Find Nearby Plumbers In Cleveland, Ohio

Three of the four reviews are strongly negative, describing the contractor as unprofessional, rude, and technically incompetent, with specific allegations including unsafe exposed wiring, unfinished work, painting over debris, and refusing to return property keys. One positive review praises prompt response and a successful pipe repair, but it is a single data point against a backdrop of serious, detailed complaints. Professionalism and experience scores are severely dragged down by consistent, specific negative accounts across multiple reviewers. Project completion is particularly alarming, with multiple reviewers explicitly stating work was left incomplete, unsafe, or in worse condition than before. The single positive review prevents scores from reaching the floor but does not meaningfully offset the weight of the negative evidence.

• Three consecutive 1-star reviews within a two-month window (November–December 2023) all describe similar patterns of incompetence and unprofessionalism, which is consistent with genuine negative experiences rather than fake reviews.
• The sole 5-star review is brief and lacks specific detail beyond responsiveness and one completed task — treat with moderate skepticism given the surrounding negative context.
• Serious safety concern flagged: Review dated 2023-12-07 explicitly mentions unsafe exposed wiring and outlets without covers, which may represent a liability or code-violation risk.
• Review dated 2023-12-07 alleges the contractor blocked the property manager and refused to return keys — this is a significant professional and legal conduct concern.
• Only 4 total reviews available. Score should be treated as preliminary and low-reliability until more data is available.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews and should be treated with caution; however, the consistency and specificity of the three negative reviews lend credibility to the low scores, and the overall picture strongly suggests this contractor poses significant risk to prospective customers.

The reviews paint a predominantly negative picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism is severely undermined by repeated no-shows, missed callbacks, and poor communication across three of the four reviews, with only one older review noting a satisfactory experience. Pricing concerns are explicit, with one reviewer describing charges well above the original estimate and another noting no overcharge — the single positive data point. Project completion is critically damaged by one reviewer whose work leaked afterward and whose callback request was refused, and another whose misdiagnosis led to a house flood; only one reviewer reported completed work with no issues. Experience scores are low due to documented misdiagnoses and shoddy workmanship, though one reviewer did report competent service. The sole positive review dates to 2014, and the most damaging reviews span 2011–2016, all well outside a 12-month recency window.

• All reviews are older than 8 years (most recent: 2016-12-29); no recent data is available to assess current performance.
• Only 1 out of 4 reviews is positive, and it is the least detailed of the set — it contains no specifics about the work performed, which limits its evidentiary weight.
• One reviewer explicitly names the contractor (Dave Chouinard) and describes refusal to honor a callback for defective work — a serious professional and legal concern.
• A separate reviewer documents a misdiagnosis that directly caused property flooding, suggesting a pattern of diagnostic incompetence across multiple service visits.
• The positive review (2014) may reflect a different period of business operation or a different technician; it should not be weighted equally against three detailed negative accounts.
• With only 4 total reviews, confidence in all dimension scores is inherently limited regardless of the MODERATE label assigned by mention count.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — it is based on only 4 reviews, all more than 8 years old, with no recent data to confirm whether performance has improved or declined.

The review set paints a deeply concerning picture of this contractor. Three of five reviews describe serious misconduct: walking off jobs, taking payment without completing work, damaging property, and blocking clients after collecting money. The two positive reviews are older (2020) and lack sufficient detail to meaningfully offset the pattern of abandonment and financial misconduct documented in the negative reviews. Project completion is the most heavily weighted dimension and is severely impacted by multiple explicit accounts of unfinished or never-started work. Professionalism scores are similarly devastated by reports of deception, property damage, and ghosting clients after payment.

• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAG: Multiple reviewers explicitly report the contractor took payment and never completed or started the work, then became unreachable — this is a pattern consistent with fraud.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE: One reviewer reports the contractor scratched and put holes in brand new cabinets.
• PAYMENT DISPUTE: One reviewer paid $1,183 for fencing materials that were never delivered and was subsequently blocked on phone and social media.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The two positive reviews are from early 2020 (4+ years old). All three negative reviews are more recent (2020–2022), suggesting a possible deterioration in service quality over time. More recent reviews should be weighted more heavily.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW LEVEL: The two positive reviews are brief, lack specific detail, and follow a generic praise pattern. While not conclusive, they warrant caution given the stark contrast with the negative reviews.
• SMALL SAMPLE WARNING: Only 5 reviews total. The WW Score should be treated as directional only and not fully reliable due to limited data volume.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews and should be treated with caution, but the pattern of explicit, detailed misconduct across 3 reviews — including payment fraud, job abandonment, and client blocking — is serious enough that the low score is considered directionally reliable despite the small sample size.

All three reviews are strongly negative, painting a consistent picture of a contractor with serious deficiencies across every measured dimension. Professionalism was repeatedly cited as a major failure — including missed and cancelled appointments, unreturned phone calls, and abandoning a job mid-work with a snake left hanging out of a clean-out for days. Project completion was equally poor, with one job left unfinished and a mess, another requiring a follow-up contractor entirely, and a third described as only a 'band aid' fix. Pricing drew explicit complaints, including a $445 charge for a simple drain snake and billing practices that included travel time from the shop without prior disclosure. Workmanship concerns were noted in two reviews, including a stuck snake and a drain problem that was not properly resolved. Given that all reviews are negative and span multiple years, this contractor shows a persistent pattern of poor service.

• All 3 reviews are 1-star — no positive reviews exist in this dataset to balance the score.
• Review dates span 2011 to 2021, indicating a long-standing pattern of complaints rather than an isolated incident.
• The most recent review is from 2021, which is more than 3 years old. Current performance cannot be confirmed from this data.
• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated with caution.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details, distinct writing styles, and varied complaints, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all negative, with the most recent dating to 2021 — the score is directionally reliable as a warning signal but should not be considered statistically robust without more recent and numerous reviews.

Both substantive reviews (1-star each) paint a severely negative picture across all dimensions. The contractor is described as dishonest, evasive, and incapable of completing work — dodging calls, abandoning jobs months past promised deadlines, and allegedly taking full payment without delivering finished work. Workmanship quality was explicitly criticized, including by the contractor's own father who reportedly pointed out every mistake made. Responsiveness and communication were described as nearly nonexistent once payment was received. No positive substantive reviews exist to offset these accounts.

• SUSPECTED FAKE/DEFENSIVE REVIEW: The 5-star review (2019-02-23) does not describe any actual work or customer experience. It reads as a defensive response from someone associated with the company, attempting to disassociate the business from a named individual. It provides no usable scoring data and was excluded from dimension scoring.
• PAYMENT ABUSE PATTERN: Both negative reviews independently describe a pattern of accepting full or near-full payment before completing work, then abandoning the job — a serious red flag for potential fraud.
• ABANDONED WORK: Both reviews explicitly describe unfinished projects left for months beyond promised completion dates, with the contractor becoming unreachable afterward.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 2 substantive reviews exist. Scores are based on very limited data and should be treated with caution.
• RECENCY NOTE: Both negative reviews are dated 2022-07-04, which is over 1 year from a typical current analysis window. No recent reviews are available to assess current performance.

This WW Score is based on only 2 substantive reviews and carries LIMITED confidence — while both reviews are highly consistent and detailed in their negative accounts, the extremely small sample size means this score should be treated as a strong warning signal rather than a statistically robust assessment.

This contractor demonstrates severe and consistent failures across all dimensions. Project completion is critically deficient, with multiple reviews documenting incomplete work, no-shows, abandoned jobs, and repeated failed attempts to fix problems. Professionalism is severely compromised by missed appointments, failure to return phone calls, and broken commitments. One review explicitly documents a $700 deposit taken without service delivery. Pricing concerns are evident in at least one case of non-refunded deposits. The only positive mention (prior satisfactory work by Mr. Hanna) is contradicted by his subsequent abandonment of a job. All reviews are from 1997–2011, indicating this is historical data with no recent performance information.

• CRITICAL: All reviews are negative (ratings 1.0–2.0). No positive reviews present.
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document abandoned work, no-shows, and failure to return phone calls — severe red flags for reliability.
• CRITICAL: One review explicitly documents a $700 deposit taken with no service delivery and no refund.
• CRITICAL: All reviews are from 1997–2011. No reviews from past 12 months. Current business status and performance unknown.
• CRITICAL: Review from 2005 mentions BBB complaints, suggesting regulatory/complaint history.
• CRITICAL: Insufficient recent data to assess whether issues have been resolved or company still operates.

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient recent data (all reviews >12 years old) and the absence of any positive reviews to balance assessment. However, the historical pattern is unambiguously negative and suggests serious operational and integrity failures. Any reliance on this contractor should be preceded by verification of current business status and recent references.