Find Nearby Plumbers In Concord, New Hampshire

The overwhelming majority of reviews describe serious failures across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is heavily penalized by repeated accounts of no-call-no-shows, failure to return calls across multiple attempts, a technician refusing basic safety precautions, and a tech spending most of a job on personal phone calls. Project completion is critically damaged by abandoned work, unresolved follow-ups, sewage left behind, a water main leak caused by the plumber, and an owner who failed to respond to legitimate complaints for over a month. Pricing drew explicit complaints of overcharging, with one reviewer noting a competitor quoted $75 less for the same garbage disposal job. The two positive reviews are vague, older (2013 and 2018), and lack specific detail, limiting their ability to meaningfully offset the pattern of documented failures.

• Only 2 of 7 reviews are positive, and both are significantly older (2013 and 2018) — the most recent 3 reviews (2020–2023) are all 1-star, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.
• The two positive reviews are notably vague and generic ('honest, ethical plumber,' 'always had excellent service') with little specific detail, which reduces their evidentiary weight.
• One reviewer explicitly documents sewage left on property, a stain on the driveway, and a water main leak caused by the plumber — indicating a serious workmanship and liability concern.
• A pattern of zero callback behavior is documented across multiple reviewers spanning multiple years, suggesting a systemic operational failure rather than isolated incidents.
• The technician's refusal to wear a mask in a high-risk household (2020 review) raises conduct and professionalism concerns beyond standard service quality.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months; the most recent review is from January 2023. Recency weighting applied — older positive reviews carry reduced influence.

This WW Score is based on only 7 reviews spanning nearly a decade, which limits statistical reliability, but the consistent and specific nature of the negative feedback across multiple dimensions and multiple years makes the low score directionally trustworthy.

This contractor shows severe and consistent problems across professionalism, pricing, and project completion. Two detailed negative reviews document abandoned work (incomplete bathroom renovation with no communication for months), overcharging, refusal to provide receipts or warranty documentation, and customer funds lost. One positive review uses suspiciously generic language ('Savage,' 'best,' 'awesome prices') with no specific details and appears potentially fabricated. The pattern of extreme polarization (1-star, 1-star, 5-star) combined with the positive review's vague praise and the negative review's explicit allegation that it was written by 'his buddy' raises serious red flags about review authenticity.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW: The 5-star review uses generic, non-specific praise ('Savage,' 'awesome prices,' 'best') with no concrete details about the work performed. One negative reviewer explicitly states 'The 5-star review was his buddy,' suggesting coordinated fake positive reviews.
• SEVERE PROJECT ABANDONMENT: First review documents a bathroom renovation abandoned mid-project (May 2018), with customer out of deposit money and no tub installed. Last contact was 5/11, with no resolution mentioned as of review date (May 2021).
• PRICING FRAUD INDICATORS: Second review alleges overcharging for low-quality materials, refusal to provide receipt or warranty paperwork, and rapid departure with $500. Refusal of receipt is a major red flag for unethical business practices.
• EXTREME REVIEW POLARIZATION: All three reviews are either 1-star or 5-star with no middle ground, consistent with fake review patterns.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span 2018–2021, with the most recent negative review from August 2020 and the suspected fake positive review from January 2020. No recent reviews available to assess current practices.

This score should be treated with extreme caution and skepticism. While based on only 3 reviews, the evidence of project abandonment, financial loss to customers, alleged pricing fraud, and suspected fake positive reviews suggests serious ethical and operational problems. The low WW Score of 28.3 is conservative but justified by explicit documented failures; however, the small sample size and suspected review manipulation mean this score reflects high-risk contractor status rather than a fully reliable quantitative assessment.

Only a single review is available, which limits the reliability of any scoring. The reviewer explicitly praised the contractor's speed of response (under one hour), quick job completion (40 minutes), cleanliness, professionalism, and knowledge — all positive signals. Project completion is supported by the mention of being 'up and running,' indicating the job was finished successfully. No pricing information was mentioned at all, so that dimension cannot be scored. All scores are conservative given the extremely limited data.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is from 2018 — over 6 years old. This data is significantly outdated and may not reflect current service quality.
• Pricing dimension has no data and cannot be evaluated.
• Single review with generic praise and no specific job details — while not conclusively fake, it cannot be independently verified.

This score should not be trusted for decision-making purposes — it is based on a single, outdated review from 2018, providing insufficient data to produce a statistically meaningful WW Score.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was analyzed. The single review explicitly mentions professionalism (respectful, nice to speak with), project completion (work completed on sink), and experience (clean work quality). However, pricing is not addressed. With only 1 review, confidence in any dimension is severely limited and cannot support a reliable overall WW Score.

• Only 1 review available — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2020 (4+ years old) — recency is a concern
• No pricing information mentioned — cannot assess value or fairness
• Generic praise language without specific technical details limits confidence in experience assessment

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (minimum 3 reviews required); any dimension scores shown are based on a single data point and should not be trusted for decision-making.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a reliable WW Score calculation. The single review mentions professionalism positively (handling a complex issue with professionalism and courage) and implies competent problem-solving ability, but provides no explicit information about pricing, project completion timelines, or overall workmanship quality.

• Only 1 review available — far below minimum threshold of 3 reviews for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2018 (6+ years old) — recency is a significant concern
• No pricing information mentioned
• No explicit project completion details (timeline, follow-through, callbacks)
• Cannot calculate composite WW Score with confidence

This analysis cannot be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality due to insufficient review volume and age of the single available review.