Find Nearby Plumbers In Wilmington, North Carolina

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. The two reviews provided contain no substantive information. The first review contains only the text 'unknown' with a 1-star rating, providing no actionable feedback on any dimension. The second review contains only the word 'Great!' with a 5-star rating, offering no specific details about professionalism, pricing, project completion, or experience. Both reviews are also older than 9 years (2014–2015), falling well outside the recommended 12-month recency window.

• Both reviews are older than 9 years and lack recency
• First review contains only placeholder text 'unknown' with no substantive content
• Second review is generic one-word praise with zero specificity
• No actionable data on any of the four dimensions
• Insufficient review volume and quality to produce a reliable WW Score

This score cannot be calculated or trusted. A minimum of 3 reviews with substantive, dimension-specific feedback is required to produce a reliable WW Score.

Both available reviews are strongly negative and paint a consistent picture of serious problems across multiple dimensions. Professionalism was heavily criticized in both reviews, with one reviewer describing the contractor disappearing for days without communication and the other noting a failure to clean up and abandoning the job entirely. Project completion is the most alarming dimension, with one reviewer explicitly stating the contractor quit before the job was finished while keeping all payment, and the other noting a job that took nearly a month when it should have taken under a week. Pricing transparency was flagged in one review, citing two separate price increases mid-job with no apparent justification. Workmanship received a marginally higher score only because one reviewer acknowledged the work that was completed was functionally acceptable, though the other described it as shabby.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules (fewer than 3 reviews).
• Both reviews are dated in 2021, meaning all data is over 3 years old. Current contractor performance is unknown and may differ significantly.
• One review contains a serious allegation: contractor abandoned the job and retained full payment without completing the work. This is a significant consumer protection concern.
• One review describes repeated mid-job price increases (upcharging), which may indicate a pattern of deceptive pricing practices.
• No recent reviews are available to assess whether these issues have been resolved or if the contractor has improved.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both from 2021, making it statistically unreliable and temporally outdated — treat all dimension scores as directional indicators only, not definitive assessments.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a statistically meaningful WW Score. The two reviews present extreme polarization: one 5-star review praising quick response, reasonable rates, and efficient work, and one 1-star review citing lateness, poor workmanship, overcharging, and damage to home systems. This stark contradiction makes it impossible to establish reliable scoring without additional data.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring
• EXTREME POLARIZATION: One 5-star and one 1-star review with contradictory claims about quality and pricing
• RECENCY CONCERN: One review is from 2017 (7+ years old); only one recent review from 2021
• INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE: With only 2 mentions per dimension and extreme disagreement, confidence in any score is severely limited
• UNRESOLVED DISPUTE: The 1-star review alleges serious damage (water pressure issues) and rework required, but no follow-up or resolution is documented

This score cannot be trusted. With only 2 reviews showing extreme disagreement and one being 7 years old, no meaningful WW Score can be calculated. Collect at least 3 additional recent reviews before attempting to assess this contractor's reliability.

Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which is below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation. The reviews present a stark contradiction: one describes severe professionalism failures (no-shows, no apology, dismissive attitude) and aggressive overpricing ($800 vs. $300-400 fair value), while the other praises responsiveness, technical knowledge, fair pricing, and punctuality. With such limited and conflicting data, no meaningful aggregate score can be computed.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews analyzed; minimum 3 required for reliable scoring
• EXTREME CONTRADICTION: Reviews describe opposite experiences (1-star vs. 5-star), suggesting either inconsistent service quality or different service contexts
• RECENCY CONCERN: Both reviews are from 2022 (over 1 year old); no recent data available
• POSSIBLE IDENTITY CONFUSION: Review 1 mentions a 28-year-old contractor; Review 2 mentions 'Frank' from 'Water Heater Plus' and references 'Ben Franklin Plumbing' as competitor. Unclear if same contractor or different entities
• PRICING VOLATILITY: Extreme pricing variance between reviews ($300-800 range vs. competitive quote) suggests either different job types or inconsistent pricing practices

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required) and contradictory evidence across dimensions. Any aggregate score would be meaningless. Additional recent reviews are essential before making a trust-based recommendation.

Only two reviews exist, making any score highly unreliable. The negative review from 2007 describes seriously poor workmanship requiring a second plumber to correct, rude behavior, hidden charges beyond the contract, and the contractor abandoning the job entirely — all severe red flags across every dimension. The positive review from 2005 describes courteous workers, cleanup, and completed work with a bonus repair, which is a strong signal but cannot outweigh the severity of the negative account given the tiny sample size. Both reviews are over 17 years old, meaning they reflect no current performance data whatsoever. Scores have been kept very conservative due to the conflicting signals, extremely low review count, and age of all available data.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are from 2005–2007, making them over 17 years old. They carry no meaningful signal about current contractor performance.
• Review 1 describes abandoned work, hidden charges beyond the contract, rude behavior, and workmanship so poor a second plumber laughed at it — these are serious multi-dimension failure indicators.
• Review 1 includes a note about vulnerability targeting ('especially not to a single female'), which may indicate predatory business practices.
• The two reviews are in direct conflict with each other, producing a highly polarized and unresolvable signal at this sample size.
• No recent reviews are available to assess whether performance has improved or declined since 2007.

This WW Score should not be trusted for any decision-making purpose — only 2 reviews exist, both are over 17 years old, and they directly contradict each other, making it impossible to draw a reliable conclusion about this contractor's current quality or trustworthiness.

Both available reviews are strongly negative and describe serious failures across multiple dimensions. Professionalism is critically low, with both reviewers citing a lack of follow-up, broken equipment (septic tank lids damaged in both cases), and dismissive or blame-shifting communication from the company. Project completion is nearly non-existent, as both reviewers explicitly state the job was not finished and the contractor failed to return as promised. Experience is also called into question, with one reviewer noting that a subsequent contractor confirmed the tank had not been properly pumped. Pricing received the lowest score due to one reviewer describing a coercive demand for additional payment under threat of reversing completed work, which is an extreme red flag.

• Only 2 reviews are available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules (fewer than 3 reviews).
• One review dates from 2019 (over 5 years old) and should be weighted less than the 2024 review, though both describe strikingly similar incidents (broken septic lid, incomplete work, no follow-up).
• The similarity between the two incidents — broken lids, incomplete pumping, failure to return — may indicate a persistent pattern of behavior rather than isolated events, which increases concern despite the small sample size.
• The 2019 review describes a potentially coercive or extortionate business practice (threatening to pump waste back into the tank if payment was refused), which is a serious red flag warranting caution.
• No positive reviews were provided for analysis. It is unknown whether this sample is representative of the contractor's full review history.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and must be considered highly unreliable as a statistical measure; however, the severity and specificity of both complaints — spanning multiple years — suggest genuine and recurring service failures that prospective customers should take seriously.