Find Nearby Plumbers In Perth Amboy, New Jersey

Only one review was available for analysis, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review praises reliability, fair pricing, and workmanship quality, but with only one data point, confidence in any dimension is severely limited. The review is dated 2018 (over 5 years old), which further reduces its relevance to current service quality. Project completion was not explicitly mentioned in the review.

• Insufficient data: only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• Review is significantly outdated (September 2018 — over 5 years old). Does not reflect current service quality.
• Generic praise language without specific project details or examples. Cannot verify claims independently.
• No mention of project completion, timeliness, or callbacks — critical dimensions for contractor evaluation.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (1 review) and age (2018). At least 3 recent reviews are required to generate a meaningful score.

This single review describes serious ethical and billing concerns that severely undermine trust in the contractor. While the technical work itself was competent (leak found and repaired), the customer alleges deceptive practices including: substituting old wood for new without disclosure, charging for a trip to Home Depot that may not have occurred, double-charging for system drainage, and failing to respond to billing complaints. The contractor's friendly demeanor masked dishonest business practices. A WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from one review, but the evidence presented suggests significant problems with pricing transparency and professional integrity.

• CRITICAL: Single review only — insufficient data for reliable WW Score calculation (minimum 3 reviews required)
• SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS: Customer alleges deliberate deception (old wood substituted for new), overcharging, and non-responsive follow-up to billing disputes
• INTEGRITY CONCERN: Contractor allegedly charged for materials/services not delivered or already included in quoted price
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: Contractor did not respond to customer's expressed billing concerns via email
• REVIEW AGE: This review is from April 2022 (over 2 years old) — does not reflect current business practices

This score cannot be trusted as a reliable assessment of current contractor performance because only one review was provided, which is below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews. However, the allegations in this review are serious and specific enough to warrant caution; potential customers should seek additional recent reviews before engaging this contractor.

Only one review was available for analysis, making any aggregate scoring unreliable. That single review describes a severely negative experience centered entirely on professionalism — specifically, an inaccessible voicemail box, a two-day delayed text response, failure to answer a return call, and a technician who refused to identify himself. No work was ever performed, so pricing, project completion, and experience cannot be evaluated at all. The professionalism score of 8 reflects near-total failure across every communication and responsiveness indicator mentioned.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• No work was completed, so three of four scoring dimensions have zero data and cannot be scored.
• Review is dated 2019-02-07 — this is more than 5 years old and may not reflect current business practices.
• Single 1-star review with no counterbalancing data; score should be treated as anecdotal, not representative.

This score is not reliable — it is based on a single review from over five years ago that covers only one dimension, and the WW Score itself cannot be calculated with fewer than three reviews.

Only a single review is available, dated March 2012 — over 12 years ago — which severely limits reliability. The reviewer noted a fast response time (under 30 minutes) and that the job was completed correctly, suggesting adequate professionalism, follow-through, and workmanship. However, no mention of pricing, detailed quality observations, or any other specifics were provided. With only one brief, dated review, no meaningful WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 1 review available — minimum of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is from March 2012, more than 12 years old. This data is significantly outdated and should not be used to assess current contractor performance.
• Review is very brief and lacks specific detail, limiting the ability to score dimensions with confidence.
• Pricing dimension has no data whatsoever and cannot be scored.

This score report is not reliable — it is based on a single, 12-year-old review with minimal detail, and no WW Score can be responsibly calculated from this data alone.

This single review paints a deeply negative picture across all four dimensions. The reviewer explicitly describes substandard workmanship on all three jobs — a roof boot not properly sealed, a toilet reset that caused ceiling damage due to missing caulk, and an incomplete trap replacement that continued leaking — directly impacting both Experience and Project Completion scores. Pricing was flagged as high with no bundling discount offered, and the technician's effective hourly rate was noted as excessive for the quality delivered. Professionalism suffered further when the company refused to accommodate a Saturday callback appointment to remedy their own errors, leaving the customer to hire someone else to fix the damage caused. It is worth noting the reviewer had a positive prior experience with the same company, suggesting a possible inconsistency in service quality rather than a uniformly poor contractor.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Review is dated 2019-05-22, which is more than 5 years old. This data may not reflect current service quality.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention and should be treated as very low confidence. Scores may shift dramatically with additional reviews.
• The reviewer references a prior positive experience with the same company, suggesting possible service inconsistency rather than a consistently poor track record — this context should be weighed carefully.

This score is based on a single review from 2019 and should not be considered a reliable indicator of this contractor's overall quality — additional recent reviews are essential before drawing any meaningful conclusions.

Only a single review was available for analysis, making any scoring highly unreliable. The reviewer mentions fair pricing and a willingness to handle jobs of varying sizes, which provides limited evidence for pricing and project completion dimensions. The claim that the company can handle any job suggests some confidence in their experience, but this is vague and unsubstantiated by specific detail. No explicit mention of professionalism indicators such as punctuality, communication, or appearance was made, so that dimension could not be scored. The review is also from 2015, making it nearly a decade old and of very low recency value.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated November 2015 — approximately 9+ years old. Recency is extremely low and this review may not reflect current business quality.
• Review language is generic and lacks specific detail (e.g., no job type mentioned, no names, no specifics about pricing or work performed). This pattern is consistent with low-detail or potentially unverifiable reviews.
• Single 5-star review with broad praise and no critical detail — treat all dimension scores with extreme caution.

This score is based on a single, nearly decade-old review with generic language and no specific detail, making it highly unreliable and unsuitable for drawing any meaningful conclusions about this contractor's current quality or performance.