Nearby Toilet Installation 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.

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.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. Both reviews are extremely negative, citing no-show/late arrival, lack of responsiveness, misdiagnosis, and poor workmanship. However, with only 2 data points and no positive reviews to balance the assessment, the score cannot be considered representative of overall contractor performance.

• Critically low review count (n=2) — insufficient for reliable scoring
• Both reviews are 1-star ratings with severe complaints — no balancing positive feedback
• No pricing feedback provided in either review
• Recent reviews (November 2024) suggest current operational issues
• First review indicates complete no-show with multiple unanswered voicemails — severe professionalism failure
• Second review cites misdiagnosis and sub-par work — suggests experience/quality concerns

This assessment is unreliable and should not be used for decision-making. With only 2 reviews, all negative, the sample size is too small to draw statistically meaningful conclusions about contractor performance. Additional reviews are essential before any confident evaluation can be made.

B&B Plumbing has a large and long-running review history that reveals a genuinely mixed picture. Professionalism scores moderately well overall — the majority of reviewers praise punctuality, courteous technicians, and clean work habits — but a meaningful minority of negative reviews describe rude staff, unresponsive management, and broken promises, which prevents a higher score. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple detailed negative reviews describe hidden fees (vehicle charges, credit card surcharges, travel fees), charges for unproductive diagnostic time, and quotes significantly higher than competitors, while positive reviewers do cite fair pricing — the tension between these camps pulls the score down substantially. Project completion is similarly split: many reviewers report smooth, timely, complete jobs, but several credible negative reviews describe abandoned work, unkept guarantees, unresolved issues after multiple visits, and a notable case where the owner promised completion then went on vacation leaving the job unfinished. Experience scores moderately — most technicians are praised as knowledgeable, especially with Kohler products, but at least two detailed negative reviews describe a technician who lacked basic product knowledge and another whose work was found not to be up to code, which meaningfully reduces confidence in consistent skill levels.

• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 18 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating (mostly 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence. Their presence inflates the apparent star average without contributing meaningful data.
• POSSIBLE FAKE OR PADDED REVIEWS: A cluster of reviews dated '2024-06-09', '2023-06-10', '2022-06-10', '2021-06-10', '2020-06-10', and similar round dates with no review text are suspicious. Batches of blank 5-star reviews on the same date are a known pattern of review padding and should be treated with skepticism.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The RHEEM tankless water heater review by what appears to be the same customer was submitted twice (2021-06-10 and 2021-03-23) with nearly identical text. Similarly, the 'So happy with the work done by B & B plumbing' concrete pipe review appears twice (2024-06-09 and 2023-10-20). Duplicate reviews may indicate platform cross-posting or manipulation.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent substantive negative reviews (2024-10-10 and 2024-09-12) are within the past 12 months and describe serious issues — hidden fees charged to a disabled person and complete non-responsiveness after initial contact. These recent negatives were weighted more heavily.
• MANAGEMENT RESPONSIVENESS CONCERN: Multiple negative reviews across different years describe the owner or management becoming unreachable after problems arose (2021-01-07, 2021-10-06, 2013-05-27). This is a recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: One review (2013-05-27) describes a technician making sexual advances toward and physically touching a customer's mother. The company's follow-up response was also described as inadequate. While this is an older review, it is a serious allegation.
• GUARANTEE VIOLATION: At least one review (2014-06-20) explicitly describes B&B refusing to honor their stated one-year workmanship guarantee, requiring payment for a return visit on the same issue within the warranty period.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews spanning over 15 years and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but prospective customers should note that the score reflects a genuinely divided customer base — roughly 20-25% of substantive reviews describe serious problems with pricing transparency, follow-through, and management accountability, and these concerns appear consistently across multiple years including recent reviews.

Both reviews describe severe failures across all dimensions: non-completion of paid work (shed and roof projects abandoned), complete communication breakdown and blocking of contact, alleged theft of services resulting in felony warrant, and dangerous workmanship (damaged barn roof endangering animals). The contractor allegedly took $3,000 and $1,500+ in cash respectively without delivering services. However, with only 2 reviews total, a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated per protocol. The evidence of misconduct is explicit and consistent across both reviews, but sample size is critically insufficient.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation
• SEVERE ALLEGATIONS: Both reviews allege theft, fraud, and abandonment of work. First review mentions active felony warrant for theft of services and fugitive status across multiple states
• PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT: Consistent allegations of non-completion, communication avoidance/blocking, cash payment without delivery, and poor workmanship across both reviews suggest systemic issues rather than isolated incidents
• REVIEW RECENCY: First review from Feb 2023 (approximately 2 years old); second review from Feb 2022 (approximately 3 years old). Both outside 12-month window, but allegations suggest ongoing pattern
• LEGAL INVOLVEMENT: First review explicitly mentions police involvement and felony warrant — this is not a customer service complaint but a criminal matter

Insufficient data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably with only 2 reviews. However, the explicit allegations of theft, fraud, non-completion, and criminal charges warrant extreme caution; this contractor should not be engaged without independent verification of current legal status and business legitimacy.

This single review paints a severely negative picture of Bunn Home Improvement across the dimensions that can be assessed. On professionalism, the contractor failed to honor a rescheduled appointment, went completely silent, and ignored multiple texts and calls — behavior that warrants a near-zero score. On project completion, the job was never started at all; the contractor simply did not show up and abandoned the customer without any communication. Pricing and experience cannot be evaluated as the reviewer never reached the stage where work was performed or costs were discussed. With only one review available, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The sole review is dated January 2021, making it over 3 years old. No recent reviews are available to assess current performance.
• The contractor's behavior described — no-show after rescheduling and complete non-responsiveness — is a serious red flag for reliability and professionalism.
• Pricing and experience dimensions have NO DATA and were excluded from scoring entirely.

This score report is based on a single 1-star review from 2021 and should be considered highly unreliable as a representation of overall contractor quality — far more reviews are needed before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn.