Find Nearby Plumbers In Mentor, Ohio

This business appears to be permanently closed as of August 2024, making any WW Score calculation unreliable and not actionable. The five reviews span from 2011 to 2024, with the most recent confirming closure. Historical reviews (2011–2019) reveal consistent complaints about staff disinterest, poor customer service, unhelpful assistance, and cleanliness issues. One positive 2019 review praised product sourcing and fair pricing, but this is heavily outweighed by negative experiences. The business cannot be reliably scored as a functioning contractor/supplier.

• CRITICAL: Business is permanently closed as of August 2024 — WW Score is not applicable
• Review dates span 13 years (2011–2024) with significant recency gap; most negative reviews are 5+ years old
• Only 1 positive review (5-star) out of 5; 3 reviews are 1-star, 1 review is 2-star
• No reviews mention project completion, timeliness, or follow-through — this business appears to be a supply retailer, not a contractor
• This analysis is for a supply store (Woodhill Supply), not a plumbing contractor; WW Score framework may not be appropriate for retail business model

This WW Score cannot be reliably calculated or trusted because the business is permanently closed and the review set does not reflect a functioning contractor service provider; the framework is designed for active service businesses, not defunct retail operations.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews contain usable detail (one 1-star from 2019 with severe complaints, one 5-star from 2013 with minimal specifics). The 2019 review documents serious failures in diagnosis, workmanship, responsiveness, and follow-through. The 2013 review offers only generic praise without detail. The extreme age gap, tiny sample size, and conflicting signals prevent reliable scoring. A third review contains no text.

• Only 2 usable reviews with extreme age disparity (2013 vs 2019) — recency heavily favors the negative 2019 review
• One review is completely empty (unknown text) — cannot be scored
• 2013 review is 11+ years old and contains no specific detail — minimal evidentiary value
• 2019 review is highly detailed and credible, documenting misdiagnosis, poor workmanship, refusal to return, and non-responsiveness
• Sample size of 2 is below the minimum threshold of 3 for reliable WW Score calculation

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient data (fewer than 3 usable reviews). The single recent detailed review is severely negative, but a single review—even credible—cannot establish a trustworthy overall score.

Both reviews are strongly negative and paint a consistent picture of poor performance across all dimensions. Professionalism was severely lacking in both cases — the first review describes evasive, dishonest communication and excuse-making, while the second describes a rude plumber who argued with the customer and demanded payment for work never completed. Pricing was flagged as exploitative in both reviews, with the first customer paying $1,100 for work later done for $500, and the second being billed $125 for a service call that resolved nothing. Project completion failed entirely in both instances — the drain blockage was not cleared and the leaking faucet was never repaired. Technical experience was also called into question, with the second review explicitly noting the plumber admitted he did not know how to perform the repair and provided an incorrect part number.

• Only 2 reviews available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules (fewer than 3 reviews).
• Both reviews are dated 2014–2015, making them over 9 years old. These scores may not reflect current business performance and should be treated with significant caution.
• No recent reviews were provided. It is impossible to assess whether service quality has improved or declined since these reviews were written.
• Both reviews describe deliberate dishonesty and evasion rather than simple incompetence, which is a serious integrity concern if patterns persist.
• No positive reviews were included in this dataset — it is unknown whether this represents a complete or partial review set. A full review history should be obtained before drawing firm conclusions.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both from 2014–2015, and should be considered highly unreliable as a current assessment of this contractor's performance — far more recent and numerous reviews are needed before any confident conclusions can be drawn.

Both reviews are positive and specific enough to be considered usable, mentioning responsiveness, same-day service, fair pricing, and successful job completion. Professionalism scores well due to explicit mentions of pleasant demeanor, timely communication, and same-day response. Project completion is supported by both reviewers confirming their issues were fully resolved, including a technically challenging trench job near a generator. Pricing is explicitly called out as fair and reasonable in both reviews, lending credibility to that dimension despite the small sample. However, with only 2 reviews total, all scores carry LIMITED confidence and the WW Score cannot be reliably calculated.

• Only 2 reviews provided — minimum threshold of 3 reviews not met; WW Score cannot be calculated reliably.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings; while the review content is specific and detailed enough to reduce fake review concern, the small sample size prevents meaningful pattern analysis.
• Review dates span approximately 9 months apart (April 2023 and January 2024); both fall within the past 12–24 month window, so recency is acceptable but the dataset remains too small to draw strong conclusions.
• No negative feedback or constructive criticism present — this may reflect genuine satisfaction or simply an insufficient sample to surface any issues.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, which is below the minimum threshold for a reliable WW Score; all dimension scores should be treated as preliminary indicators only and not as a definitive assessment of this contractor's performance.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. The single review mentions availability and responsiveness (project completion dimension) but provides no explicit information about professionalism, pricing, or experience/workmanship quality.

• Only 1 review provided — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is from October 2022 (over 2 years old) — recency is a concern
• Review lacks specific detail about work quality, pricing, or professional conduct
• Cannot assess contractor reliability with single data point

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a trustworthy WW Score.

Only a single review is available, which limits the reliability of any scoring. The reviewer explicitly praised responsiveness, professionalism, punctuality, and post-job cleanup, supporting a moderate-to-good professionalism score. Pricing was described as 'fairly priced,' warranting a conservative positive score, though no specifics were given. Project completion is implied by the successful hot water heater replacement with no mention of issues, but the score is kept conservative due to the single data point. Experience was not explicitly addressed in terms of skill or workmanship quality, so no score can be assigned for that dimension.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All dimensions scored at LIMITED confidence due to single review source.
• Experience dimension has no usable data and cannot be scored.
• Recency note: Review is from March 2021, which is more than 1 year old at most evaluation points — treat as dated data.

This score should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — it is based on a single review from 2021 and provides only a preliminary, low-confidence signal.