

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.

Only one review contained usable data, making any scoring highly unreliable. That single review describes a severely negative experience: work was left incomplete across multiple areas including exposed wiring, unfilled holes, unfinished trim, and gaps in flooring. The contractors failed to return as promised, stopped communicating, and never completed the job despite repeated contact attempts by the customer. Professionalism and project completion scores are critically low based on this account, and workmanship quality is also called into question given the described state of the unfinished work.

• Two of three reviews contain only the text 'unknown' with no usable content — these reviews provide zero scoreable data and were excluded from all dimension scoring.
• The two 'unknown' reviews both carry 5-star ratings with no supporting text, which is a pattern consistent with fake or placeholder reviews. Confidence is reduced accordingly.
• All reviews are older than 12 months (most recent is from 2016), meaning this data may not reflect the contractor's current quality or practices.
• With only 1 usable review out of 3 total, the WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules. Insufficient data threshold not met.

This score report has extremely low reliability — only one substantive review exists, it is over 8 years old, and the remaining two reviews are content-free 5-star entries that show signs of being fake or placeholder submissions.

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.

Both reviews are positive and speak to responsiveness, communication, and job completion. The first review explicitly praises the callback speed, the technician's knowledgeable and respectful communication style, and a quick on-site fix. The second review confirms same-day service and a completed job. No pricing information was mentioned in either review, so that dimension cannot be scored. All scores are kept conservative due to the very small sample size of only two reviews.

• Only 2 reviews provided — this is below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score calculation.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with limited specificity on workmanship details, which reduces confidence in the Experience score.
• No pricing or cost information was mentioned in any review — the Pricing dimension cannot be evaluated.
• Review dates span approximately 20 months apart (Feb 2023 and Oct 2024), so recency weighting slightly favors the October 2024 review, but the sample is too small to draw meaningful trend conclusions.

This score report should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality due to the critically small sample size of only 2 reviews; significantly more reviews are needed before the WW Score can be calculated with any meaningful confidence.