Find Nearby Plumbers In Wilmington, North Carolina

This single review describes a deeply troubling experience involving a $3,500 deposit dispute, contradictory statements about where the deposit was allocated, and an apparent refusal to issue a refund. Professionalism scored near zero due to shifting explanations, poor communication, and what the reviewer describes as bad-faith conduct. Pricing scored extremely low due to a unilaterally changed deposit structure and alleged misappropriation of funds. Project completion scored at the floor because no work was ever performed and the project was abandoned before confirmation of the system type. No technical workmanship was observed or described, so Experience cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review is available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• The review alleges potential financial misconduct including misrepresentation of deposit terms and refusal to refund for unperformed work — this is a serious red flag beyond typical service complaints.
• The reviewer references a potential legal/statutory violation regarding unsigned contract documents, suggesting a possible contractual dispute that may escalate to small claims court.
• No positive reviews exist to provide balance; this score reflects a single negative data point and should be interpreted with caution in both directions.

This WW Score is based on a single 1-star review and should be considered highly unreliable as a general assessment of this contractor — however, the specific allegations described are serious and prospective customers should exercise significant caution until more review data is available.

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 mentions professionalism (prompt, hard working), pricing (fair, affordable), and project completion (stands by his work), but with only one data point per dimension, confidence is severely limited and any aggregate score would be unreliable.

• Only 1 review available — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2020 (4+ years old) — recency is a concern
• Generic praise language with no specific project details provided

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume; at least 3 reviews are needed to establish baseline reliability.

Insufficient data — only 1 review analyzed. The single review mentions professional service and reasonable rates, but provides no specific details about project completion, workmanship quality, or actual work performed. The review lacks concrete examples or evidence of the claims made, making it difficult to assess reliability.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably (minimum 3 reviews required)
• Review is generic and lacks specific details about work performed, timeline, or outcomes
• Suspiciously vague praise with multiple exclamation marks but no substantive information
• No mention of actual project completion, quality of work, or problem-solving
• Review date is over 1 year old (November 2023)

This score cannot be trusted — insufficient review volume and lack of specific evidence prevent reliable assessment of contractor quality.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. The single review praises professionalism (describing the team as 'very professional' and responsive to emergencies), pricing ('good prices'), and project completion (multiple successful visits). However, no technical skill or workmanship details were mentioned. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a reliable WW Score.

• Only 1 review available — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2021 (3+ years old) — recency is a concern
• No specific technical details or workmanship examples provided
• Generic praise language without concrete project descriptions

This analysis cannot be trusted as a reliable score due to insufficient review volume (n=1) and age of the single review. At least 3 recent reviews are needed to establish confidence in any dimension.

This single review provides positive feedback across all four dimensions. The reviewer explicitly praised professionalism (nice, well-mannered staff), pricing (competitive quotes), project completion (fast turnaround, hot water restored by 5:30 PM same day), and experience (described as doing a wonderful job). However, with only one review, confidence in any dimension is severely limited and cannot support a reliable overall WW Score calculation.

• Insufficient data: only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• Review is from 2021 (over 3 years old). Recency is a concern for current contractor performance assessment.
• Single positive review with no negative feedback or specific technical details limits ability to validate claims.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score with only one review; a minimum of 3 reviews is required to establish meaningful patterns and confidence levels.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. The single review mentions professionalism (nice person, excellent customer service), project completion (work looked awesome), and experience (quality of painting work), but pricing is not addressed. Each dimension is based on only 1 mention, resulting in LIMITED confidence across all scored dimensions.

• Only 1 review provided — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review contains generic praise with minimal specific detail about the work performed
• No pricing information mentioned — cannot assess Price Friendly dimension
• Single data point is insufficient to establish patterns or validate consistency

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume. A minimum of 3 reviews is required; only 1 review was available for analysis.