Find Nearby Plumbers In Atlantic City, New Jersey

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. The reviews mention professionalism (2 mentions), project completion (1 mention), and experience/quality (1 mention), but pricing is not addressed in any review. Both reviews are highly positive with 5-star ratings, but lack specific detail about scope, complexity, or challenges overcome.

• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — WW Score cannot be reliably calculated
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with generic praise language ('awesome', 'great company', 'quality work') and minimal specific detail
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — cannot assess Price Friendly dimension
• One review is from June 2023 (older than 12 months); one from August 2024 (recent)
• Potential pattern of generic positive language suggests limited substantive feedback

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (minimum 3 required). Any scoring would be based on extremely limited data and should not be used for decision-making.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. Both reviews are from 2021 (over 3 years old) and contain suspiciously generic praise with identical structural patterns (opening endorsement, list of virtues, strong recommendation). Professionalism and project completion are mentioned in both reviews with positive language. Pricing is mentioned in only one review. No technical skill or workmanship details are provided. The WW Score cannot be reliably calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews provided — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring
• RECENCY CONCERN: Both reviews are from 2021 (3+ years old); no recent data available
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Both reviews use nearly identical structural format (enthusiastic opening → list of positive attributes → strong recommendation). Review 2 uses generic phrases like 'honest plumber' and 'will show up' with no specific project details. Review 1 mentions names (Norm and Joe) but provides no specifics about the work performed
• MISSING DATA: Experience/workmanship dimension not explicitly mentioned in either review
• INSUFFICIENT DETAIL: No information about specific projects, timelines, or technical problem-solving

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required), extreme age of reviews (all from 2021), and suspected review authenticity concerns; any scoring would be speculative and should not be trusted for decision-making.

With only two reviews — one strongly negative and one strongly positive — no reliable pattern can be established. The negative review raises serious concerns about professionalism, alleging coercive behavior (refusing to certify a working water heater unless an unnecessary $300 service was purchased) and operating under multiple business names, which is a significant red flag. The positive review praises friendliness, responsiveness, and same-day completion of multiple plumbing tasks for a school district, but lacks specific detail that would increase confidence. The stark contrast between the two reviews and the serious nature of the allegations in the negative review pull scores downward across all dimensions.

• CRITICAL FLAG: The negative reviewer alleges the contractor operates under 3-4 different business names (referencing '406 Bloomfield Berlin'), which may indicate an attempt to obscure a negative review history or avoid accountability.
• CRITICAL FLAG: Alleged coercive/extortionate behavior — refusing to certify a repaired water heater as functional unless an unnecessary $300 preventive maintenance service was purchased, reportedly impacting a real estate closing.
• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews total. The WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules. All dimension scores should be treated as highly provisional.
• RECENCY NOTE: Both reviews are from 2019, making them over 5 years old. No recent reviews are available to assess current performance.
• CONFLICT NOTE: The two reviews are diametrically opposed (1-star vs. 5-star), making it impossible to determine a reliable trend without additional data.

This score report has very low reliability — only 2 reviews exist, both are over 5 years old, and they directly contradict each other, with one containing serious allegations of misconduct and potential deceptive business practices that cannot be dismissed.

Both reviews describe severe failures across all dimensions. Review 1 alleges bait-and-switch tactics on appliance selection, cost-driven decision-making contrary to stated energy efficiency goals, and unresponsive communication. Review 2 describes unlicensed work, failure to disclose mold contamination, withheld test results, health hazards, non-compliance with insurance requirements, and repeated failure to honor commitments. However, with only 2 reviews total, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated. The extreme severity and consistency of complaints across both reviews suggests systemic operational failures, but the sample size is insufficient for statistical confidence.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed — insufficient data for reliable WW Score calculation per Rule 4 (minimum 3 reviews required).
• Both reviews are 1-star ratings with detailed, specific allegations of fraud, health hazards, and unlicensed work — not generic praise or fake review patterns.
• Review 2 is from 2019 (5+ years old) — recency is poor; Review 1 is from 2024 (recent).
• Review 2 alleges serious legal/regulatory violations: unlicensed work, mold contamination, withheld safety test results, and government contract fraud. These are not typical service complaints.
• Review 1 alleges deliberate bait-and-switch and cost-driven substitution contrary to customer agreement.
• No positive reviews present to balance assessment — 100% negative sample.
• Confidence in all dimension scores is LIMITED due to mention count of 2 (below the 3-4 threshold for MODERATE).

This assessment is unreliable for decision-making. With only 2 reviews, no WW Score can be calculated. Both reviews allege severe failures, but the sample is too small to generalize. If these allegations are accurate, this contractor poses serious risks; however, independent verification of claims (licensing status, mold testing, insurance records, government contract status) is essential before drawing conclusions.

Only a single review is available, making any scoring highly unreliable. The reviewer expressed strong dissatisfaction with the pricing, citing a $120–$128 service call charge for what they described as a 5-minute task, which drove a very low pricing score. Professionalism received a below-average score due to the reviewer's implication that the contractor lacked neighborly goodwill and did not waive or reduce the charge given the circumstances. No data was available for project completion or experience, so those dimensions could not be scored.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated January 2016, making it over 8 years old. Recency weighting is extremely low and this review may not reflect current contractor behavior.
• The complaint appears partially personal in nature (neighbor relationship expectation), which may introduce bias into the pricing and professionalism assessments.
• No data exists for project completion or experience dimensions — two of the highest-weighted scoring categories.

This score report is based on a single, nearly decade-old review and should not be considered a reliable indicator of this contractor's current quality, pricing, or professionalism.