Find Nearby Plumbers In Euclid, Ohio

The reviews for this contractor paint a predominantly negative picture across nearly all dimensions. Professionalism is severely damaged by multiple accounts of unanswered calls, a manager shouting at and hanging up on a customer, and a 12-hour non-response to a plumbing emergency advertised as 24/7 service. Project completion is similarly poor, with reviews describing incomplete repairs, parts never ordered, follow-through failures, and one account of extensive damage to a home caused by improperly secured work costing the customer $25,000–$30,000. Pricing received a slightly higher score due to one positive mention of inexpensive service, but is offset by a complaint about a $110 charge for a one-minute visit that yielded no resolution. The two positive reviews do highlight some genuine capability and timeliness, but they are outnumbered and outweighed by the volume and severity of the negative accounts.

• Five of seven reviews are 1-star; the two 5-star reviews are brief and lack specific detail, which may indicate they are outliers or not fully representative of consistent service quality.
• Most reviews are dated between 2014 and 2021, with the most recent being September 2021. No reviews from the past 12 months are present, so current service quality cannot be assessed.
• One review describes serious property damage ($25,000–$30,000) allegedly caused by improper workmanship, with the company refusing to honor the quality of their work — this is a significant red flag.
• Multiple reviews independently describe the same pattern: no callback, failure to follow through on parts ordering, and unresolved service calls — suggesting a systemic operational problem rather than isolated incidents.
• The two positive reviews are generic in nature ('very nice,' 'solved the problem') with limited specifics, while the negative reviews contain detailed, credible accounts with names, dates, and dollar amounts — lending the negative reviews higher credibility.

This WW Score is based on a small sample of 7 reviews spanning 2014–2021 with no recent data, but the consistency and specificity of the negative reviews across multiple dimensions lend moderate reliability to the low score produced.

The review set is extremely small and spans over a decade, making reliable scoring very difficult. Professionalism is heavily damaged by a no-show without notice (2024) and a detailed account of billing misconduct and poor customer service (2013), with only one positive professionalism mention (2016). Project completion is similarly mixed: one review praises a quick and complete response to a burst pipe, while another describes an abandoned appointment and a third describes a prolonged billing dispute suggesting poor follow-through. Pricing receives a very low score due to the detailed 2013 complaint alleging improper billing, refusal to correct overcharges, and lack of documentation — the single positive review does not address pricing. The experience score is tentatively moderate, based solely on one positive review praising effective work on a water damage restoration job, but this is insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as highly unreliable and indicative only.
• Reviews span from 2013 to 2024, an 11-year window. Business practices and personnel may have changed significantly; older reviews may not reflect current operations.
• The sole 5-star review (2016) is from Restoration Local, which may be a third-party lead generation platform rather than a direct customer — possible conflict of interest or platform-generated content.
• The 2013 negative review is extremely detailed and specific, describing billing fraud, refusal to refund, and BBB complaint filing — this is a serious credibility flag against the contractor.
• The most recent review (2024) documents a no-show with no communication, suggesting professionalism issues persist into the present day.
• With only one positive review against two detailed negative reviews, the overall picture is predominantly negative.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 11 years and should be considered highly unreliable — do not use this score as a primary basis for hiring decisions without seeking additional, more recent references.

This contractor's reviews paint a deeply negative picture across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is severely undermined by repeated accounts of unanswered calls, broken promises, ducking customer concerns, and in one case an owner threatening to break into a customer's home — with only one or two reviews offering any positive counterpoint. Project completion is the weakest area, with multiple reviewers explicitly stating that jobs were left unfinished, problems were not resolved, and follow-through was abandoned entirely. Experience scores are similarly poor, with documented instances of snaking the wrong sewer line, installing a loose toilet that was never properly fixed, and equipment failures blamed on tenants rather than addressed. Pricing received a marginally higher score only because one reviewer found rates reasonable and one paid a specific amount without complaint about the price itself, though the value received for those payments was widely disputed. The two positive reviews (4-star and 5-star) are significantly older and insufficient to offset the volume and severity of negative experiences.

• Six of eight reviews are 1-star ratings describing serious misconduct including abandoned work, non-returned calls, theft of a customer's part, threats of breaking and entering, and billing for incorrect work.
• The two positive reviews (2019 and 2019) are over 5 years old and may not reflect current business practices; the majority of negative reviews span 2016–2024 suggesting a persistent pattern.
• One reviewer explicitly alleges the contractor took a customer's part and never returned it or completed the repair — this constitutes a potential fraud/theft allegation and significantly reduces trustworthiness.
• One reviewer flagged a potentially suspicious business listing where the Mayor of Willowick appeared as a contact on the company website, which the mayor denied — this raises concerns about deceptive advertising.
• The most recent review (January 2024) describes the owner threatening to break into a customer's home over a permit dispute, which is an extreme professionalism and legal concern.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews are varied in language, detail, and rating, and appear to be genuine. The two positive reviews are specific enough to be considered authentic but are heavily outweighed.

This WW Score is based on 8 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions; while the HIGH confidence on professionalism, project completion, and experience reflects sufficient mention counts, the overall score of 22.1 should be treated as a reliable signal of serious and consistent service failures rather than an anomaly.

The reviews for this contractor paint a deeply negative picture across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is severely undermined by multiple accounts of rude, sarcastic, and dismissive staff — including a manager hanging up on a seriously ill customer and refusing to take responsibility for complaints. Pricing is flagged as deceptive, with one reviewer describing bait-and-switch tactics and another being charged more than quoted with no receipt provided. Project completion is critically poor, with at least two reviews describing work that was left incomplete, unauthorized work being performed, and the company refusing to return to correct their own errors. Experience scores marginally higher only because one reviewer had a positive minor interaction, but the plumbing work described in the most detailed review demonstrates a serious lack of competence and professionalism in execution.

• Four of five reviews are 1-star and describe serious, specific complaints — this is a consistent and credible negative signal, not an outlier pattern.
• The sole positive review (5-star) involves only a trivial parts transaction, not a service job, and is not comparable in scope to the negative reviews.
• Most reviews are dated between 2011 and 2020, with no reviews from the past 12 months. The score may not reflect current business practices.
• The plumbing review describes potentially fraudulent behavior: unauthorized work, inflated billing, no written receipts, and refusal to honor the original scope of work.
• One review describes a vulnerable elderly customer being sold an inappropriate product without adequate explanation, raising consumer protection concerns.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews, all of which are older than 3 years, and should be treated as directionally informative but not statistically reliable — however, the consistency and specificity of the negative feedback across multiple dimensions significantly reduces the likelihood that these complaints are unrepresentative.

This contractor's reviews paint a predominantly negative picture across nearly all dimensions. Pricing is the most frequently mentioned concern, with four of five reviewers describing charges as excessive, opaque, or exploitative — including a $100 markup on a $10 gas key and a $125 diagnostic fee for a power outage. Professionalism is also heavily criticized, with one reviewer describing the contractor as rude and another alleging he took advantage of a senior citizen. Project completion is mixed: one job (faucet installation) was completed satisfactorily, but a screen door installation resulted in a leak that the contractor dismissed rather than resolved. The sole positive review, while genuine in tone, is from 2020 and is significantly outweighed by the volume and severity of negative feedback.

• 4 out of 5 reviews are negative (1-star or 2-star), indicating a strong pattern of dissatisfaction.
• The only positive review (5-star, 2020) is over 4 years old and should be given reduced weight relative to more recent negative reviews.
• Multiple reviewers independently cite pricing concerns with specific dollar amounts, lending credibility to those complaints.
• One reviewer explicitly alleges predatory behavior targeting a senior citizen — a serious conduct flag.
• The contractor's dismissal of a legitimate defect ('All doors leak') suggests a pattern of avoiding accountability for poor workmanship.
• Sample size is very small (5 reviews total), which limits statistical reliability of the WW Score.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning 4 years, which significantly limits reliability; however, the consistency of negative feedback across pricing, professionalism, and workmanship dimensions increases confidence that the low score reflects genuine performance issues rather than statistical noise.

Analysis is severely compromised by conflicting and extraordinary claims across only 2 reviews. The 2024 review alleges serious misconduct including falsified police reports, harassment, and abandonment of work—claims that directly contradict the 2021 review praising professional work and repeat business. The 2021 review is 3+ years old and lacks specificity on pricing or detailed professionalism markers. With only 2 reviews, one containing allegations of criminal conduct and the other generic praise, no reliable WW Score can be calculated. The extreme polarity and severity of claims suggest either fabrication or a fundamentally unreliable dataset.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed — insufficient for reliable scoring per Rule 4 threshold
• EXTREME POLARITY: One review alleges serious criminal misconduct (falsified police report, harassment, abandonment); the other is generic 5-star praise with no specifics
• RECENCY CONCERN: Positive review is from May 2021 (3+ years old); negative review is recent (October 2024)
• SUSPICIOUS PATTERN: Positive review uses generic language ('very professional', 'outstanding job') with no technical details; negative review is highly detailed and specific but makes extraordinary allegations
• CREDIBILITY RISK: The allegations in the 1-star review (falsified police reports, harassment, eviction) are serious criminal claims that would typically involve documentation; their presence in a contractor review without corroboration raises authenticity concerns
• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Professionalism and pricing dimensions have zero explicit mentions across both reviews

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume (n=2) and irreconcilable conflict between reviews making one or both likely unreliable; any score derived would be meaningless and should not be used for decision-making.