Find Nearby Plumbers In Albany, New York

This single review describes a severely negative experience with a plumber who failed to identify an existing leak, dismissed the customer's concerns, and subsequently refused to return calls. The review explicitly mentions poor professionalism (dismissive attitude, lack of responsiveness), failure to complete the job properly (leak not identified or repaired), and questionable technical expertise (misdiagnosis by claimed master plumber). However, with only one review and no pricing information mentioned, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY: Review is from December 2022 (over 1 year old). Current contractor performance may differ.
• CRITICAL SERVICE FAILURE: Review alleges misdiagnosis of leak, dismissive communication, and complete non-responsiveness post-service. This represents serious professional and technical failures if accurate.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score with only one review; at least 3 reviews are needed to establish meaningful patterns and confidence levels.

Only one review was provided, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review criticizes professionalism (unreliable arrival and poor cleanup), but no data exists for pricing, project completion, or experience dimensions. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a trustworthy overall assessment.

• Insufficient Data — only 1 review provided; minimum 3 reviews required for WW Score calculation
• Review is from 2022 (over 2 years old); recency is a concern
• Only professionalism dimension has data; three critical dimensions lack any mention

This analysis cannot produce a valid WW Score due to insufficient review volume and data sparsity across dimensions.

This single review describes significant failures across all dimensions. The contractor delivered poor-quality work on a dehumidifier installation, requiring two service calls. Communication broke down entirely on the second callback, with the phone disconnected or unreachable. Independent verification from other plumbers confirmed substandard workmanship. While pricing was cheap, the customer explicitly noted poor value. However, a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single review, as one customer's experience may not represent typical performance.

• Insufficient data: only 1 review analyzed. WW Score calculation requires minimum 3 reviews for reliability.
• Review is dated January 2024 (approximately 12 months old); recency is borderline.
• Single negative review does not establish a pattern; contractor performance cannot be fairly assessed from one data point.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. A single review, regardless of its content, cannot provide a trustworthy overall assessment of contractor performance. At least 3 reviews are required to identify patterns and calculate a meaningful WW Score.

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 documents severe professionalism issues (rudeness, argumentativeness, yelling) and pricing concerns (lack of written quotes, vague estimates), but with only one data point and no information on project completion or experience quality, no meaningful overall score can be generated.

• CRITICAL: Only 1 review provided. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• Review is from 2012 (12+ years old) — not recent data.
• Project was not completed — customer terminated relationship before work was finished, so Project Completion dimension cannot be scored.
• No data on actual workmanship quality or technical experience since job was abandoned.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (1 review vs. minimum 3 required) and extreme age of the single data point (2012).

This single review describes an extremely serious allegation: the contractor accepted a $2,000 deposit via bank transfer and never started the contracted work, nor returned the funds when requested. The reviewer states they filed complaints with multiple consumer protection agencies including the BBB, the Attorney General's office, and the Bureau of Consumer Affairs and Protection. Professionalism is scored near zero due to the alleged failure to communicate, return money, or honor commitments. Project completion is scored at zero as no work was ever started. Pricing and experience cannot be scored as neither was meaningfully addressed in the review.

• SERIOUS FRAUD ALLEGATION: Reviewer explicitly states contractor accepted $2,000 deposit and never performed any work or returned the funds.
• MULTIPLE REGULATORY COMPLAINTS FILED: Reviewer reports filing complaints with the BBB, Consumer Affairs, and the Office of the Attorney General — this is a significant red flag beyond a typical negative review.
• ONLY 1 REVIEW AVAILABLE: With a single review, no WW Score can be reliably calculated. The score is marked as Insufficient Data.
• REVIEW AGE WARNING: This review is dated June 2014, making it over 10 years old. It may not reflect the contractor's current practices, but the severity of the allegation warrants prominent display regardless of age.
• NO POSITIVE OR NEUTRAL REVIEWS TO BALANCE: There are no other reviews to provide context, contrast, or counterweight to this allegation.

This score report is based on a single decade-old review containing a serious fraud allegation; no statistically reliable WW Score can be produced, and any hiring decision should be made with extreme caution pending verification of the contractor's current standing and resolution of the reported complaint.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed, which is below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a reliable WW Score calculation. The single review documents severe failures in responsiveness (not returning phone calls) and project completion (permit not pulled since December, inspection not completed), but this represents an isolated data point that cannot be generalized.

• Only 1 review available — insufficient sample size for reliable scoring
• Review is from May 2021 (nearly 3 years old) — recency is a concern
• Review contains legal threat language ('see you in Court') — may indicate dispute context
• Cannot assess overall contractor performance from single negative review without corroborating data

This score cannot be trusted or used for decision-making. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a reliable WW Score; only 1 review was provided.