Find Nearby Plumbers In Bismarck, North Dakota

Walt's shows a highly inconsistent service record across three reviews spanning 2016–2021. The 2021 review praises reliability, punctuality, and quality workmanship over a 34-year relationship, but two older reviews (2016, 2019) document serious failures in communication, responsiveness, and pricing transparency. The 2019 review flags an $80 charge for minimal work (5 minutes), while the 2016 review describes multiple missed appointments and poor communication. The WW Score of 56.7 reflects this polarization: strong experience and project quality when service is delivered, but significant professionalism and pricing concerns that undermine trust. All scores are based on very limited mention counts (1–2 per dimension), making this assessment unreliable.

• Only 3 reviews total — insufficient volume for reliable scoring
• Extreme recency bias: 2021 review is 5+ years newer than 2016 review; service quality may have changed significantly
• Pricing concern: $80 charge for 5-minute service (2019) suggests potential overcharging or lack of transparency
• Communication failures documented in 2016 review (multiple no-shows, no advance notice) — serious professionalism red flag
• Positive 2021 review lacks specificity on recent pricing or communication practices; cannot confirm whether issues have been resolved

This score should be treated with caution due to only 3 reviews and significant time gaps; the 2016 and 2019 negative reviews are outdated, but the pricing and communication issues they document are serious and unresolved in available data.

The review set is very small (4 reviews) and spans a wide date range from 2014 to 2020, making it difficult to draw reliable conclusions. The most recent review (January 2020) is a significant negative outlier, describing a complete failure in communication, follow-through, and responsiveness — directly impacting professionalism and project completion scores. The two positive reviews from 2016 and 2017 praise Brian personally for customer service and on-time, on-budget delivery, but they are now 7–8 years old and carry reduced weight under recency rules. The 2014 review ('It went very well') provides almost no usable detail. The mixed signals across dimensions result in conservative mid-range scores, pulled down meaningfully by the 2020 complaint.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score reliability is very low and should be treated as indicative only, not definitive.
• The two positive reviews from 2016 and 2017 use similarly generic praise ('stand up business owner,' 'integrity honesty and knowledge') with limited specifics, which raises a mild concern about authenticity, though not conclusive.
• The 2014 review ('It went very well') contains no usable detail and contributes almost nothing to scoring.
• Most reviews are older than 3 years; the only recent review (2020) is a 1-star complaint about non-responsiveness and abandoned follow-up — this is the most relevant data point for current performance.
• Recency weighting applied: the 2020 negative review was given the highest weight; 2016 and 2017 reviews were discounted moderately; the 2014 review was heavily discounted.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning 6 years, with the most recent being a serious complaint — the score should be considered highly unreliable and insufficient for confident contractor evaluation.

The overwhelming majority of recent reviews describe serious misconduct including taking deposits and disappearing, fraudulent double-charges, bounced refund checks, and complete failure to complete contracted work. Professionalism scores are devastated by repeated patterns of non-communication, no-shows, and unresponsive technicians across multiple reviewers. Project completion is the lowest-scoring dimension because numerous customers explicitly report work was never started or left unfinished after payment was collected. The handful of positive reviews — mostly from 2024 but also including two very old reviews from 2014 and 2019 — describe responsive, fairly priced, and competent service, but they are vastly outnumbered by credible, detailed negative accounts. Pricing and experience scores are marginally higher only because a small number of positive reviewers explicitly praised fair pricing and competent workmanship, but these are insufficient to offset the volume and severity of negative evidence.

• SERIOUS FRAUD PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple independent reviewers across 2024 describe identical schemes — taking upfront payment (deposits, full charges, or double-charges) and then going completely silent. This is a strong indicator of systematic financial misconduct, not isolated service failures.
• BOUNCED CHECKS AND DISPUTED CHARGES: At least two reviewers report refund checks bouncing and credit card disputes being required to recover funds. One reviewer reports a check bouncing and a subsequent promised cash payment never arriving.
• ELDERLY EXPLOITATION ALLEGATION: One reviewer explicitly states a technician misled and tricked their elderly father who has dementia into paying $4,400 via check. This is an extremely serious allegation.
• RECENCY CONCERN — NEGATIVE TREND ACCELERATING: All 1-star reviews are from 2024 (July–October), suggesting the business has significantly deteriorated or changed operations recently. The two oldest positive reviews are from 2014 and 2019 and should be given minimal weight.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS MAY BE OUTLIERS OR LEGACY: The positive reviews, while some are recent (mid-2024), are dramatically outnumbered by negative reviews in the same period. The 2014 and 2019 reviews are too old to be relevant to current operations.
• MULTIPLE NAMED INDIVIDUALS IMPLICATED: Reviews name Christian, Ryan, Travis, Rich, and Erwin — suggesting either multiple bad actors within the company or a pattern of behavior across the organization rather than one rogue employee.
• NO-SHOW AND GHOST PATTERN: At least three reviewers describe technicians who gave quotes and then became completely unreachable, with full voicemail boxes — a classic ghost-after-quote pattern.
• WARRANTY AVOIDANCE: One reviewer explicitly describes a technician spending only 2 minutes at a property to avoid honoring a warranty claim on a water heater installation, then a separate company diagnosing and fixing the problem within 20 minutes.

This WW Score is based on 21 reviews with strong data across all four dimensions and carries HIGH overall confidence; however, the score reflects a business with credible, detailed, and consistent reports of financial fraud, abandonment of paid work, and customer harm — prospective customers should treat this score as a serious warning and exercise extreme caution.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 4 reviews analyzed, all uniformly negative with ratings of 1.0 stars. Pricing emerges as the dominant complaint across all reviews, with explicit allegations of bait-and-switch tactics, undisclosed charges, and billing for hours not worked. Professionalism issues are documented in 2 reviews (rude reception, misleading quotes). No reviews provide evidence of project completion quality or technical experience. The extreme uniformity and severity of complaints, combined with the very small sample size, prevents reliable scoring.

• CRITICAL: All 4 reviews are 1-star ratings with no positive mentions whatsoever. This extreme uniformity is unusual and warrants caution in interpretation.
• PRICING FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews (3 of 4) explicitly allege deceptive pricing practices including bait-and-switch quotes, undisclosed senior discounts, and billing discrepancies. Review from 2017-07-17 claims billing for 38.75 hours when only 16.5 hours were worked.
• SAMPLE SIZE SEVERELY LIMITED: Only 4 reviews available. Minimum 3 reviews required for any scoring; this sample is too small to be statistically reliable.
• RECENCY CONCERN: All reviews are from 2017-2018 (5-7 years old). No recent reviews available to assess current business practices.
• NO DATA ON PROJECT COMPLETION OR EXPERIENCE: Reviews do not address whether work was completed, on-time delivery, or quality of workmanship. Cannot score these critical dimensions.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=4) and complete absence of data on project completion and experience dimensions. The uniformly negative pricing feedback is concerning but based on a very small sample from 5-7 years ago; current business practices are unknown. Do not rely on this analysis for contractor selection without obtaining additional recent reviews or direct references.

These reviews cannot be scored using the WW Score methodology. All three reviews relate to a fatal incident (death of Eric Heider in 2012) and alleged cover-up, which falls outside the scope of evaluating contractor professionalism, pricing, project completion, and technical experience. The reviews contain serious criminal allegations and do not provide assessable data on standard service dimensions.

• CRITICAL: These reviews describe a fatal workplace incident and alleged criminal cover-up, not standard contractor service quality issues. This is a criminal matter, not a service review.
• All three reviews reference the same incident from 2012-2023, suggesting coordinated reporting rather than independent customer service experiences.
• No reviews contain evaluable information on professionalism (punctuality, communication, attitude), pricing, project completion timelines, or technical workmanship.
• WW Score methodology is designed for service quality assessment and is inappropriate for cases involving alleged criminal negligence and fatalities.

This score cannot be calculated. The review set does not contain assessable service quality data and instead documents serious criminal allegations that require law enforcement and legal investigation, not contractor rating analysis.

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 explicitly criticizes pricing as excessive ($280 for 20 minutes of work) but confirms the job was completed. No data is available regarding professionalism or experience dimensions.

• Only 1 review available — far below minimum threshold of 3 reviews for reliable scoring
• Review is from November 2022 — over 1 year old, limiting recency relevance
• Cannot calculate composite WW Score with insufficient review volume

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=1). At minimum, 3 reviews are required; ideally 5+ reviews are needed for meaningful confidence in contractor assessment.