Find Nearby Plumbers In Nashua, New Hampshire

Skillings & Sons demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally responsive service, with many customers praising their knowledge and quick emergency response. However, the company is significantly hampered by serious professionalism issues—multiple credible allegations of inappropriate employee behavior (specifically involving an employee named Dennis), inconsistent punctuality, and poor follow-up communication. Pricing concerns are substantial, with several customers reporting unexpected charges, high estimates, and disputes over payment terms and warranty coverage. Project completion is mixed: while many jobs are finished successfully, there are documented cases of incomplete work, failed outcomes (well performance degradation post-fracking), and lack of promised follow-up testing and reporting.

• SERIOUS CONDUCT ISSUE: Three independent reviews (2024-09-11, 2024-08-03, and 2018 reference) describe inappropriate behavior by an employee named Dennis, including comments about customer appearance and unwanted advances. This pattern suggests a genuine workplace conduct problem that undermines company credibility.
• PRICING DISPUTES: Multiple reviews document aggressive sales tactics, high-pressure sales (pump removed before customer agreement), withheld test results pending full payment, and charges significantly higher than competitors. This suggests systematic pricing concerns beyond simple 'fair value' disagreements.
• PROJECT FAILURE: One detailed 2024-08-15 review documents a hydro-fracking job that made the well worse (1 GPM to 0.75 GPM), with no accountability or follow-up support despite the service being ineffective.
• INCONSISTENT FOLLOW-UP: Several reviews mention lack of promised callbacks, unreturned borrowed equipment (hose not returned after 1+ year), and failure to provide promised water test results.
• RECENCY CONCERN: While many positive reviews are from 2014-2019, several serious negative reviews are from 2023-2024, suggesting recent deterioration in service quality or consistency.
• POSITIVE REVIEW PATTERN: Some reviews contain generic praise language ('highly recommend,' 'can't say enough') with minimal specific detail, though most reviews do contain substantive information and appear authentic.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While the company demonstrates genuine technical competence and responsiveness, the score is significantly depressed by credible allegations of employee misconduct, documented pricing disputes, and recent project failures. The company's reliability is inconsistent—excellent outcomes coexist with serious service failures. Customers should proceed with caution, verify pricing in writing before work begins, and be aware of potential conduct issues with field staff.

Hudson Paving and Excavation demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with multiple reviews praising friendly, responsive staff and quality workmanship. However, the score is significantly impacted by serious project completion failures: one major 2014 review documents inadequate base material and resulting structural failure of a 170-foot driveway, and a 2017 review indicates failure to respond to a quote request. Two recent negative reviews (2024, 2023) describe unprofessional employee behavior in traffic situations, though these may be tangential to core service quality. Pricing appears competitive based on limited mentions. The company shows inconsistent execution despite strong capabilities.

• CRITICAL: Major project failure documented in 2014 review — driveway installed with insufficient base material, resulting in sunken holes and cracks requiring complete redo. Multiple contractors confirmed improper installation.
• Non-responsiveness: 2017 review reports no response to quote request for 2000 sq ft driveway.
• Two recent negative reviews (2024, 2023) describe rude/aggressive employee behavior in traffic/road situations — may indicate broader professionalism issues or isolated incidents.
• Positive reviews heavily skewed toward 2020-2021 period; oldest positive reviews from 2009-2014 with one catastrophic failure in that timeframe.
• No fake review patterns detected; reviews contain specific details and vary in tone/content.

This score should be treated with caution due to documented project completion failures and recent behavioral concerns, despite demonstrated technical capability. The MODERATE overall confidence reflects conflicting evidence: strong expertise and professionalism in some engagements versus serious execution failures and responsiveness issues in others. Recommend requesting references and site inspections before engagement.

This contractor shows significant polarization in customer experience. Positive reviews (5 of 6) consistently praise professionalism, responsiveness, and technical skill, with particular commendation for emergency availability and quality workmanship. However, one detailed 1-star review from 2018 documents severe issues across all dimensions: unprofessional conduct (profanity, rudeness), pricing deception (scope creep, cash payment without receipt), poor workmanship (improper installations, unnecessary damage), and incomplete project follow-through (failed inspections not communicated, debris left behind, refusal to restore insulation). The stark contrast between glowing testimonials and the comprehensive complaint raises concerns about consistency and reliability.

• CRITICAL: Severe recency bias — 4 of 5 positive reviews are from 2013-2014 (10+ years old), while the single detailed negative review is from 2018. Recent review from 2022 is positive but generic.
• POLARIZATION PATTERN: Extreme divergence between 5-star generic praise and 1-star detailed complaint suggests either inconsistent service quality or potential selection bias in review collection.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONFLICT: Positive reviews cite professionalism; negative review explicitly documents profanity, rudeness, and unprofessional behavior during callbacks.
• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: Negative review alleges bait-and-switch pricing (inclusive quote then scope creep), cash payment without receipt, and use of cheaper parts than quoted. Positive reviews mention 'good prices' and 'great price' but lack detail.
• PROJECT COMPLETION GAPS: Negative review documents multiple incomplete/improper work items (failed inspections not communicated, debris not removed, insulation not restored, improper installations requiring rework).
• LEGAL ESCALATION: Negative review indicates complaint escalated to Attorney General offices in NH and MA, suggesting serious contractual or consumer protection violations.
• INSUFFICIENT RECENT DATA: Only 1 review from past 5 years; cannot reliably assess current service quality or whether issues have been addressed.

This score should be treated with caution due to extreme recency bias (most positive data is 10+ years old), one detailed complaint documenting systematic failures across multiple dimensions, and insufficient recent reviews to determine current operational standards. The WW Score reflects a mathematical average that masks a concerning pattern of polarized experiences and potential service inconsistency.

A Bee Septic has a mixed but generally positive track record across its review history. Professionalism scores are pulled down significantly by one credible negative review describing repeated appointment cancellations, late arrivals, and a dismissive response to a pricing complaint — a pattern that cannot be ignored even among otherwise warm feedback. Pricing is similarly mixed: several reviewers praise affordability and transparency, but one reviewer found the bill notably higher than two competing quotes by $600, raising concerns about consistency. Project completion is moderately supported, with positive accounts of fast response and follow-through on complex jobs, but the appointment failures and a serious allegation of unnecessary work recommendation (a full septic replacement that turned out to be unneeded) weigh heavily against full confidence. Experience scores reflect genuine technical praise in several reviews, particularly the detailed 2013 renovation account, but the dishonest diagnosis allegation from 2017 is a meaningful red flag that prevents a high score.

• CREDIBLE NEGATIVE PATTERN: One reviewer (2018) reported two consecutive appointment cancellations/late arrivals and a bill approximately $600 higher than competitor estimates — this is a specific, detailed, and credible complaint that meaningfully impacts professionalism and pricing scores.
• SERIOUS TRUST CONCERN: A 2017 reviewer alleges A Bee recommended a full septic system replacement that was unnecessary, confirmed by a second opinion and 15 years of continued system function. If accurate, this represents a significant ethical and competency concern.
• RECENCY WARNING: All reviews are dated between 2013 and 2019. No reviews exist from the past 5+ years (relative to a 2024/2025 evaluation date). The current state of the business cannot be reliably assessed from this data. The negative reviews about new ownership (Josh) are among the more recent entries.
• OWNERSHIP TRANSITION NOTE: One long-term customer explicitly noted a decline in service quality after a leadership change from Gerry to Josh. This suggests the business may have undergone a quality shift, and older positive reviews may not reflect current operations.
• REVIEW VOLUME: Only 8 reviews total. Scores carry moderate-to-limited statistical reliability and should be interpreted cautiously.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a small review pool of 8 reviews, all of which are over 5 years old, combined with credible negative reports involving appointment failures, potential overcharging, and an alleged dishonest diagnosis — factors that meaningfully constrain confidence in the overall score.

All three reviews speak positively to professionalism, noting punctuality, communication, and courteous behavior, which drives the highest dimension score. Project completion is also well-supported, with reviewers describing jobs finished thoroughly, cleanly, and with follow-through such as temporary fixes and callbacks. Pricing is mentioned in only one review, where the hourly model was praised as transparent and fair compared to competitors, but this limited data warrants a conservative score. Experience is referenced in two reviews through descriptions of first-rate workmanship and repair expertise, but the small sample size keeps confidence low. Overall, the reviews are positive but the dataset is very small, limiting the reliability of any conclusions.

• Only 3 reviews total — dataset is too small for high-confidence scoring across any dimension.
• One review (2017-12-17) is over 6 years old and may not reflect current service quality; only 2 reviews fall within the past 12–18 months.
• All reviews are 5-star, which warrants mild caution, though each review contains specific details and unique language that reduces the likelihood of fake reviews.
• Pricing data is based on a single review — that dimension score should be treated with significant caution.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning a wide date range, making it a low-reliability signal that should not be used as a definitive assessment of contractor quality without additional review data.

Enwright exhibits a highly polarized performance pattern with stark contrasts between recent negative experiences (2023–2024) and older positive reviews (2014–2020). Recent reviews document serious professionalism failures including rudeness, poor communication, extended delays, incomplete work (uncorrected condensate line), and alleged dishonesty regarding fixture exchanges. Older reviews praise reliability, fair pricing, and quality workmanship, but these are dated 4–10 years old and may not reflect current operations. Project completion is undermined by documented incomplete repairs and callbacks that required competitor intervention. Pricing receives moderate support but is contradicted by one review noting a competitor fixed the same issue at half the cost.

• CRITICAL RECENCY ISSUE: 4 of 7 reviews are older than 4 years (2014–2020). Only 3 recent reviews (2023–2024), and all 3 are 1-star negative reviews describing serious failures.
• POLARIZATION PATTERN: Stark divide between older 5-star reviews praising 'Mark' and recent 1-star reviews describing incompetence, rudeness, and dishonesty. Suggests possible business decline, staff turnover, or quality degradation over time.
• INCOMPLETE WORK DOCUMENTED: Multiple reviews explicitly state work was not completed correctly (hot water not turned back on, condensate line not connected, shower issue misdiagnosed). Competitors had to fix the same issues.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERNS: Recent reviews describe rudeness, poor phone communication, extended unexplained delays (2+ hours), and alleged theft/barter fraud.
• POTENTIAL OWNERSHIP/STAFF CHANGE: Older reviews reference 'Mark Sr.' and 'Mark Jr.' Unclear if current operations involve same personnel. Recent failures may indicate staff or management change.
• LIMITED SAMPLE SIZE: Only 7 reviews total. Confidence is constrained by small dataset despite mention counts.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While mention counts support HIGH confidence in individual dimensions, the extreme recency bias (all recent reviews are 1-star failures) and polarization pattern suggest the company's current performance may be significantly worse than the overall score indicates. The WW Score of 62.8 is heavily weighted by older positive reviews that may not reflect present-day operations. Prospective customers should prioritize the three recent 2023–2024 reviews as more predictive of current service quality.