Find Nearby Plumbers In Reno, Nevada

This contractor shows severe inconsistency across reviews. Two recent reviews (2023, 2022) highlight critical failures in professionalism and project completion: one customer was abandoned mid-project after paying $3,000 with no communication, and another experienced complete unresponsiveness to multiple contact attempts. Two older positive reviews (2021, 2022) praise responsiveness, problem-solving, and fair pricing, but these are outweighed by the severity of the abandonment case and communication failures. The contractor demonstrates technical competence when engaged, but professionalism and reliability are highly questionable.

• CRITICAL: Most recent review (Oct 2023) describes project abandonment after customer payment and no notification—severe breach of professional conduct and project completion responsibility.
• CRITICAL: Nov 2021 review documents complete unresponsiveness to multiple contact attempts across two phone numbers with no callback within 24 hours.
• Extreme volatility in review ratings (1-star and 5-star) suggests inconsistent service delivery or possible business/management changes.
• Positive reviews are 2+ years old; negative reviews are more recent, indicating potential deterioration in service quality.
• Sample size is very small (4 reviews); score reliability is limited.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size and extreme rating variance, but the recent project abandonment and communication failures are serious red flags that warrant significant concern about contractor reliability and professionalism.

This contractor's review set is small and deeply divided, making any score inherently uncertain. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is severely dragged down by two explicit complaints of no-shows, ignored calls, and failure to reschedule or apologize — serious reliability failures. Project completion is mixed: one reviewer praised on-time delivery of a complex multi-item job, while two others describe being completely abandoned before work even began. Pricing and experience scores are based on only two reviews each and skew positive, but carry very limited weight given the small sample. The two positive reviews are older (2018–2019) while the most recent review (2023) is a complaint about non-responsiveness, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.

• Very small sample size (4 reviews) — WW Score should be treated as highly provisional.
• Two of the four reviews are explicit complaints about being ignored, stood up, or receiving no response — this is a significant pattern for a 4-review dataset.
• The most recent review (June 2023) is a 1-star complaint about zero responsiveness, while the two positive reviews date to 2018 and 2019. Recency weighting disfavors this contractor.
• One positive review (2019) covers a broad multi-service job with specific detail and appears credible. The 2018 positive review is brief but plausible. No fake review pattern detected, but sample is too small to assess meaningfully.
• Recency concern: 3 of 4 reviews are more than 4 years old. The only recent data point is negative.

This WW Score has LOW reliability due to only 4 reviews, a significant recency gap, and a sharply divided sentiment pattern that makes it impossible to confidently characterize this contractor's current performance.

This contractor has a deeply mixed and very small review set. The single positive review praises same-day responsiveness, professionalism, knowledge, and fair pricing for a shower faucet repair. However, two reviews from the same day in May 2024 describe a serious conduct incident unrelated to plumbing work — a company van operator left a stranded motorist without assistance and responded with scripture rather than an apology. While these two negative reviews do not directly address plumbing workmanship, they speak strongly to character, attitude, and professionalism, which are core components of the Professionalism dimension. The professionalism score is significantly dragged down by these incidents, and the overall WW Score reflects the high uncertainty of a three-review dataset with a major conduct flag.

• VERY LOW REVIEW COUNT: Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is statistically unreliable and should be treated with extreme caution.
• CONDUCT INCIDENT FLAG: Two reviews (2024-05-15) describe the same real-world incident involving a company van operator behaving rudely and unhelpfully toward a stranded motorist. This is a significant character and professionalism concern.
• REVIEW CONFLICT: One 5-star review praises professionalism while two 1-star reviews describe unprofessional and dismissive behavior — the dataset is internally contradictory.
• RECENCY NOTE: All three reviews are from 2024, so recency weighting does not differentiate them. The two negative reviews are more recent than the positive one.
• NO PATTERN OF FAKE REVIEWS DETECTED: Reviews appear authentic — they contain specific details, distinct writing styles, and genuine emotional responses.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should not be considered reliable — a minimum of 8–10 reviews with usable data across all dimensions would be needed before this score can be meaningfully trusted.

Summit shows significant performance issues across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is severely compromised by late arrivals without communication and poor customer service. Pricing concerns emerge from one review alleging the company prioritized profit over honest diagnosis. Project completion is inconsistent—while one water heater installation succeeded, the furnace service was incomplete and required a second company to resolve the actual problem. Technical expertise is questionable, with one technician providing false information about equipment sizing that contradicted a second opinion. The single positive review (2017) is substantially older than the two negative reviews (2015, 2018), suggesting persistent issues.

• All three reviews are from 2015–2018; no recent reviews provided to assess current performance
• One review (2018) contains serious allegations of dishonesty and incomplete work requiring warranty company intervention
• Conflicting technical advice between Summit technician and replacement company raises credibility concerns
• Limited sample size (3 reviews) restricts confidence in overall assessment

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size and age of reviews; however, the pattern of complaints across professionalism, honesty, and technical competence is consistent enough to warrant serious concern about contractor reliability.

Every single review across all five submissions is a 1-star complaint, painting a consistently negative picture of this contractor across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is severely damaged by reports of rudeness, blaming customers, refusing to honor callbacks, and disputing legitimate invoices. Pricing is flagged as exploitative, with one reviewer citing a 4x parts markup and the owner openly defending the practice. Project completion is critically undermined by reports of code violations, incorrect equipment installations, failed work within a year, and outright refusal to correct errors. Workmanship quality is poor, evidenced by improper water heater installation, missing required bracing, and two separate jobs where new work failed after completion. The company was also operating under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection at the time of several reviews, which adds further concern about reliability and accountability.

• ALL 5 reviews are 1-star — this is a uniformly negative dataset with no positive counterbalance.
• All reviews are dated between 2010 and 2013 — this data is over 10 years old and may not reflect current business operations or ownership.
• Company was reportedly operating under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection at time of reviews — business may no longer be active in the same form.
• One reviewer references an Angie's List profile with three additional F-grade reviews, suggesting a broader pattern of complaints beyond this dataset.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details, varied language, and distinct incidents, suggesting authenticity.
• Due to the age of all reviews (10+ years), the WW Score should be treated with caution and may not reflect current performance.

While the score is based on 5 reviews with consistent and specific negative detail across all dimensions, the data is entirely from 2010–2013, making this score a historical snapshot only — current performance cannot be assessed from this dataset alone.

The three reviews provided are for a retail store location, not a contractor or plumber. They discuss store cleanliness, staff friendliness, product availability, and pricing on retail items like moving blankets and pond wheels. None of the reviews contain any information relevant to the four WW Score dimensions (professionalism in service delivery, pricing for contracted work, project completion, or technical experience in trades work). This dataset cannot be used to evaluate a contractor or plumber.

• CRITICAL: Reviews are for a retail store, not a contractor/plumber service provider
• No reviews contain evaluable data for any WW Score dimension
• Dataset is fundamentally mismatched to the WW Score framework

This score cannot be calculated because the reviews do not pertain to contractor or plumber services and contain no information about professionalism, pricing fairness, project completion, or technical experience in trades work.