Find Nearby Plumbers In White Plains, New York

This single review describes severe failures across all dimensions: work was not completed to code and continued to leak after payment, the owner refused callbacks (professionalism failure), the customer was charged $2200 despite incomplete work (pricing and completion failure), and the workmanship was defective (experience failure). The reviewer has escalated to regulatory agencies. However, a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single review, as one customer's experience—while serious—does not establish a pattern or provide sufficient data for confident scoring.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. WW Score requires minimum 3 reviews to calculate reliably.
• SINGLE NEGATIVE REVIEW: Cannot determine if this represents systemic issues or isolated incident without additional reviews.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS: Review alleges incomplete work, code violations, non-responsiveness, and regulatory complaints. These are critical concerns that warrant investigation but cannot be validated from one review alone.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to establish patterns and confidence. The single review provided contains serious allegations that should be investigated independently, but one customer account is insufficient for reliable contractor evaluation.

Only a single review is available, which severely limits scoring reliability. The reviewer describes two separate service visits, praising the technicians as pleasant and knowledgeable and noting that both issues were resolved. Professionalism is supported by references to attitude and helpfulness, while project completion is implied by the resolution of the leaking sink. Experience is noted through the word 'knowledgeable,' though no technical detail is provided. Pricing is entirely unmentioned and cannot be scored. All scores are conservative due to the single-review basis.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores are based on a single review and carry LIMITED confidence only.
• Pricing dimension has no data whatsoever and is excluded from any scoring.
• Review is from 2019 — over 5 years old. Recency weighting is a significant concern; this data may not reflect current service quality.

This score report is based on a single review from 2019 and should not be considered a reliable indicator of this contractor's current or overall performance.

Only one review is available for analysis, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review praises the owner's knowledge, friendliness, honesty, and fair work quality, suggesting strong professionalism and experience. However, project completion specifics are not mentioned, and pricing feedback is limited to a general 'fair' characterization. The review is dated 2011 (13+ years old), which significantly limits its relevance to current service quality.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review is from May 2011 (13+ years old). Does not reflect current business practices or service quality.
• LIMITED EVIDENCE: All dimension scores based on single mention. Cannot establish patterns or trends.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. A single review from 2011 provides no meaningful basis for assessing current contractor performance.

Only one review was provided, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review is highly positive and explicitly praises Kevin's responsiveness, late-night availability, troubleshooting ability, and customer service. However, with only one data point, confidence in any dimension is severely limited, and no pricing information was mentioned. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a trustworthy overall score.

• Insufficient review volume: only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• Review is from 2020 (4+ years old). Recency is a concern for current contractor performance assessment.
• No pricing dimension data available in the single review provided.
• Single review cannot establish patterns or validate consistency of service quality.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient data volume (1 review). At least 3 reviews are required to calculate a trustworthy overall score.

This single review paints a deeply negative picture across all four dimensions. The plumber failed to complete the job, left the sink unusable, and could not reassemble a basic trap — a task the homeowner's husband accomplished without professional training. The $100 service charge for an incomplete and damaging visit raises serious concerns about fair and transparent pricing. Communication was poor, with the plumber offering an inflated $450+ replacement estimate rather than a straightforward repair, and citing a multi-day parts delay that appears unwarranted. The original drainage problem also went entirely unresolved.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Review is dated 2018-10-15, which is more than 6 years old. Current performance may differ significantly.
• Plumber left sink in a worse, unusable state than before the visit — a serious workmanship red flag.
• Plumber was unable to reassemble a basic P-trap, which is a fundamental plumbing task — strong indicator of low skill level.
• Upsell attempt ($450+ full replacement) for what may have been a simple repair warrants a pricing transparency warning.

This score is based on a single review from 2018 and should be considered highly unreliable as a representation of the contractor's overall quality — treat it as a single data point only, not a definitive assessment.

This single review paints a severely negative picture across nearly every dimension evaluated. Professionalism was critically lacking — the contractor failed to show up as promised, did not call to cancel, and ignored multiple requests for a manager callback, demonstrating a complete breakdown in communication and customer respect. Project completion scored near zero as the job was never started, let alone finished, leaving the customer without a water heater and no time to find an alternative. Pricing received a low score because the customer was upsold a $150 yearly service agreement under the premise of guaranteed Sunday service, which was not honored — suggesting deceptive or misleading sales practices. Experience could not be assessed as no actual work was performed.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• The reviewer explicitly recommends a competitor (ABC Plumbing and Heating), suggesting strong dissatisfaction and a credible, non-generic complaint.
• The $150 service agreement upsell tied to a service promise that was not fulfilled raises a potential deceptive pricing flag.
• Review is from June 2021 — over 12 months old. No recent reviews provided for comparison. Recency weighting cannot be applied.

This score is based on a single review from 2021 and should be considered highly unreliable as a representation of the contractor's overall performance — far more reviews are needed before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn.