Find Nearby Plumbers In Greensboro, North Carolina

These reviews are for a plumbing supply store (Hajoca), not a contractor or plumber. The reviews evaluate retail service, product availability, and staff helpfulness rather than job completion, punctuality, or workmanship on actual plumbing projects. While experience/knowledge is mentioned positively (5 mentions), pricing feedback is mixed (2 mentions), and professionalism/project completion cannot be reliably assessed from supply store reviews. A WW Score cannot be calculated as this business model does not align with the contractor/plumber evaluation framework.

• CRITICAL: These reviews are for a plumbing supply retailer (Hajoca), not a contractor or plumber. The WW Score engine is designed to evaluate service contractors, not retail stores.
• Most reviews are older than 1 year (6 of 8 reviews from 2013-2017). Only 1 review from 2023.
• Reviews focus on retail experience (product availability, staff friendliness, store hours) rather than project execution, job completion, or workmanship quality.
• Professionalism dimension cannot be scored—reviews mention 'friendly' and 'helpful' staff but do not address punctuality, communication on projects, or professional conduct in a service context.
• Project completion dimension has zero mentions—no reviews discuss whether jobs were finished on time, completed fully, or callbacks were honored.
• Pricing feedback is contradictory: one review praises 'great price' and 'reasonable pricing,' while another questions a $100 price premium with no clear explanation.

This WW Score cannot be reliably calculated because the reviews are for a plumbing supply store, not a contractor or plumber service provider. The evaluation framework does not apply to retail operations. Do not use this score for contractor evaluation purposes.

This contractor exhibits severe and consistent deficiencies across all dimensions. Pricing is the most damning issue, with all five reviews explicitly documenting extreme price gouging—charges ranging from $543 to $1,000+ for routine jobs that competitors quote at $140–$275. Professionalism is critically compromised by unethical practices including threatening liens without contracts, lack of transparency on pricing, and failure to provide estimates before work. Project completion shows poor workmanship (improper faucet installation, dropped bolts in wells, excessive fittings creating leak hazards) and lack of follow-through. Experience is severely questioned, with one review documenting fundamental incompetence (misdiagnosing a well problem, leaving equipment damaged). No positive feedback exists across any dimension.

• CRITICAL: All 5 reviews are 1-star ratings with uniformly negative assessments. No positive reviews present.
• CRITICAL: Systematic price gouging documented across all reviews—charges 2–7x higher than market rates for identical services.
• CRITICAL: Ethical violations flagged: threatening liens without contracts, charging for estimates without disclosure, redirecting review sites to unrelated websites.
• CRITICAL: Quality and competence issues: improper installations, dropped equipment in wells, misdiagnosis of problems, excessive time on simple jobs.
• CRITICAL: Lack of transparency: no upfront pricing disclosure, estimates not provided before arrival, rates hidden on personal website rather than job platforms.
• Recency: All reviews are from past 4 months (August–November 2024), indicating ongoing pattern of problematic behavior.
• Pattern suggests predatory business practices targeting emergency situations and customers unable to shop around.

This assessment is highly reliable. Five recent reviews with consistent, specific, and corroborated complaints across pricing, professionalism, and quality provide overwhelming evidence of serious contractor deficiencies. The uniformity of negative feedback and documented unethical practices warrant strong caution.

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 3 of 4 reviews are relevant to plumbing services; one review is for a farm & garden supply store and has been excluded. The remaining reviews show conflicting signals: two positive reviews (2018, 2021) praise professionalism and workmanship, but one strongly negative review (2019) documents repeated service failures and property damage. All reviews are older than 12 months, with the most recent usable review from August 2021. The limited mention count (2 per dimension) and age of data prevent confident scoring.

• One review (2014-10-29) is for a farm & garden supply store, not plumbing services — excluded from analysis
• All usable reviews are older than 3 years; most recent is August 2021 — recency is a significant concern
• Severe contradiction between reviews: one documents three failed service calls with water damage (2019), while others praise service quality — suggests inconsistent performance or possible service quality changes over time
• Insufficient review volume (n=3 usable) to establish reliable patterns or confidence in scoring

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient data volume (fewer than 5 usable reviews), conflicting evidence of service quality, and age of reviews exceeding 3 years — any score derived would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

This contractor shows severe contradictions across reviews that prevent reliable scoring. Two detailed negative reviews (2022, 2019) document dishonest pricing practices, failure to provide estimates, substituting materials without authorization, and work that required callbacks within one month. One positive review (2018) praises technical knowledge and personality but lacks specificity and predates the negative reviews by 4+ years. The pattern of contradictory feedback combined with extremely limited sample size (3 reviews total) and significant recency gap makes any aggregate score unreliable.

• CRITICAL: Extreme contradiction between reviews suggests either significant service degradation over time or potential fake positive review. The 2018 positive review is generic and lacks specific project details, while 2022 and 2019 negative reviews are highly detailed with specific dollar amounts and documented failures.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent reviews (2022, 2019) are negative and document serious issues (dishonesty, failed repairs, overcharging). Positive review is from 2018 — over 4 years old.
• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 3 reviews total. Minimum 5 reviews recommended for any dimension to achieve HIGH confidence. All dimensions scored on LIMITED data.
• PATTERN DETECTED: Both negative reviews explicitly mention dishonesty, overcharging, and work failures. This is not random complaint variation — it suggests systemic issues.
• NO BBB MEMBERSHIP: Mentioned in 2019 review as notable absence.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient reviews (n=3), extreme contradictions between positive and negative feedback, significant recency gaps, and all dimensions based on LIMITED confidence data. The detailed nature of negative reviews and their consistency on dishonesty/overcharging suggests serious concerns, but the small sample size prevents definitive scoring. Do not rely on any aggregate score here — review the individual detailed complaints directly.

This contractor cannot be reliably scored due to insufficient review volume (only 3 reviews) and severe data quality issues. Two reviews describe serious misconduct allegations involving employee behavior (aggressive confrontation and alleged recording of a woman without consent), while one positive review mentions basic task completion. The professionalism dimension is heavily compromised by explicit allegations of unprofessional and potentially illegal conduct. No pricing or experience data is available. The extreme polarity and serious nature of the allegations prevent calculation of a meaningful WW Score.

• CRITICAL: Two reviews allege serious employee misconduct including aggressive public confrontation and non-consensual recording of a woman. These are not minor service complaints but potential legal/safety issues.
• Review from 2021-08-18 describes alleged recording of customer without consent — potential privacy violation and criminal conduct.
• Review from 2024-05-21 describes aggressive employee behavior and reckless driving in company vehicle — safety and professionalism concern.
• Only 3 total reviews analyzed — insufficient data for reliable scoring (minimum 5+ reviews recommended).
• One positive review (2021-04-22) is generic with no specific detail about service quality, pricing, or timeline.
• Extreme polarity (two 1-star behavioral complaints vs. one 5-star generic praise) suggests potential credibility issues but allegations are specific and detailed.
• Most recent serious complaint is from May 2024 — recent enough to be current concern.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume and the presence of serious, specific allegations of employee misconduct that raise fundamental safety and legal concerns independent of normal service quality metrics.

Only one review contained usable, substantive data. That review describes a serious failure in professionalism: the contractor turned off hot water in freezing temperatures, refused to return to correct a post-service leak, and demanded additional payment for remedying what the customer believed was his own error. Pricing was flagged as unethical — the customer felt the contractor was 'greedy' and used separate-charge tactics to avoid accountability. Project completion is scored low because the job was left in a worse state than before, with an unresolved leak and disabled hot water. A partial credit for experience is given only because the primary task (garbage disposal replacement) was reportedly completed, though the downstream issues undermine confidence in workmanship quality.

• Two of three reviews contain only the text 'unknown' with no substantive content — these reviews provide zero usable data and were excluded from scoring.
• The two 'unknown' reviews are both 5-star ratings with no detail, which is consistent with fake or placeholder review patterns. Confidence in any positive signal from those reviews is zero.
• All three reviews are dated 2014–2016, making them over 8 years old. This data is significantly outdated and may not reflect the contractor's current quality or practices.
• With only 1 usable review, no dimension reaches even LIMITED reliability in a meaningful sense. All scores should be treated as highly speculative.
• The sole usable review describes potentially unethical behavior: abandoning a job site with disabled utilities in dangerous weather conditions and refusing callback without additional charge.

This WW Score cannot be reliably calculated due to only 1 substantive review being available, with the remaining 2 reviews containing no usable content; the data is also over 8 years old, making any conclusions about this contractor's current performance highly unreliable.